Official errata for the Dragon Compendium, Volume 1, is now available as a free PDF download.

Official errata for the Dragon Compendium, Volume 1, is now available as a free PDF download.

Now back to waiting for the next volume...

While I can appreciate the quality of the graphical PDF, I'd like to see a formatted, black & white, text-only version of the errata similar to WotC's errata. This makes it easier on my printer when I create a hard copy to put into my binder of errata.

cool, thanks. :D

*bump* Any chance of posting a non-graphical, B&W version?

Probably not, sorry.

--Erik

Pardon me, but where on the website is errata download found?
Thanks!

Pardon me, but where on the website is errata download found?
Thanks!

ericthecleric wrote:

Pardon me, but where on the website is errata download found?
Thanks!

Scroll up to the first post in this thread. It's hyperlinked. And in case you missed it, check the second post. ;)

I'd second the vote for a text-only errata, or at least the option to print either one that is graphic-dense or text-only.

This is nice!

Uh, can't you just select the text in adobe reader, then...copy and paste it...then, uh...print it? Doesn't that solve your text-only hangup?

Not my version of Adobe.

Don't get me wrong: I like the errata, and the logo, art, backgound, etc. are very nice to look at.

But for readability's sake, I would rather a text-only version. My eyesite is not what it once was, so while the funky graphic elements are cool, I'd like an option for plain old black words on a white background.

Woo-hoo!

Just got my compendium recently. Great book, but the errata is very much wanted! Thanks.

<Casts Thread Necromancy.>

I've gone through the errata and have also taken a look at a couple of "error-finding" pages, but I'm still puzzled about the errata's changes to the orange, purple, and yellow dragons' breath weapons, as well as the ice demon's ice blade attack.

Have the dragons' breath weapons been "nerfed" to only doing damage (and disregarding secondary and/or alternative effects)? Or am I misunderstanding the errata?

Why are the ice demon's two-weapon attack bonuses (with its ice blades) identical? Shouldn't the second weapon's attack bonus be at a lower value because it's the off-hand? Or am I missing something obvious here?

Some (hopefully official) answers would be appreciated, as these particular monsters could star in an upcoming adventure for my players.

<Casts Thread Necromancy.>

I've gone through the errata and have also taken a look at a couple of "error-finding" pages, but I'm still puzzled about the errata's changes to the orange, purple, and yellow dragons' breath weapons, as well as the ice demon's ice blade attack.

Have the dragons' breath weapons been "nerfed" to only doing damage (and disregarding secondary and/or alternative effects)? Or am I misunderstanding the errata?

Why are the ice demon's two-weapon attack bonuses (with its ice blades) identical? Shouldn't the second weapon's attack bonus be at a lower value because it's the off-hand? Or am I missing something obvious here?

Some (hopefully official) answers would be appreciated, as these particular monsters could star in an upcoming adventure for my players.

Concerning the dragons' breath weapons, the entry in the errata only says what type of damage the damage from the weapons does, it does not indicate the other effects of those weapons no longer occur. So, for instance, the explosive damage from the orange breath weapon is concussive (regular) damage. The damage caused by the purple dragon's weapon is force damage. This is significant when the purple dragon's breath weapon is put up against force effects or ethereal creatures. The damage done by the yellow dragon's breath weapon is also regular damage. This does not mean in any way that the other effects of those breath weapons are negated. It's just telling the kind of damage the weapons do so spells and items that protect against particular kinds of damage can enter into the equation. Just consider the sentences about the type of damage to be appended to the end of the descriptions of each breath weapon. They don't replace the listing, just enhance it.

If they had been replacing an element of the dragons' breath weapons, the errata would say something like "Replace the breath weapon entry with" followed by the text, such as it does with the Challenge Rating and Advancement entries.

---------------------------------------------

The ice demon's two-weapon attack bonuses are identical because the ice blades are short swords. When using two light weapons (such as a set of short swords), the penalty for two-weapon fighting with the two-weapon fighting feat is -2 for the primary hand and for the off-hand. Only the damage is different. (Two-Weapon Fighting penalties are on page 160 of the PHB.)

I do think the Ice Demon's entry in the errata is still wrong though. The Ice Demon has 15 strength for +2 STR bonus and is listed as having +10 BAB. So there's +12. The description of the ice blades on page 192 say they function as +2 short swords when the ice demon uses them. That's +14. The Ice Demon also has Weapon Focus (short sword) as a feat. That's +15. So why, when making one attack, is the Ice Blade only at +13? (10+2+2+1 = 15)

You could say it's because the Ice Demon has the weapon in its off-hand and just isn't using it, but is gaining the benefits of having it equipped anyway because of the +1 AC from Two-Weapon Defense. I don't think just using an off-hand weapon for two-weapon defense counts to lower your attack bonus though. I think the full attacks with two weapons should be at +13 and the singular attack should be at +15.

Also, since the ice blades function as +2 short swords, the damage should be 1d6+4/19-20 for the primary hand and 1d6+3/19-20 for the off-hand. (1d6 + 2 str bonus+ 2 enhancement for primary hand, and 1d6 + 1 str bonus + 2 enhancement for the offhand.)

Unless, of course, the "function as +2 short swords," just means they overcome damage reduction x/magic as though they're +2 short swords and they don't actually confer any bonus to attack or damage as real +2 short swords. The entry says "In an ice demon's hands, each such ice blade functions as a +2 short sword." If they don't actually provide a benefit to attack or damage I would expect it to say something like "In an ice demon's hands, each such ice blade is treated as magical for purposes of overcoming damage reduction." Or even "In an ice demon's hands, each such ice blade is treated as a +2 short sword for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction." It doesn't say that though.

I would probably change the bonuses to +15 for the single attack and +13/+8 and +13 for the full attack, and have the attacks do 1d6+4/19-20 and 1d6+3/19-20 as I've mentioned above. If you just treat the ice blades as "magical for purposes of overcoming damage reduction" instead of +2 short swords, the numbers for attack and damage are correct in the book & errata. (All the errata does is put the critical threat range at 19-20 since they're short swords.)

Thanks for the offered clarifications, Wolf.

I have some thoughts, and would like a sounding board for them. (My apologies if I'm sounding argumentative, but I'd rather have a discussion about this here than waste time doing so at the gaming table!)

With regard to the breath weapons, I was thrown in doubt mostly by the purple dragon's breath weapon's second form. Can/should a blinding flash be considered force damage? Does it even matter - by which I mean, wouldn't it affect force-protected or incorporeal foes anyway?

Another thought - if the Shield spell (a force effect) can stop Magic Missile (also a force effect), would Shield (or anything similar, like Mage Armour or Bracers of Defence) help in protecting against a force-based breath weapon? I would assume so against the purple dragon's energy blade version of its breath weapon (since it attacks the AC), but is there any possibility of such force effects helping a foe against the breath weapon's first form (the cone of force damage)? Maybe a save bonus based on the force effect's bonus to AC?

As for the ice demon's ice blade attack and damage, I _knew_ that something was off. I guess that I was just too tired to crunch the numbers correctly, and so didn't identify the underlying problem. (That being: are the ice blades treated as +2 weapons in all respects, or only for getting through DR x/Magic? If it's the latter, then the "+_2_" must be a relic of 3.0/earlier editions, where the value of the bonus was also important.)

Anyway, thanks again for your answer! :)