The art is incorrect. It should have wings. Imagine them as the kind of wing an orange crocodile would have. :)
Much cooler than the jetpack of an orange flying shark. ;)
Question about the "Shaper of form" The ablity "As Above So Below" is worded so it sounds like the shaper needs to be touching the item which she wishes to change the other item into, but the example says that she needs to be looking at the object. Just curious which it is?
Contributor
|
Question about the "Shaper of form" The ablity "As Above So Below" is worded so it sounds like the shaper needs to be touching the item which she wishes to change the other item into, but the example says that she needs to be looking at the object. Just curious which it is?
Ah, oopsie. The shaper must be touching the object she wishes to transform. She must be able to see the object she wants it to transform into. So it goes like the example. :)
Question about the "Shaper of form" The ablity "As Above So Below" is worded so it sounds like the shaper needs to be touching the item which she wishes to change the other item into, but the example says that she needs to be looking at the object. Just curious which it is?Ah, oopsie. The shaper must be touching the object she wishes to transform. She must be able to see the object she wants it to transform into. So it goes like the example. :)
ah ha! what I thought, Thanks. Keep fighting the good fight or something like that, you know like drinking a soda, ya.
When is it that we will see a condensed errata file?
Soon. As in "I'm not quite sure why it isn't up yet, since it is certainly finished."
I'll check into it tomorrow at work.
--Erik
And tomorrow is today mr Mona. How's it going? Is there an errata to download or did someones dog eat it? Hate to sound impatient but: gimmegimmegimmegimme!
Sorry for coming in late, but I only recently bought the Dragon Compendium. I was happy to see the elemental demons made it in the book since I've used them extensively with my gnoll summoner villain. I noticed a few errors or puzzling elements however:
Errors:
- Ash demon: Missing 9 skill ranks. Going by their description, I would suggest Bluff, which would change their skill line to: Bluff +9, Intimidate +11 (synergy with Bluff)
- Ash demon: No HD advancement. It's the only demon with 'By character class' as the advancement
Possible errors:
- all demons: In the Combat section, they are the missing the line saying that their weapons are treated as chaotic- and evil-aligned. Is that deliberate?
- Air demon/Ash demon: Their DR is 5/magic. That seems a bit weak, given that even lowly dretches get DR 5/cold iron or good.
- Fire demon/Ice demon: Their DR is 10/lawful. No other SRD demon has DR lawful. DR 10/good would seem more natural.
As a side note for DMs who would like to use the elemental demons in your campaign, the Final Strike feat from Savage Species would be especially appropriate for them. It requires an elemental subtype, and causes the creature to explode in a blast of elemental energy upon death, with a secondary effect that varies according to subtype. Either replace one of the demons' existing feats, or add it as a bonus feat.
And another one I noticed while inputing the spell lists for the new classes:
In the jester spell list, bestow curse appears at level 3 and 4.
Another error for spells (in the Urban Druid section):
Citygate is listed as a transmutation [teleportation] spell, but teleportation is now a subschool of conjuration.
Soon. As in "I'm not quite sure why it isn't up yet, since it is certainly finished."
I'll check into it tomorrow at work.
--Erik
Any update on this, Mr. Mona? I can hardly wait!
|
I just noticed a couple of others, in the magic items section. I'm pretty sure these didn't make it into the errata.
On p. 131, the first item in the Wondrous Items table is the scarab charm. I can't find that anywhere.
On p. 138, the obi of the white lotus master grants a +4 bonus to AC, but doesn't give the type of bonus.
|
Contributor
|
Any update on this, Mr. Mona? I can hardly wait!
It's been up for a couple weeks now. The link to it is on the Dragon Compendium I webpage.
|
Contributor
|
On p. 131, the first item in the Wondrous Items table is the scarab charm. I can't find that anywhere.
That's a ghost. A leftover, if you will. The scarab charm got cut for space. Unfortunately, its listing on that table did not.
On p. 138, the obi of the white lotus master grants a +4 bonus to AC, but doesn't give the type of bonus.
An unnamed bonus is not an error; it's an unnamed bonus. If having an unnamed bonus to AC troubles you, make it an armor bonus.
Here's another one. The Ring of Earth's Grasp on page 127 has Craft Wonderous Item listed as a creation requirement instead of Forge Ring.
Also, the Staff of Earthen Might on page 130 has Craft Wondrous Item listed for its item creation feat instead of Craft Staff.
|
|
On p. 138, the obi of the white lotus master grants a +4 bonus to AC, but doesn't give the type of bonus.An unnamed bonus is not an error; it's an unnamed bonus. If having an unnamed bonus to AC troubles you, make it an armor bonus.
It seems to set a bad precedent. Is there any other item (from WotC sources, say) that provides an unnamed bonus to AC? And in a slot where it can stack with AC bonuses from bracers of armor, an amulet of natural armor, a ring of protection, and the monk's normal AC bonus, it just seems... excessive.
And especially when combined with the power of a minor cloak of displacement, it seems underpriced at 48,000 gp. OK, magic item pricing is a wonky subject and hard to nail down as "wrong" or "right", and yes, only a LN monk gets both powers, but for such a character, this seems too good not to have.
OTOH, if it's only an armor bonus to AC (as implied by the mage armor crafting component), it seems too expensive. Hmm.
I wonder if I've strayed off-topic, given that this isn't really an error.
It seems that the correction of a duom being an exotic weapon instead of a martial weapon wasn't included in the errata. Should we continue to add to this thread for future errata updates?
|
Contributor
|
Neither the Jester nor the Savant list any mention of arcane spell failure. I'm assuming both can cast just fine in light armor, but an official word would be appreciated.
An unfortunate oversight.
The jester and savant can cast arcane spells while wearing light armor without worrying about arcane spell failure. See the bard class write-up for the exact wording of this ability.
What should the duration of the Osteomancer ability Seize the Core (page 84) be?