3.5 DMG Errata...

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
fbmf
The Great Fence Builder
Posts: 2590
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

3.5 DMG Errata...

Post by fbmf »

...is here.

The Nifty folk are discussing it here.

Game On,
fbmf

Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: 3.5 DMG Errata...

Post by Username17 »

Interesting, they've made Polymorph even more confusing by copy/pasting the 3.0 rule that you retain your hit points when polymorphed and then not copy/pasting the 3.0 rule where your hit points became immune to Constitution change.

So that leaves us... ? Seemingly, your hit points are supposed to change (which is a much cleaner mechanic - the game suffers severe problems on close examination if polymorph somehow makes your hit points exempt from Con Changes), but I don't think they could have made that more confusing if that was their original intention.

To add insult to stupidity, they canonized the Skipism about maximum movement speeds - you can slow down a dolphin by polymorphing them into a dolphin.

And the PrC problems have not been resolved - which ironically forces players to massively multiclass from the beginning (a ranger 2/ fighter 2/ barbarian 2 doesn't suffer multiclass penalties for taking a level of Deepwood Sniper, but a Fighter 6 does).

The price changes aren't even close to complete.

-Username17
Lago_AM3P
Duke
Posts: 1268
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: 3.5 DMG Errata...

Post by Lago_AM3P »

You know what this means? Humans (and half-elves, bleh) got cheesier than EVER.

They're the only ones where full-casters can take all of the levels of PrCs (or subtly mix and match them) without even caring. They're also the only races that can complete the Frenzied Berserker class, as-written, without suffering gignormous experience penalties. Well, there's the damn half-orc, but they suck and won't even get to take the first level of FB until level 9.

That's awesome. And just when I was beginning to think that Wizards was giving humans the shaft. :razz:
User3
Prince
Posts: 3974
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: 3.5 DMG Errata...

Post by User3 »

3.5 FAQ wrote: In the previous version of the D&D game, having levels in a prestige class never caused you to pay the experience penalty for being a multiclass character without uneven class levels. (The prestige class levels didn’t count when checking to see if you had a penalty.) The section on prestige classes in the new DUNGEON MASTER’s Guide no longer mentions that you don’t suffer an experience penalty for having levels in a prestige class. Is this a change or an error?

It’s an error. Having levels in a prestige class won’t give you an experience penalty.


Edit: "Unfixed quote tags. Thanks, Frank
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: 3.5 DMG Errata...

Post by Username17 »

FAQ Date Stamp: 02062004
Errata Date Stamp: 03--2004

According to the more recently published Errata - the PrC lack of exemption from XP costs is not an error.

Which is stupid, but that is what it says.

Most recent, most narrow collection of the errors in the DMG says that's not en error. Which would mean that the FAQ is incorrect.

-Username17
User avatar
Crissa
King
Posts: 6720
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Santa Cruz

Re: 3.5 DMG Errata...

Post by Crissa »

Did they sneak in a word-change between printings, then?

Grr.

Why is it the Erratas make less sense than the FAQs, which already make so little sense...

-Crissa
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: 3.5 DMG Errata...

Post by Username17 »

Hey fbmf, you might want to unfix those quote tags. The statement "It’s an error. Having levels in a prestige class won’t give you an experience penalty." is also from the FAQ.

Of course, it was from the FAQ as printed a while ago, and the Errata is the primary source document, at least, according to itself (where the primary source rule is from). And in addition to being the primary source, it is also much newer.

Why is it the Erratas make less sense than the FAQs, which already make so little sense...


The Errata is, according to itself and common sense, the place you would look for rules revisions tp the core rules.

But that's not how it is actually being handled. The Errata is reserved only for being an incomplete set of copy/paste error corrections, with the FAQ being the place they attempt to change printed rules.

This being in flagrant disregard of the primary source rule which goes out and says that the core books beat the FAQ on just about everything.

My current theory is that they are engaging in the "moving target" method of fixing broken mechanics. That is, if you have two or more sets of different mechanics which are subject to breakage in different ways, then you can constantly switch between mechanics sets whenever faced with a problem.

So, for example, they currently have Polymorph Rules which are directly contradictory on the matter of how many attacks you get when you change into a creature with natural weaponry, and are impossibly vague on the matter of whether your current hit points adjust to your new con score. I believe that since this has been going on for four frickin years and seven distinct write ups of the rules, that it is entirely deliberate on their part.

For example, let's imagine that you corner Andy Collins into a conversation about Con Changes and Polymorph:

You: "Andy, my character has a Con of 8 and he turns into a Troll, what happens to his hit points?"

Andy: "Absolutely nothing, your hit points don't change when you change form, so the extra Con is just a big bonus to your Fort Saves."

and then Bob comes up and asks a similar question:

Bob: "Andy, my dwarven wizard transforms into a leopard, and his hit point don't change. But then he benefits from a Bear's Endurance spell, which pumps his Constitution modifier 'up' to +4. And now, I adjust my hit points to the new Con modifier - which is still lower than the Con Modifier I had when my hit points were originally calculated. What gives?"

Andy: "First of all, while your hit points don't change when you polymorph, your Constitution still does - as you've noticed. At that point you follow the basic rules for Constitution change and adjust your hit points right off. The Bear's Endurance is still going to raise your hit points when cast, it's just that you're starting from a lower value than you are used to."

By having the two interpretations, they can switch between them, even in the middle of a conversation in order to make it seem like their system isn't broken to anybody they happen to be talking to.

It's not stupid - it's actively dishonest. For it to have gone on this long, there's no other possibility.

-Username17
da_chicken
Journeyman
Posts: 125
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: 3.5 DMG Errata...

Post by da_chicken »

Now ask him what happens when you take Con damage.
Post Reply