Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Edymnion 04-09-05, 06:26 PM	A thread for any potential errors in Races of Eberron. p. 23, under the Barbarian entry for Warforged. "...the Adamantine Body feat grants you excellent protection athat barbarians cannot normally gain. The barbarian speed bonus offsets the slower speed imposed by that feat..." No, Adm Body counts as wearing Heavy Armor, which means a WF Barbarian does not get his fast movement in the first place. It cannot offset the lower speed any more than a Human barbarian in Full Plate can. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Not so much an error as obvious flip-flopping. p. 77, under Drow Characters. "Powerful, deadly, and shrouded in mystery, drow make exotic and interesting characters." When the ECS specifically says that Drow are not suitable for being PCs. Can I get some syrup with that waffle? ------------------------------------------------------------------- p. 107, under the Bladebearer of the Valenar feat. "You treat the Valenar double scimitar as a martial weapon...", then goes on to give some other bonuses. You have to be an Valenar elf to take this feat. Valenar elves already treat the double bladed scimitar as a martial weapon. Its redundant. ------------------------------------------------------------------- p. 109, under the Master Linguist feat. "...you learn a new language(as if you had spent 1 skill point on the Speak Language skill)" Misleading wording. Only the bard can actually learn a language in this manner, as Speak Language is cross-class to everyone else. It takes 2 levels for them to learn the language, not one. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Bad choice of captions. p. 115, "Shifter Savagery turns this razorclaw shifter monk into a killing machine". One prereq for that feat is the abily to Rage or Frenzy. The monk has neither of these abilities, so they can't take this feat. ------------------------------------------------------------------- p. 162, under the Reforged's Natural Healing ability. "...allows you to repair lethal damage, nonlethal damage, and ability damage when you rest..." The Warforged already heal nonlethal and ability damage normally. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Rather iffy... p. 189, Natural Weapon Augmentation, (all of them) Use an infusion to give a natural weapon an enchantment. I could see this working for the Warforged, but not for anyone else. The whole point of the Artificer's infusions is that they must be cast on objects. A Razorclaw Shifter that can enchant her own claws with an infusion ain't kosher, IMO. It even specifies that WF do this at a higher caster level than normal, meaning it works just fine on fleshies. Breaks the flavor of Infusions and opens the doors on infusing living beings directly.
Tanvalis 04-09-05, 07:01 PM	And you wonder why it tried to kill you! :evillaugh
Hellcow 04-09-05, 07:30 PM	Adm Body counts as wearing Heavy Armor, which means a WF Barbarian does not get his fast movement in the first place. It cannot offset the lower speed any more than a Human barbarian in Full Plate can. You are correct. This is an error. When the ECS specifically says that Drow are not suitable for being PCs. One reason for this is because there is no information about the drow in the ECS. With the information in RoE, it becomes more of an option. Though I still tend to think that a Xen'drik drow has little reason to go to Khorvaire. Valenar elves already treat the double bladed scimitar as a martial weapon. Its redundant. Indeed. It's intentionally redundant, just like Talenta Warrior. Not everyone will notice the rules on pages 26-27; this makes sure that all those rules are in one place. So, redundant? Yes. An error? No. "...you learn a new language(as if you had spent 1 skill point on the Speak Language skill)" Misleading wording. Only the bard can actually learn a language in this manner, as Speak Language is cross-class to everyone else. It takes 2 levels for them to learn the language, not one. Good point. It should simply say "You learn a new language" and leave it at that. Though just for the sake of argument, an expert could also take Speak Language as a class skill. p. 115, "Shifter Savagery turns this razorclaw shifter monk into a killing machine". One prereq for that feat is the abily to Rage or Frenzy. The monk has neither of these abilities, so they can't take this feat. Yes, but he's a barbarian/monk. Can't you tell? p. 162, under the Reforged's Natural Healing ability. "...allows you to repair lethal damage, nonlethal damage, and ability damage when you rest..." The Warforged already heal nonlethal and ability damage normally. This is an error, but only because this was written before the December errata. Prior to that time, warforged did not heal either of these types of damage, and this obviously slipped through the cracks. Luckily the main racial description was updated. As for other errors: Despite the name, the Kalashtar Thoughtshifter feat (page 118) should be available to both kalashtar and Inspired. Minor philosophical point, but among warforged who revere the Dark Six, there is certainly a sect that follow the Traveler. The Traveler is the patron of dangerous innovation, as reflected by its artifice domain. This sect believes that it was the Traveler who engineered the creation of the warforged - a "gift" of inspiration to House Cannith. And one should always beware the gifts of the Traveler...
Edymnion 04-09-05, 07:35 PM	Hey, just starting a thread for the mistakes to get pointed out in, so the errata people will have an easier job at catching them. :)
Hellcow 04-09-05, 07:39 PM	Hey, just starting a thread for the mistakes to get pointed out in, so the errata people will have an easier job at catching them. :) Absolutely! Sorry if I sounded terse. I just always want to clear things up where I can. This is obviously a valuable thread, and I hope people will continue to add onto it. I was mainly pointing the Bladebearer of the Valenar to say that it wasn't actually an error - that one was intentional. On all other points, you're right... though I doubt they'll address the caption of a picture in errata. To be honest, I'm not sure they'll address the Adamantine Body issue either; the rules clearly state that this doesn't work, and WotC errata seems to focus on the pure rules as much as possible.
Edymnion 04-09-05, 07:57 PM	Not so much of an error but an oversight: p. 116-117, Religion. Every religious organization in Eberron is mentioned, from Ornator to the Blood of Vol, except for one. The Silver Flame is nowhere to be found. After the talk about them not understanding worshipping a master that doesn't give commands, its odd that the biggest religion around that the WF can not only see the actual focus of their worship (the Silver Flame itself), and that has the most defined structure, its odd that it doesn't even get mentioned. I notice only because I play a WF Paladin of the Silver Flame ;)
Hellcow 04-09-05, 08:03 PM	its odd that the biggest religion around that the WF can not only see the actual focus of their worship (the Silver Flame itself), and that has the most defined structure, its odd that it doesn't even get mentioned. Not to mention the fact that there's a picture of a warforged paladin on page 132. ;) While religion is a difficult concept for warforged, the martial nature of the Silver Flame - the constant fight against the forces of evil - does make it a logical choice for warforged. I suspect it slipped through the cracks.
MarkB 04-09-05, 08:03 PM	p. 109, under the Master Linguist feat. "...you learn a new language(as if you had spent 1 skill point on the Speak Language skill)" Misleading wording. Only the bard can actually learn a language in this manner, as Speak Language is cross-class to everyone else. It takes 2 levels for them to learn the language, not one. Well, 2 skill points, at least. You could spend both of them at a single level-up, to the best of my knowledge. Good point. It should simply say "You learn a new language" and leave it at that. Though just for the sake of argument, an expert could also take Speak Language as a class skill. And Changelings have Speak Language as a class skill no matter their class.
Edymnion 04-09-05, 08:05 PM	Not to mention the fact that there's a picture of a warforged paladin on page 132. ;)Yup, and he's got the symbol of the Silver Flame on his chestplate even. Although, he is conspicuously missing the Rune on his forehead...And Changelings have Speak Language as a class skill no matter their class.Bah, lets not quibble on the exceptions to the rule, lets just find more of them that the book messed up on :D
Junkyard Dog 04-09-05, 08:15 PM	Yes, but he's a barbarian/monk. Can't you tell?A barbarian's alignment must be any nonlawful (PH 24). A monk's must be any lawful (PH 40). So how can you have a barbarian/monk?
Edymnion 04-09-05, 08:17 PM	A barbarian's alignment must be any nonlawful (PH 24). A monk's must be any lawful (PH 40). So how can you have a barbarian/monk?Good catch! If they start as a monk and go Chaotic, they are no longer considered a Monk, they're a Barbarian. If they started as Barbarian and went Lawful, they lose the ability to Rage. Either way, the caption is wrong :D
tek2way 04-09-05, 08:17 PM	I don't frequent these boards as often as I should, so I may have missed some discussion about this a while back. That said: On page 18, in the history of the Warforged, it refers to Merrix d'Cannith being the father of the inventor (discoverer?) of the warforged. Sentient warforged have been around for 33 years. Yet, it talks about Merrix being contracted by the king of Galifar to make an inexpensive constuct army. It then says that Merrix devoted himself to figuring out Warforged, but that his son beat him to it. Uhh.. The Last War has raged for nearly a century, and Merrix is alive and well in Sharn. Even assuming he was 15, and spoke with the King right before he died, that'd put him at 80... WHEN THE WARFORGED WERE CREATED. That also means he's around 118 now.. And that's just going on my (extremely, IMO) conservative estimate of 15 years old. (Not an age when you'd be consulting the King of Galifar.) Call me crazy, or give me some updated info, but THAT sounds wrong.
TheRedRobedWizard 04-09-05, 08:18 PM	Monk 1 / Barbarian X. Just as long as the Shifter pictured is non-lawful, she can still Rage, hence still qualifying for the feat. She just labels herself as a Monk, with a more berserkish fighting style than the norm. ---------- Also, the Reforged = Teh Awesim. Silly Juggernaughts stand no chance against Dandy, the Reforged Bard. ---------- (Edit: Mayhaps this Merrix d'Cannith is really Merrix d'Cannith II or III or IV, who can tell for sure.) -TRRW
Gurv 04-09-05, 08:22 PM	A barbarian's alignment must be any nonlawful (PH 24). A monk's must be any lawful (PH 40). So how can you have a barbarian/monk? Simple. 1) Start as a lawful monk. 2) Stop being lawful. 3) Take a level of barbarian, since you can't level in monk anymore anyway. 4) Roleplay like you have never roleplayed before. Because its the only way anyone is going to buy this combo.
Hellcow 04-09-05, 08:23 PM	A barbarian's alignment must be any nonlawful (PH 24). A monk's must be any lawful (PH 40). So how can you have a barbarian/monk? He's also taken the Savage Discipline feat, which allows a monk to have a chaotic alignment. Haven't you seen that one? ;) (The caption's been wrong from the begining. I was offering the barbarian/monk as a joke, not as a serious defense.)
Ellipsis 04-09-05, 08:27 PM	------------------------------------------------------------------- Not so much an error as obvious flip-flopping. p. 77, under Drow Characters. "Powerful, deadly, and shrouded in mystery, drow make exotic and interesting characters." When the ECS specifically says that Drow are not suitable for being PCs. Can I get some syrup with that waffle? ------------------------------------------------------------------- Bad choice of captions. p. 115, "Shifter Savagery turns this razorclaw shifter monk into a killing machine". One prereq for that feat is the abily to Rage or Frenzy. The monk has neither of these abilities, so they can't take this feat. Edit: Whoops, I guess barbarians can't rage if they're lawful. I'm sorry about that. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Rather iffy... p. 189, Natural Weapon Augmentation, (all of them) Use an infusion to give a natural weapon an enchantment. I could see this working for the Warforged, but not for anyone else. The whole point of the Artificer's infusions is that they must be cast on objects. A Razorclaw Shifter that can enchant her own claws with an infusion ain't kosher, IMO. It even specifies that WF do this at a higher caster level than normal, meaning it works just fine on fleshies. Breaks the flavor of Infusions and opens the doors on infusing living beings directly. Who said it meant player characters? Also, it really is the DM's decision whether or not to allow drow as PCs. I have one in my campaign, and there are few problems. Likewise, who said the shifter didn't advance as a barbarian before changing alignment and taking levels and monk? The artificer doesn't say anything about its magic working only on metal - quite the opposite, actually. What about wands, potions, etc.? Also, without any offense meant, who cares?
Hellcow 04-09-05, 08:28 PM	On page 18, in the history of the Warforged, it refers to Merrix d'Cannith being the father of the inventor (discoverer?) of the warforged. This is correct. it talks about Merrix being contracted by the king of Galifar to make an inexpensive constuct army. OK, this is a problem. Somehow I missed that in development. Well, I'll see if I can clear this up in a dragonshard. It then says that Merrix devoted himself to figuring out Warforged, but that his son beat him to it. The Last War has raged for nearly a century, and Merrix is alive and well in Sharn. Check page 22 of the ECS, and you'll see that Baron Merrix of Sharn is the grandson of Merrix the warforged innovator. How this ties to a Merrix talking to Jarot - well, let me work on that one.
tek2way 04-09-05, 08:32 PM	Check page 22 of the ECS, and you'll see that Baron Merrix of Sharn is the grandson of Merrix the warforged innovator. How this ties to a Merrix talking to Jarot - well, let me work on that one. Whew. That's a relief. When I read that I was really bothered, but I apparently had just forgotten the entry from the ECS. Thanks for clearing that up. :)
Edymnion 04-09-05, 08:51 PM	The artificer doesn't say anything about its magic working only on metal - quite the opposite, actually. What about wands, potions, etc.?Wands and Potions are not Infusions. They are crafted wonderous items. Infusions only work on objects. ECS, p. 31, under Infusions: "...but he does have the ability to imbue items with magical infusions... An artificer can imbue an item with any infusions... To imbue an item with an infusion..." And the big one on page 31, last paragraph of the left hand column: "An artificer's infusions can only be imbued into an item or a construct. He cannot, for example, simply imbue an ally with bull's strength. He must instead imbue that ability into an item his ally is wearing." By the RAW in the campaign setting, the Artificer can only imbue items and constructs. They are incapble of directly infusing ANYTHING into a living being directly. The Natural Weapon Augmentation specially mentions infusing the ability directly into a natural weapon. That is beyond the power of Infusions to do, unless you are a construct. Despite what RoE says, this infusion can only be used on Warforged and Constructs, as putting it on a Shifter (for example) is in direct contradiction of the core rules.
PoeticJustice 04-09-05, 09:13 PM	What I don't get is how Aarren d' Cannith fits into the book. Did he make the first sentient Warforged or did Merrix?
Chiba_Monkey 04-09-05, 09:21 PM	------------------------------------------------------------------- p. 107, under the Bladebearer of the Valenar feat. "You treat the Valenar double scimitar as a martial weapon...", then goes on to give some other bonuses. You have to be an Valenar elf to take this feat. Valenar elves already treat the double bladed scimitar as a martial weapon. Its redundant. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Wasn't this mentioned either in the AKB thread or in a Dragonshard? Either way, it was not official. This would be the first OFFICIAL ruling to that extent, and the previous rules regarding them then assume that most Valenar Warriors who USE a double scimitar have taken this feat. Or maybe I'm wrong. If it is in the ECS then I'm way out in left field.
Hellcow 04-09-05, 09:23 PM	And the big one on page 31, last paragraph of the left hand column: [i]"An artificer's infusions can only be imbued into an item or a construct. He cannot, for example, simply imbue an ally with bull's strength. He must instead imbue that ability into an item his ally is wearing." Absolutely correct. Despite what RoE says, this infusion can only be used on Warforged and Constructs, as putting it on a Shifter (for example) is in direct contradiction of the core rules. Given the wording of the rules - "creature touched" as the target - I am inclined to agree. However, one could make the argument that what the artificer needs to do is not to imbue the SHIFTER, but to imbue the shifter's BELT. "Here you go, Burch - it's a belt of fiery claws." But this is certainly one to resolve.
Gnome_Dragon_Disciple 04-09-05, 09:26 PM	Perhaps the feat can be allowed by the matter of natural weapons being composed of dead matter much like wood. Claws and teeth may have some ammount of flesh and nerves in them, but the parts that do the rending are as inert as the head of any axe... In the case of a monk's unarmed strike, the calcium deposits that make a a martial artist's bones so resilient could be accessed with a long enough infusion (the infusion would likely involve some form of curative magic to eliminate the pain that would entail as well as seal the surgical wounds sufficiently enough as to not negate the benefit of the infusion).
Hellcow 04-09-05, 09:26 PM	Wasn't this mentioned either in the AKB thread or in a Dragonshard? ...If it is in the ECS then I'm way out in left field. And that's exactly the point. It IS in the ECS - on page 27, specifically. But you're hardly a newcomer to these boards, and apparently you missed it. Having it included in the feat simply puts it all in one place. Since you have to be a Valenar to take the feat, the description of the feat will be true - it's simply the case that the first part is a benefit all Valenar already have.
Hellcow 04-09-05, 09:27 PM	What I don't get is how Aarren d' Cannith fits into the book. Did he make the first sentient Warforged or did Merrix? Aarren created the first living constructs. Merrix created things like the warforged titan, which is intelligent, but not much, and still a construct.
Edymnion 04-09-05, 10:15 PM	Wasn't this mentioned either in the AKB thread or in a Dragonshard? Either way, it was not official.Yeah, like Keith said, p. 27. Its also said again on page 120. The exotic weapon entry has a 1 superscript. The note for that superscript says "A wielder native to the region mentioned in the weapon's name treats that weapon as a martial weapon rather than an exotic one." So its actually said twice in the ECS :)
MavrickWeirdo 04-09-05, 11:02 PM	p. 109, under the Master Linguist feat. "...you learn a new language(as if you had spent 1 skill point on the Speak Language skill)" Misleading wording. Only the bard can actually learn a language in this manner, as Speak Language is cross-class to everyone else. It takes 2 levels for them to learn the language, not one. Well, 2 skill points, at least. You could spend both of them at a single level-up, to the best of my knowledge. Good point. It should simply say "You learn a new language" and leave it at that. Though just for the sake of argument, an expert could also take Speak Language as a class skill. And Changelings have Speak Language as a class skill no matter their class. Aristocrats also have Speak Language as a "Class Skill"
Edymnion 04-09-05, 11:09 PM	Aristocrats also have Speak Language as a "Class Skill"Bah, lets not quibble on the exceptions to the rule, lets just find more of them that the book messed up on :D(extra stuff inserted here because the boards won't let you do a post of nothing but quotes)
Edymnion 04-09-05, 11:29 PM	Error, p. 32, just before the War entry for Shifters. "A shifter spellcaster should think long and hard before creating a magic item and should seldom create more than35 one item at a time..." I don't know how the number 35 got in there, but its there.
greatfrito 04-09-05, 11:58 PM	Who said it meant player characters? Also, it really is the DM's decision whether or not to allow drow as PCs. I have one in my campaign, and there are few problems. Yeah, I've always thought that a Drow PC would be pretty cool as a "Foreign Savage brought in from the Dark Continent" kinda thing. Wooo.
DBlizzard 04-10-05, 12:18 AM	p. 109, under the Master Linguist feat. "...you learn a new language(as if you had spent 1 skill point on the Speak Language skill)" Misleading wording. Only the bard can actually learn a language in this manner, as Speak Language is cross-class to everyone else. Actually, Changelings can, too (as they get Speak Language as a class skill automatically). I suspect that's why this error creeped in, because they assumed a Changeling would be using the feat (maybe it originally was limited to Changelings).
Chiba_Monkey 04-10-05, 12:38 AM	And that's exactly the point. It IS in the ECS - on page 27, specifically. But you're hardly a newcomer to these boards, and apparently you missed it. Having it included in the feat simply puts it all in one place. Since you have to be a Valenar to take the feat, the description of the feat will be true - it's simply the case that the first part is a benefit all Valenar already have. Meh, I post at work when business is slow, so I do not have my books in front of me, usually. I HAVE, however, read them from cover to cover, so I usually know what I'm talking about. In this case, I just forgot. And Edy, I never noticed that superscript. Wow, good to know.
Pinky's brain 04-10-05, 12:40 AM	nm
Tap Tap 04-10-05, 04:21 AM	The Shifter Druid's Beast Spirit grants Feral Empathy at level 1 which enhances Wild Empathy and Handle Animal checks, however Wild Empathy is not listed as a Special class ability on Table 6-8. Should it be assumed that Wild Empathy is a class ability? How about Nature Sense, which is also not listed on Table 6-8? Is that still a Special class ability, too? How I read the Racial Substitution Level introduction, it reads as if only the abilities listed the tables are gained.
maghana 04-10-05, 05:30 AM	Wands and Potions are not Infusions. They are crafted wonderous items. Infusions only work on objects. ECS, p. 31, under Infusions: "...but he does have the ability to imbue items with magical infusions... An artificer can imbue an item with any infusions... To imbue an item with an infusion..." And the big one on page 31, last paragraph of the left hand column: "An artificer's infusions can only be imbued into an item or a construct. He cannot, for example, simply imbue an ally with bull's strength. He must instead imbue that ability into an item his ally is wearing." By the RAW in the campaign setting, the Artificer can only imbue items and constructs. They are incapble of directly infusing ANYTHING into a living being directly. The Natural Weapon Augmentation specially mentions infusing the ability directly into a natural weapon. That is beyond the power of Infusions to do, unless you are a construct. Despite what RoE says, this infusion can only be used on Warforged and Constructs, as putting it on a Shifter (for example) is in direct contradiction of the core rules. Given the wording of the rules - "creature touched" as the target - I am inclined to agree. However, one could make the argument that what the artificer needs to do is not to imbue the SHIFTER, but to imbue the shifter's BELT. "Here you go, Burch - it's a belt of fiery claws." But this is certainly one to resolve. Just an idea: Natural weapons are usually made from sterner stuff then 'flesh', so although they are 'natural' they are no longer alive (like most claws, horns and such like). This might qualify them [natural weapons] as 'items' in some sense :) Also, as I understand it, warforged contain materials like wood etc, and flesh golems contain flesh, so what makes something a 'construct' or an 'item' :confused:
Chiba_Monkey 04-10-05, 05:42 AM	Also, as I understand it, warforged contain materials like wood etc, and flesh golems contain flesh, so what makes something a 'construct' or an 'item' :confused: A construct is a creature that is made of a substance that, under normal circumstances, is not animate. A construct has a spirit bound within it that gives it a semblance of life. With golems, this is an elemental spirit of some kind.
maghana 04-10-05, 05:48 AM	A construct is a creature that is made of a substance that, under normal circumstances, is not animate. A construct has a spirit bound within it that gives it a semblance of life. With golems, this is an elemental spirit of some kind. Seems simple enough :) - that takes care of the construct problem, only the 'could [inanimate] claws be considered an item'-problem remains :D EDIT: BTW, I DON'T have RoE (yet :) ) so I may not know what I'm talking about :embarrass
Neofish 04-10-05, 10:12 AM	Check page 22 of the ECS, and you'll see that Baron Merrix of Sharn is the grandson of Merrix the warforged innovator. How this ties to a Merrix talking to Jarot - well, let me work on that one. When the warforged first appeared in Dragon, it stated that Jarot was afraid of invasion constantly and wanted troops and senteries that would never tire. Enter Merrix senoir, he made the first constructs that protected Galifar, he continued to tinker and improve on the models until his some took over and created the first "living" constructs. Anyway, that's from the Magazine anyway, and that ties Merrix to Jarot...
Gez 04-10-05, 10:27 AM	Only the bard can actually learn a language in this manner, as Speak Language is cross-class to everyone else. It takes 2 levels for them to learn the language, not one. The bard, and the scout, and the expert, and the aristocrat, and any Changeling, and the loremaster, and several other prestige classes, and people having the Able Learned feat from Races of Destiny, and a lot of other cases. Beside, your own wording is misleading. It only takes 2 levels if they get only one skill point per level, or have already maxed-out Speak Language. And it just happens that Speak Language, the black sheep of the skill family, cannot be maxed-out since it has no ranks. :P This absence of rank is precisely the cause of the misleading wording. They couldn't use "skill rank", so they used "skill point" instead.
Edymnion 04-10-05, 12:20 PM	Wrong Word p. 43, uner Roleplaying Applications for Changling Passers. "...have a single cover identity to which you cleave..." Cleave means to seperate, to split asunder, etc etc etc, it does not mean something you hold onto closely. Perhaps they meant cling?The bard, and the scout, and the expert, and the aristocrat, and any Changeling, and the loremaster, and...[/b]Look, we get the idea. But the point still stands. For the majority of the classes and races in the book, the wording is wrong. There is no need to keep nitpicking something that is not important. If you really want to sit there and type up a list of every blasted race and class and PrC that gets Speak Language as a class skill, I can type up the list of every class, race, and PrC that gets it cross class, and we can see who's is bigger. I don't want to do that though, because its a waste of time. Can we please drop the nitpicking of ONE FREAKING LINE of the post, and TRY to stay on topic here, PLEASE?
Gez 04-10-05, 12:37 PM	Well, the important part of my post was the bolded line, which you ignored. :P
Michael Tree 04-10-05, 04:08 PM	The warforged artificer substitution levels 4 and 5 list the BAB as +2. Those should be +3.
WarforgedAccountant 04-10-05, 05:11 PM	Wrong Word Cleave means to seperate, to split asunder, etc etc etc, it does not mean something you hold onto closely. Perhaps they meant cling? cleave (2) (http://www.answers.com/cleave&r=67): 1. To adhere, cling, or stick fast. 2. To be faithful: cleave to one's principles. Confusing, because it's an antagonym (http://www-personal.umich.edu/~cellis/antagonym.html).
Gez 04-10-05, 07:12 PM	Confusing, because it's an antagonym (http://www-personal.umich.edu/~cellis/antagonym.html). Funny how numerous those are. As an idea is associated to its contrary, a single word may mean both, and then sometimes the meaning can stabilize on the other side. Sycophant, for example, is nowadays used to mean a fawning, mellifluous person that's all praise and compliments; but the initial meaning is a basher, a mudslinger. Etymologically, it's greek for "fruit tosser"! As in throwing rotten tomatoes on somebody -- hardly a praise, usually. :D
Edymnion 04-10-05, 07:27 PM	cleave (2) (http://www.answers.com/cleave&r=67): 1. To adhere, cling, or stick fast. 2. To be faithful: cleave to one's principles. Confusing, because it's an antagonym (http://www-personal.umich.edu/~cellis/antagonym.html).I'll be da...rned. Never heard of that before... :confused:
RamblingScribe 04-10-05, 08:16 PM	Following this little tangent, Nice used to mean foolish. Silly used to mean pleasant. Then the meaning of both words became 'innocent'. Then Silly came to mean foolish, and nice came to mean pleasant. They totally traded meanings. This makes it confusing if you read Chaucer or other Middle English authors and they talk about silly people or nice people. Back to another point: I printed up the Eberron character sheets for my players, and it also claims that languages cost one skill point. Craig Shackleton, The Rambling Scribe
grahamdrew 04-10-05, 11:21 PM	Well, I'm not sure if it should considered an error or REALLY bad editing (seems like a little of both), but check out the desciption of the "Spiritual Force" Kalashtar feat on the table on p. 106. Now check out the feat description on p.113. Are the similar? Not at all. Looks like the feat was entirely rewritten at some point and someone forgot to inform the guy doing up the table. I imagine the feat desciption is correct and the table is bunk, but a clarification might be nice. It's at least something to fix in the next printing. Andrew Beard
Edymnion 04-10-05, 11:28 PM	check out the desciption of the "Spiritual Force" Kalashtar feat on the table on p. 106. Now check out the feat description on p.113.Lets see... p. 106, "... swift action... +2 to mindlbade..." p. 113, "... add bonus from Charisma to..." Checked and confirmed, same name, but they're talking about two totally differant things. Good catch!
grahamdrew 04-10-05, 11:32 PM	Reading back through the section, I just realized the desciption on the p. 106 table actually applies to the Soulblade Warrior feat on p.112. There's definitly some mixing and matching going on there that seems like errata material. Andrew Beard
Just another user 04-11-05, 03:16 AM	Wasn't this mentioned either in the AKB thread or in a Dragonshard? Either way, it was not official. This would be the first OFFICIAL ruling to that extent, and the previous rules regarding them then assume that most Valenar Warriors who USE a double scimitar have taken this feat. Or maybe I'm wrong. If it is in the ECS then I'm way out in left field. Dragonshards are officials (that's why we have only one every two weeks now.)
Talahar 04-11-05, 05:06 AM	Minor thing, only a typo.... :P on page 19, left column, fourth paragraph, third line "negations at Thronehold" I guess that should have been "negotiations at Thronehold"
fizzbang 04-11-05, 09:23 AM	By the RAW in the campaign setting, the Artificer can only imbue items and constructs. They are incapble of directly infusing ANYTHING into a living being directly. The Natural Weapon Augmentation specially mentions infusing the ability directly into a natural weapon. That is beyond the power of Infusions to do, unless you are a construct. Despite what RoE says, this infusion can only be used on Warforged and Constructs, as putting it on a Shifter (for example) is in direct contradiction of the core rules. Arguably, the infusion process here could involve infusing an item that is somehow related to the natural weapon, be it a set of gloves on clawed hands or a choker worn by a biting attacker. In fact, depending on your take of the "items" an artificer infuses, the infusion could work through a substance painted onto claws or a rinse of liquid that coats the teeth of a combatant. Now, I haven't read the actual wording on the infusion yet, so if its specific mention is of putting the infusion on the natural weapon without any sort of intervening item, then obviously it's a problem. But otherwise, it just requires the same non-mechanical explanation that is used when an artificer casts Bull's Strength on an ally or the like.
fizzbang 04-11-05, 09:24 AM	Error, p. 32, just before the War entry for Shifters. "A shifter spellcaster should think long and hard before creating a magic item and should seldom create more than35 one item at a time..." I don't know how the number 35 got in there, but its there. Obviously, the book is just reminding players that they "should should seldom create more than 351 items at a time." Really, that's just good common sense. :D
DarkWarriorKarg 04-11-05, 09:36 AM	Minor thing, only a typo.... :P on page 19, left column, fourth paragraph, third line "negations at Thronehold" I guess that should have been "negotiations at Thronehold" Well, not necessarily... they could have started negociations by saying "no" to everything...
JohnnyONeal 04-11-05, 10:57 AM	This is a useful thread! So far, I haven't found anything not already covered here, but I'll keep my eyes open. One odd thing I noticed was the warforged chapter's contention that warforged are not born knowing tactics or weapon use. It doesn't contradict anything official, but it certainly runs contrary to the notion that Keith has previously encouraged: a warforged is created with all the capabilities of its starting class, sometimes with more than one level. I actually like the roleplaying implications of warforged being a little more flexible, but it seems weird to me that Cannith would have access to a lot of elite military trainers...
WarforgedAccountant 04-11-05, 11:51 AM	It's not really an error, but I would like a description of physical changes that Reforged go through. There are two pieces of art in that section; one depicts a golden-toned C3PO, the other looks like some kind of flesh golem -- who doesn't seem like a guy with bonuses to social skills. The text itself has some hint of contradiction, mentioning changes in the makeup of the 'forged, but also stating that Reforged look like other 'forged until they demonstrate their superior communication skills/love of life/english degree.
fizzbang 04-11-05, 11:56 AM	It's not really an error, but I would like a description of physical changes that Reforged go through. There are two pieces of art in that section; one depicts a golden-toned C3PO, the other looks like some kind of flesh golem -- who doesn't seem like a guy with bonuses to social skills. The text itself has some hint of contradiction, mentioning changes in the makeup of the 'forged, but also stating that Reforged look like other 'forged until they demonstrate their superior communication skills/love of life/english degree. When I first saw that second picture of the reforged, I was mighty confused. I kept looking around for why there was a picture of an unwrapped mummy.
MavrickWeirdo 04-11-05, 01:18 PM	This is a useful thread! So far, I haven't found anything not already covered here, but I'll keep my eyes open. One odd thing I noticed was the warforged chapter's contention that warforged are not born knowing tactics or weapon use. It doesn't contradict anything official, but it certainly runs contrary to the notion that Keith has previously encouraged: a warforged is created with all the capabilities of its starting class, sometimes with more than one level. I actually like the roleplaying implications of warforged being a little more flexible, but it seems weird to me that Cannith would have access to a lot of elite military trainers... Of course they don't Know weapon use, that would be "Skill:Knowlege:Weapon Use" and they don't have that, they just have BAB +2 ;)
darkthought 04-11-05, 01:43 PM	When I first saw that second picture of the reforged, I was mighty confused. I kept looking around for why there was a picture of an unwrapped mummy. LOL, I did too. I also wondered why it only had 3 fingers on each hand until I re-read the final level of Reforged when they lose the armor. LOL, I often say I'd forget my butt if it wasn't attached, but Reforged actually do!
fizzbang 04-11-05, 01:58 PM	LOL, I did too. I also wondered why it only had 3 fingers on each hand until I re-read the final level of Reforged when they lose the armor. LOL, I often say I'd forget my butt if it wasn't attached, but Reforged actually do! That begs the question, though: If a normal warforged picks the "Unarmored Body" feat, is that what they look like? Or is that particular warforged just "fleshy" because it's undergone the complete Reforging process? I would have expected that an Unarmored warforged would look much the same as the normal warforged, but without the metal plates, perhaps with more leather and wood than stone. The idea that underneath the metal plates may be a much more fleshy/spongy material is a bit strange. Of course, I have enough trouble figuring out why a player would want to take the Unarmored Body feat in the first place. It really seems more like one of those flaws that comes along with other advantages in the prestige class. The idea of spending a feat on it is just kind of baffling.
pseudonym 04-11-05, 06:40 PM	Prehaps not errata per se, but I had always thought that warforged had no gender, but some may adopt a "male" or "female" persona, or perhaps aspects of both. On page 22 of Races of Eberron it says "Finally, even though warforged technically have no gender, each warforged character must have either a male personality or a female personality." To me that runs contrary to what has been established, and I don't particularly care for anything stating a character "must" do anything without a basis in the game mechanics. Why state that the warforged must emulate a gender at all?
Hellcow 04-11-05, 07:04 PM	On page 22 of Races of Eberron it says "Finally, even though warforged technically have no gender, each warforged character must have either a male personality or a female personality." To me that runs contrary to what has been established, and I don't particularly care for anything stating a character "must" do anything without a basis in the game mechanics. Why state that the warforged must emulate a gender at all? The sidebar on page 10 says "some warforged are comfortable with thinking of themselves as genderless beings." So I think there's room to overturn the "MUST" statement. After all, the important thing is what makes a good story.
Edymnion 04-11-05, 07:35 PM	Its also got a good deal of practicality behind that decision. English does not have a gender neutral pronoun that can be used on people. He, She, and It are the only pronouns we've got to refer to a single individual, and It implies an animal or an inanimate object, not someone with personality and free will. An Iron Golem can be an It, a Warforged can't. So, you should pick Male or Female simply so people have an easier time referring to the character. Even if it boils down to nothing more than "I'm neither, but you can call me a 'he' if it helps make things easier on you."
Cutlass 04-11-05, 11:06 PM	As the warforged character that I am running would put it: "I do not have a creation forge inside me therefore I cannot be female. Thus I must be a male."
Salla 04-12-05, 12:33 AM	A barbarian's alignment must be any nonlawful (PH 24). A monk's must be any lawful (PH 40). So how can you have a barbarian/monk? House rules. ;)
scwolf 04-12-05, 01:47 AM	p. 109, under the Master Linguist feat.Does anyone else have a strong suspicion that during in-house development on this one, it was probably named Cunning Linguist and they slapped a more "all ages appropriate" name on it for the final edit? So how can you have a barbarian/monk?If it weren't for the alignment restrictions, the Monastic Training feat would have been a big help here. Maybe Keith's on to something with that Savage Discipline feat idea. What I don't get is how Aarren d' Cannith fits into the book. Did he make the first sentient Warforged or did Merrix? And here, all this time, I thought it was the Xen'Drik Giants that made the first sentient Warforged.
Marshall Stone 04-12-05, 02:00 AM	Its also got a good deal of practicality behind that decision. English does not have a gender neutral pronoun that can be used on people. He, She, and It are the only pronouns we've got to refer to a single individual, and It implies an animal or an inanimate object, not someone with personality and free will. An Iron Golem can be an It, a Warforged can't. So, you should pick Male or Female simply so people have an easier time referring to the character. Even if it boils down to nothing more than "I'm neither, but you can call me a 'he' if it helps make things easier on you." Actually, in American English, the male pronouns were/are used as gender neutral pronouns. And using them is still grammatically correct. It is only relatively recently that the idea of not using the male pronouns as the gender neutral pronoun has come up, being perceived as sexist. So if one were to refer to a Warforged as "he" as opposed to "it" that would give insight into whether or not that person thought of the Warforged as alive or not.
Beleriphon 04-12-05, 02:59 AM	As it is the only language that I can think of that actually has a gender neutral pronoun is German. Der, dis, and das... or at least as far as I can remember. At any rate I'll let you all know if I find any errata.
scwolf 04-12-05, 04:14 AM	Actually, in American English, the male pronouns were/are used as gender neutral pronouns. And using them is still grammatically correct. The use of "he" for gender neutral objects is not universal. Ask any sailor about his ship. If I may quote Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz on the subject: "A ship is always referred to as 'she' because it costs so much to keep one in paint and powder." There are other notable counter-examples as well.
Beleriphon 04-12-05, 04:17 AM	The use of "he" for gender neutral objects is not universal. Ask any sailor about his ship. If I may quote Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz on the subject: "A ship is always referred to as 'she' because it costs so much to keep one in paint and powder." There are other notable counter-examples as well. But that isn't a case of a gender neutral pronoun. Ships are referred to with the female pronoun, since by custom ships are female in nature.
fuindordm 04-12-05, 06:40 AM	Actually, in American English, the male pronouns were/are used as gender neutral pronouns. And using them is still grammatically correct. It is only relatively recently that the idea of not using the male pronouns as the gender neutral pronoun has come up, being perceived as sexist. It's also only relatively recently that the generic 'he' made it into the grammar books--sometime in the 1700's as I recall. The singular 'they' is also grammatically correct, and has been used by eminent authors from Shakespeare to Jane Austen, although it sounds really funny when applied to a specific individual. Ben
WarlockDa 04-12-05, 05:48 PM	When the ECS specifically says that Drow are not suitable for being PCs. One reason for this is because there is no information about the drow in the ECS. With the information in RoE, it becomes more of an option. Though I still tend to think that a Xen'drik drow has little reason to go to Khorvaire. Yet Keith you wrote in Dragon #330 Pg 44 under Umbragen History, "However the quest for power could take the umbragen anywhere in Xen'drik-or even across the Thunder Sea and into Khorvaire". I'm going to assume since the Umbragen or a bit more involved in fighting the various evils in Khyber would be the reason for this distinction. Sorry if someone else has posted this...I didn't have time to read the entire thread :(
Honeycakes 04-12-05, 07:02 PM	Grrr... stupid other computer!
Hellcow 04-12-05, 07:03 PM	One odd thing I noticed was the warforged chapter's contention that warforged are not born knowing tactics or weapon use. It doesn't contradict anything official, but it certainly runs contrary to the notion that Keith has previously encouraged: a warforged is created with all the capabilities of its starting class, sometimes with more than one level. I actually like the roleplaying implications of warforged being a little more flexible, but it seems weird to me that Cannith would have access to a lot of elite military trainers... I believe that the two views can be reconciled in a logical manner. I'll address this at some point in the future.
Hellcow 04-12-05, 07:09 PM	Yet Keith you wrote in Dragon #330 Pg 44 under Umbragen History, "However the quest for power could take the umbragen anywhere in Xen'drik-or even across the Thunder Sea and into Khorvaire". When I refer to the drow as a whole, I'm not thinking of the Umbragen, which are a specific subculture. In the case of an Umbragen, yes, they do have a possible reason to go to Khorvaire, but they wouldn't do it just for the fun of it. They are far more driven than most Xen'drik drow, as they have the survival of their civilization resting on their shoulders (and they will want to spend as little time as possible away from their people). So an Umbragen in Khorvaire should have a clear mission in mind: he shouldn't just be kicking around in Sharn, he's there because he plans to steal the Eye of Ashtakala.
lugnut71 04-12-05, 08:59 PM	Grrr... stupid other computer! I find this to be one of the funniest things I have seen all day. :D
Sarlax 04-12-05, 11:17 PM	Actually, I hope to address this apparent contradiction in a dragonshard. If that falls through for some reason, I'll post my thoughts on the matter here. I believe that the two views can be reconciled in a logical manner (and you're right, Cannith doesn't have lots of elite trainers). Is the condradiction just apparent or is it real? I can't find a reasonable way to reconcile the phrase, " ... in all other respects the newly created warforged is a blank slate," from RoE with the earlier concept that the creation forges churned out warforged designed for specific purposes like they were car models. It also contradicts Pierce's story in The City of Towers, when he remarks that he was on the field very soon after being built. If the Races of Eberron text were more vague, you could probably get away with saying that the warforged are built with knowledge, but they take a few months of training to remember what basically amounts to a young-adult lifetime of experience. IE, a warforged is built as a first-level ranger with goblinoids as his favored enemy, but he needs two months of war games to dig this information from his subconcious. But "blank slate" and most of the text in Races of Eberron indicates that the 'forged are truly "born" without skills. Of course, you can say most 'forged are born blank, but some elites are built with knowledge. Anyway, what's the problem? It doesn't distort the setting's flavor or mess up anything in the game. I think it's an interesting development in the setting, even if it contradicts my original conception of the warforged. Is it necessary to "correct" this concept?
Sarlax 04-12-05, 11:36 PM	Yet Keith you wrote in Dragon #330 Pg 44 under Umbragen History, "However the quest for power could take the umbragen anywhere in Xen'drik-or even across the Thunder Sea and into Khorvaire". Where does it say in the ECS that drow are unsuitable for PCs? I only find the last line of the "Other Races" section on page 24, which says, "Similarly, sahuagin and drow are not ideal races for player characters." That doesn't mean they can't work. If any setting can make drow characters viable, it's Eberron.
Hellcow 04-12-05, 11:51 PM	Anyway, what's the problem? It doesn't distort the setting's flavor or mess up anything in the game. I think it's an interesting development in the setting, even if it contradicts my original conception of the warforged. Is it necessary to "correct" this concept? Not at all. I have no intention of saying that the material in RoE is incorrect; my only goal is to explain how characters like the warforged of the Dreaming Dark novels mesh with it.
Chiba_Monkey 04-13-05, 12:51 AM	Where does it say in the ECS that drow are unsuitable for PCs? I only find the last line of the "Other Races" section on page 24, which says, "Similarly, sahuagin and drow are not ideal races for player characters." That doesn't mean they can't work. If any setting can make drow characters viable, it's Eberron. The thing that makes drow unsuitable as PCs is not a feature of the drow race, the race by itself is fine, but rather an allergic reaction that some players have when they get ahold of a drow PC. I call this condition Drizztitis. :D
Chiba_Monkey 04-13-05, 01:11 AM	This makes it confusing if you read Chaucer or other Middle English authors and they talk about silly people or nice people. If you're plowiong through anything written in Middle English (first off, hat's off to you), then a couple of words that have only switched meanings with each other is the least of your problems in comprehension. It's an entirely different language. Shakespeare's much easier. After all, he practically inventedmodern English. (I have a Theatre degree...does it show?:D)
the.eberron.traveler 04-13-05, 04:17 AM	minor, but the halfling quote on p.94 is almost certainly about the wrong house. "don't waste my time telling me of battle. i battle death itself." --Kaerlin, house ghallanda healer
Beleriphon 04-13-05, 05:26 AM	If you're plowiong through anything written in Middle English (first off, hat's off to you), then a couple of words that have only switched meanings with each other is the least of your problems in comprehension. It's an entirely different language. Total lack of spelling conventions not withstanding of course. I hate the fact that people thought it was a good idea to spell the same word three ways in the same paragraph. It boggles the mind. At any rate back on topic: Zoom!
Bocklin 04-13-05, 08:36 AM	As it is the only language that I can think of that actually has a gender neutral pronoun is German. Hum... a bit off topic, but I would like to add an interesting thing: As far as I understand, the Dutch language has two pronouns: "De" and "Het". One is neutral ("Het") and the other one is "non-neutral" (and can be used as "the" before masculine or feminine names). I think it is quite mind blowing to not make a difference between masculine and feminine but to make one between neutral and non-neutral... :D Otherwise I enjoy RoE a lot, but did not have enough reading time yet. So I have no errors to report, yet. Bocklin
Makabriel 04-13-05, 08:54 AM	I feel "Blank Slate" relates more to the idea that Warforged have the concept of war and battle engrained into them, but realising what to do with it takes training. They mention the Wartforged Codex (or something like that) that gives basic commands that they react to. I think those are the things that take training. Group tactics, infiltration skills. Etc. Who knows. Maybe their artificial souls have some things bound to them that they take with them when they "awaken". Maybe Pierce was "born" and Archer?
Volaran 04-13-05, 09:11 AM	Races of Eberron: Page 132 The warforged paladin's 2nd level substitution gives them a "Repair Damage" ability instead of lay on hands. This allows them to use the full benefit of the ability, or heal other constructs as opposed to being able to heal the wounds of living creatures. Eberron Campaign Setting: Page 39 "Warforged Paladins When a warforged paladin gains the ability to lay on hands to heal wounds, he can use this ability to repair his own damage or damage sustained by other constructs and constructlike beings, as well as wounds sustained by his nonwarforged companions. This ability functions as either curative or repair magic, as appropriate to the subject" Why would the substitution level provide a less effective version of the same ability?
Radkres 04-13-05, 09:37 AM	Page 119 in the ROE book there is a feat called Ironwood Body. I can't find information on this material in any of the books I own. Is it possible that this was suppose to be Bronzewood Body? Thanks for your Time. Sorry to have bothered you all. Sometimes can't find something in front of my face. Ironwood spell ack So if Ironwood body feat on a Warforge that had Livewood body with a Dryad in it. Would he be possessed? or Have a new friend?
Edymnion 04-13-05, 12:26 PM	Can we please take any further discussion on the relivance of gender-appropriate pronouns to another thread, please? The topic for this thread, and the ONLY topic for this thread, is outright errors in the Races of Eberron book, mainly so the errata guys have an easier job getting everything fixed. If the post does not in some way relate to this, please, don't post it here, make another thread for it.
Makabriel 04-13-05, 01:32 PM	Someone with the book nearby can verify the page number on this one.. There's a section about a Changling Stronghold. The description was something along the lines of "A Truth Reeker Stronghold" Found that one amusing.
Cutlass 04-13-05, 04:25 PM	Accidental double post. Please delete.
Cutlass 04-13-05, 04:27 PM	In the section of ROE where it discussed training newly created warforged it commented that they were made to fight with real weapons and then fixed by artificers and magewrights. It strikes me that is an incredibly inefficient way to use the magical resources of House Cannith. IMHO, House Cannith, or whoever would be involved in the training of warforged or anybody else for combat would either have the trainees going at it with blunted practice weapons or real weapons which had been enchanted with the "Merciful" quality. Otherwise training would represent a significant drain on the magical assets that would be needed to handle actual battle casualties.
Aubri 04-13-05, 05:31 PM	Yes, but he's a barbarian/monk. Can't you tell? Looks more like a barbarian monkey to me! :rimshot: Error, p. 32, just before the War entry for Shifters. "A shifter spellcaster should think long and hard before creating a magic item and should seldom create more than35 one item at a time..." I don't know how the number 35 got in there, but it's there. Errata: The number 35 should be the number 42. It strikes me that is an incredibly inefficient way to use the magical resources of House Cannith. Agreed, though I think it'd be reasonable to have a repair-based dragonmark focus item around. It might be part of the indoctrination, you know--being repeatedly exposed to the oblivion of inertness might reinforce the death-as-oblivion "party line". Errors aside, I really love the presentation of info in this book--particularly the "topic -- roleplay" sections. I'm bad at coming up with this kind of character details, so it's helpful to have the roleplay segments to help me get on the right track. I usually don't pick one of the suggested options, but just getting me there is great. :)
Raster 04-13-05, 11:32 PM	Races of Eberron: Page 132 The warforged paladin's 2nd level substitution gives them a "Repair Damage" ability instead of lay on hands. This allows them to use the full benefit of the ability, or heal other constructs as opposed to being able to heal the wounds of living creatures. Eberron Campaign Setting: Page 39 "Warforged Paladins When a warforged paladin gains the ability to lay on hands to heal wounds, he can use this ability to repair his own damage or damage sustained by other constructs and constructlike beings, as well as wounds sustained by his nonwarforged companions. This ability functions as either curative or repair magic, as appropriate to the subject" Why would the substitution level provide a less effective version of the same ability? Because the warforged substitution level uses Con instead of Cha to determine how much you can heal, and a warforged is far more likely to have a high stat in one than the other ;)
Aubri 04-14-05, 12:29 AM	OK, actual error now: on page 91, the Lyrandar guy is captioned as being "aboard an airship" when he's clearly standing on the airship dock (Lyrandar Tower?) with the airship moored in the background. :)
Saurenda 04-14-05, 04:28 AM	Call me crazy, or give me some updated info, but THAT sounds wrong. Bleh Merrix d'Cannith reminds me too much about the Traveler, and all his decendants. Merrix is a very popular name in House Cannith. Merrix's side of the family has a lot of warforged interest that seems infectious. Merrix d'Cannith will always be there to influence whatever Merrix d'Cannith did; won't he, Merrix d'Cannith? Sorry. Flash back to X.
Aubri 04-14-05, 10:24 AM	Hmm, possible error on p. 23: Under "Warforged Druid" it indicates that such a character keeps his armor bonus while wild shaped. I... don't see that working unless they (or the local Artificer) enchant their plating as Wild.
d_nychus 04-14-05, 11:19 AM	Hmm, possible error on p. 23: Under "Warforged Druid" it indicates that such a character keeps his armor bonus while wild shaped. I... don't see that working unless they (or the local Artificer) enchant their plating as Wild. Or you have the Ironwood Body feat, like that section says you need to keep your armor bonus and immunities.
Aubri 04-14-05, 11:42 AM	Or you have the Ironwood Body feat, like that section says you need to keep your armor bonus and immunities. I, er, haven't actually got down to the feats yet. Does Ironwood Body specifically work while you're wildshaped? Edit: OK, I read it now. There's no reason you should keep your armor bonus when in a wild shape any more than you keep natural armor.
Hellcow 04-14-05, 02:39 PM	Because the warforged substitution level uses Con instead of Cha to determine how much you can heal, and a warforged is far more likely to have a high stat in one than the other ;) Correct. This one's not an error - it's an entirely different ability. Since racial substitution levels are always optional, it's up to you to decide which you want for your character.
Chiba_Monkey 04-20-05, 05:38 AM	The Moonspeaker PrC only draws power from 11 moons. It calls on Olarune twice in a row, and never recieves a gift from Eyre. I asked Keith about it on the AKB thread, I was wondering if anyone else noticed it/how they handled it. Hellcow's pretty busy and I realize he might not get back to me for awhile.
Bocklin 04-20-05, 07:06 AM	An "error": The Shifter Druid's 1st substitution level seems to be missing some special abilities. Even though the new "Spirit" ability is supposed to only replace the "Animal Companion" ability (as per the description of the "Spirit" ability), it seems that all other special abilities a Druid get at lvl 1 have been left out of the table (namely "nature sense" and "wild empathy"). It is probably an error since the new "Spirit" ability offers a bonus on Wild Empathy checks... Bocklin
Dragom 04-21-05, 08:13 PM	And here, all this time, I thought it was the Xen'Drik Giants that made the first sentient Warforged. They made the first Warforged like creatures. They may or may not have been actual warforged. We don't know cause no one has met such a warforged and no one has found an intact and working creation forge like structure and turned it on. All we know is that these creations are Warforged compatible. They could have been nothing like modern warforged. They could have had gender and been really good at cooking. They could have looked like elves and been good at bluffing. Nothing is Known.
Dragom 04-21-05, 08:17 PM	Yet Keith you wrote in Dragon #330 Pg 44 under Umbragen History, "However the quest for power could take the umbragen anywhere in Xen'drik-or even across the Thunder Sea and into Khorvaire". I'm going to assume since the Umbragen or a bit more involved in fighting the various evils in Khyber would be the reason for this distinction. [/i] Well a Xendrik Drow isn't an Umbragen is he? Xendrik Drow live in Xendrik and Umbragen Drow live in Khyber. Wich means we can leave the poor Scorpion worshipers as monsters.
Dragom 04-21-05, 08:21 PM	[QUOTE=Sarlax]It also contradicts Pierce's story in The City of Towers, when he remarks that he was on the field very soon after being built. [QUOTE] But Pierce isn't your average Warforged now is he? Besides they could have skipped the recommended Mellee on a rushed batch and sent them out as commoners.
Blindside 04-21-05, 10:15 PM	A thread for any potential errors in Races of Eberron. Bad choice of captions. p. 115, "Shifter Savagery turns this razorclaw shifter monk into a killing machine". One prereq for that feat is the abily to Rage or Frenzy. The monk has neither of these abilities, so they can't take this feat. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Actually on pg. 25 under shifter traits is says " Once per day, a shifter can enter a state that is superficially similar to a barbarian's rage. " Basically that covers the "rage" ascpect of the Shifter savagery feat... though the feat does say " while shifting and raging" this may be redundant.. because a shifter both rages and shifts at the same time anyhow. The rule looks right in my view... a shifter monk looks fine.. as he can rage, due to him being a shifter.
Aubri 04-21-05, 10:28 PM	Uh, no. A non-barbarian shifter doesn't have the class feature "rage" or "frenzy" and thus doesn't qualify. A shifter Bbn doesn't necessarily rage at the same time they shift, though doing so is a good idea. The shifting is only SUPERFICIALLY like a rage, in that it boosts a physical stat.
Edymnion 04-21-05, 11:23 PM	Actually on pg. 25 under shifter traits is says " Once per day, a shifter can enter a state that is superficially similar to a barbarian's rage. "And an Artificer's Infusions are superficially similar to a Sorcerer's spells, but that doesn't mean they are.
CelestialBarbarian 04-22-05, 04:26 AM	cleave (2) (http://www.answers.com/cleave&r=67): 1. To adhere, cling, or stick fast. 2. To be faithful: cleave to one's principles. Confusing, because it's an antagonym (http://www-personal.umich.edu/~cellis/antagonym.html). Just like "moot" (debatable) and "moot" (settled, and therefore not subject to debate). Ain't English grand? ;)
CelestialBarbarian 04-22-05, 04:32 AM	Obviously, the book is just reminding players that they "should should seldom create more than 351 items at a time." Really, that's just good common sense. :D :rofl:
CelestialBarbarian 04-22-05, 04:40 AM	The thing that makes drow unsuitable as PCs is not a feature of the drow race, the race by itself is fine, but rather an allergic reaction that some players have when they get ahold of a drow PC. I call this condition Drizztitis. :D A swollen or inflamed Drizzt?! How awful! We might have to amputate. ;)
CelestialBarbarian 04-22-05, 04:43 AM	It's also only relatively recently that the generic 'he' made it into the grammar books--sometime in the 1700's as I recall. The singular 'they' is also grammatically correct, and has been used by eminent authors from Shakespeare to Jane Austen, although it sounds really funny when applied to a specific individual. Ben That's not entirely surprising, as English grammar and spelling weren't standardized until the 19th century.
CelestialBarbarian 04-22-05, 05:05 AM	Hum... a bit off topic, but I would like to add an interesting thing: As far as I understand, the Dutch language has two pronouns: "De" and "Het". One is neutral ("Het") and the other one is "non-neutral" (and can be used as "the" before masculine or feminine names). I think it is quite mind blowing to not make a difference between masculine and feminine but to make one between neutral and non-neutral... :D Otherwise I enjoy RoE a lot, but did not have enough reading time yet. So I have no errors to report, yet. Bocklin Actually English does have a gender-neutral pronoune, the word "it." We just don't generally use it ("Oops, I said, it. I said it again!" --the Knights Who Formerly Said 'Nee!') to apply to people. We often hear one exception when people talk about an unborn child, as in, "I'm going to have a baby, but I don't know its sex yet." The English word "it" come from the Old Norse word for the definite article "inn," ("the" in modern English). Old Norse rendered Eric the Red as Eirikr inn Rauthr (I'm using a "th" to represent the letter "eth" in Old Norse, which looks like an italicized letter "d" with a cross through the handle, and is pronounced like the "th" sound in "there" and "then"). Old Norse used "inn" for the masculine, and changed it to "it" in the neuter. Old Norse had no indefinite article (the word "a" in modern English, as in "a ship") so that old Norse rendered "a ship" as simply "skip." (The Old Norse word "skip" serves as the origin for the modern English word "skipper" as in the captain of a ship.) If you wanted to refer to a specific ship in Old Norse, as in the ship, you'd used "it," which you'd suffix to the noun in the absence of an adjective: "skipit" means "the ship." If we wanted to apply an adjective, however, such as "blue," we wouldn't suffix "it" to "skip." So Old Norse would render "the blue ship" as "it blár skip."
CelestialBarbarian 04-22-05, 05:09 AM	Can we please take any further discussion on the relivance of gender-appropriate pronouns to another thread, please? The topic for this thread, and the ONLY topic for this thread, is outright errors in the Races of Eberron book, mainly so the errata guys have an easier job getting everything fixed. If the post does not in some way relate to this, please, don't post it here, make another thread for it. Oops. Just read this. Sorry. :embarrass
fhilbrandt 04-22-05, 11:10 AM	ROE tells of changelings "becoming" gnomes and other small races. How? The description in the ECS implies they can alter their height by +/- 1 foot. Or are magic items that allow this common amoung changelings?
elecgraystone 04-22-05, 01:25 PM	I have some questions. #1 What fhilbrandt said. Should the changelings ability be changes to small and medium humaniods instead of +/-1'? #2 the tracery warforged feats do not say anything about unarmed attacks being affected.(only natural weapons and grappling damage) However in the warforged section under monk it said that it does. Which it right? If the latter then what reason could there be for the warforged's normal natural and unarmed attacks not being adamantine if he has the body feat? Tracery=cold iron runs through your body/silver tracery covers body. Adamantine body=layer or adamantine. #3 under shifter section: creating shifter characters it lists the rejuvenating spellcaster feat. It's not on the list. Was it cut,missed or renamed? #4 to the master linguist feat. Did it start out as a changeling feat and then changed into a general feat? If so the wording makes more sense. #5 can the shifter clawbracers be enchanted as normal weapons? IE treat them as +1 weapons then add keen or bane? #6 will the shifter braids work with the hybrid form assumed by the max level weretouched master? #7 why is soulblade warrior NOT a psionic feat when shield of thought and spiritual force are? Soulblade warrior seems to fit the bill. (A feat ONLY a psionic creature could take!) #8 if a shifter druid with the substitution level 5 takes a class with wild shape does it stack with his wild shifting or does he get 2 sets of abilities? #9 under weapon familiars it states that yout familiar grants you one special ability based on effort type (lt,1 handed ect) and dam type (slash,blunt ect) Does this meen that you get one from either group or one from each group? #10 why are boomerang daze and boomerang ricochet fighter feats for the talenta 1/2ling ans the xen drow only? Why should my human fighter that took the exotic weapon feats to use these weapons (FIGHTER FEATS!) have to use his general feats to learn these feats? #11 can ANY light sensitive race wear shaders or just orcs If any can, I see every drow wearing one! #12 does the robe of professions have any time limit or could you keep it in one form for years until you change it back? #13 under the moonspeaker class at 7th level you gain the inproved natural attack feat. It said that if you already have the feat you can pick another feat. You can still take the feat if you want to right? I know that there are more questions I had but this will have to do for now.
MBuckalew 04-22-05, 01:53 PM	A thread for any potential errors in Races of Eberron. The Touch of Jorasco spell on page 190 says "See Text" for the Duration entry. The text does not describe the duration. In the fluff part, it says the ability lasts "throughout the day", which is not a well defined spell duration. I assume the intent is one of the following: - 24 Hours or Until Discharged - 1 Day/Level or Until Discharged - Permanent or Until Discharged
Aubri 04-22-05, 02:16 PM	I have some questions. #2: Unarmed strikes ARE a natural weapon. They have the special rule that damage from a US is considered weapon damage, but it fits the definition in the glossary and Magic Fang clearly notes that US is a natural weapon. As for the other question, Keith Baker says that an adamantine WF isn't actually coated in adamant, but rather covered in a thin layer of it in vital spots in addition to more rugged construction. And in any case, I don't think adamantine weapons cut through DR unless they're edged. I don't recall seeing that in the RAW but it seems to be the intent--in 3.0, the only presented adamantine weapons were a dagger and a battleaxe. I don't see how a really hard mace would be better at penetrating DR than a normal one! :P #3: It was cut. #9: It gets an ability from each list. #10: Why can't non-elves be Arcane Archers? That's just the way it is. The writers apparently wanted to give Talenta Halfings and Drow some special flavor if they choose to specialize in boomerangs. #11: Uhh... anybody, I suppose? #13: Well... it says 'can', not 'must', but you can only take INA once. If you were getting a feat you're allowed to take multiple times, then yes, you could take it again.
elecgraystone 04-22-05, 03:04 PM	#2: Unarmed strikes ARE a natural weapon. They have the special rule that damage from a US is considered weapon damage, but it fits the definition in the glossary and Magic Fang clearly notes that US is a natural weapon. As for the other question, Keith Baker says that an adamantine WF isn't actually coated in adamant, but rather covered in a thin layer of it in vital spots in addition to more rugged construction. And in any case, I don't think adamantine weapons cut through DR unless they're edged. I don't recall seeing that in the RAW but it seems to be the intent--in 3.0, the only presented adamantine weapons were a dagger and a battleaxe. I don't see how a really hard mace would be better at penetrating DR than a normal one! :P #3: It was cut. #9: It gets an ability from each list. #10: Why can't non-elves be Arcane Archers? That's just the way it is. The writers apparently wanted to give Talenta Halfings and Drow some special flavor if they choose to specialize in boomerangs. #11: Uhh... anybody, I suppose? #13: Well... it says 'can', not 'must', but you can only take INA once. If you were getting a feat you're allowed to take multiple times, then yes, you could take it again. #2 so my monk can take the improved natural weapon feat for more damage? Great! My warforged with improved unarmed strike could take multi-attack! (2 NATURAL punch attacks{unarmed attacks can be used with 2weapon fighting!} and a slam to qualify for the 3 natural attacks needed?) Also the cold iron tracery doesn't say it's a coating either! (runs THROUGH body, not runs OVER or covers his body And if the body feat doesn't work that way, why no adamantine tracery feat? There are LOTS more things with a DR/adamantine running around than cold iron!:rolleyes: You have to LOOK for creatures with a DR/cold iron and warforged are all over the place! And last but not least ANY weapon made of the material bypassed DR! If I could make a sap or butter knife out of adamantine, it would bypass a warforgeds DR! it's damage type (slash/pierce/blunt) mean NOTHING unless it's added to the DR (IE 5/adamantine AND SLASH!) Even a 5/adamantine OR slash can ignore DR if it's only adamantine! #10 however, unlike the arcane archer ANYONE can get the feat, no restriction. My goblin wizard could get by 3rd level. I'm just trying to figure out why some fighters can't get a fighting feat as a FIGHTER feat. ;) It's NOT a racial/fighter feat! #13 with the extra shifter talent feat you could have claws and bite. If you had the improved natural attack with your bite you could also get one for your claws. Meaning you could already have the feat but could take it again.
Edymnion 04-22-05, 03:06 PM	#10 why are boomerang daze and boomerang ricochet fighter feats for the talenta 1/2ling ans the xen drow only? Why should my human fighter that took the exotic weapon feats to use these weapons (FIGHTER FEATS!) have to use his general feats to learn these feats?Because Fighter Bonus Feats represent the common training that Fighters have. Boomerange Daze and Ricochet are both very region specific feats, and would not be part of your normal training unless you were actually from those areas. Hence, only fighters from those areas would normally train in that style. Other characters can still take the feats, but they have to use a more precious normal feat to do it.
elecgraystone 04-22-05, 03:08 PM	To Aubri SRD QUOTE "Armed" Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character?s or creature?s unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed." Why is monk attacks listed different from natural weapons? An unarmed attack can use things that enhance a natural attack, but as far as I know it doesn't count as one for feats.
elecgraystone 04-22-05, 03:25 PM	Because Fighter Bonus Feats represent the common training that Fighters have. Boomerange Daze and Ricochet are both very region specific feats, and would not be part of your normal training unless you were actually from those areas. Hence, only fighters from those areas would normally train in that style. Other characters can still take the feats, but they have to use a more precious normal feat to do it. So the feat to learn how to use them (exotic weapon prof.) ISN'T regional but a feat that improves the feat you CAn take is? Again, it should be a racial feat if is SO regional or just a plain old fighter feat. If my gnome was orphaned and raised by the halflings of the plains why couldn't he take it as a fighter feat if it's just about region and not a racial feat? I just find it odd that these two feats don't fit the mold of other feats and I don't understand why? Why should how hard it is to get training if a feat make it only general instead of fighter? WHy should my human fighter that went out of his way to learn the boomerang and has used it since 1st level have to use a general feat when a plains hafling that hadn't picked up it 6th get to use his fighter feat? The fact that some races use a feat more that others shouldn't change what kind of feat it is unless it's a racial feat.
Aubri 04-22-05, 03:49 PM	I'm sorry, I didn't say that very clearly. Or rather, I said it backward. Unarmed strikes act like weapon attacks, of course--you can take more than one in a round, and that's why it says "damage from unarmed strikes is considered weapon damage"--but for the purposes of spell effects they act like natural weapons, and thus can be Magic Fanged. Obviously, the writers of RoE overlooked the case of the WF monk in the Tracery text, since otherwise a WF would use his slam instead of unarmed strikes. By the same logic, they get traceried. And last but not least ANY weapon made of the material bypassed DR! If I could make a sap or butter knife out of adamantine, it would bypass a warforgeds DR! Um, yeah, if you notice, I actually mentioned that. By the RAW a blugeoning adamantine weapon will bypass DR. That said, however, the point stands--An "adamantine" warforged doesn't contain significant quantities of the metal--only a thin coating to help stop blows. This came up over on the Ask Keith Baker thread when people wanted to salvage such warforged for the valuable metal, you see.
Aubri 04-22-05, 04:03 PM	#10: Sorry again, I don't have the book in front of me, so I can't look up the specifics. But anyway, there apparently IS no 'why' that's going to satisfy you. There's no mechanical reason--it's a flavor issue. Jesse Decker isn't going to appear in a puff of smoke and explain it for you, no matter how many times you ask. You might as well ask why your hypothetical gnome doesn't get the +1 thowing bonus halflings get. Didn't he throw things as often as the halfling children did? :rolleyes: #13: Nope, sorry, go look at the feat again. It doesn't have the Special line that says you can take it multiple times, so you can only get it once.
Gez 04-22-05, 04:22 PM	Uh, no. A non-barbarian shifter doesn't have the class feature "rage" or "frenzy" and thus doesn't qualify. A shifter Bbn doesn't necessarily rage at the same time they shift, though doing so is a good idea. The shifting is only SUPERFICIALLY like a rage, in that it boosts a physical stat. He could be a sohei (from OA, they're sort of like monks with less class abilities, no unarmed damage, but ki frenzy and spellcasting as a paladin (though with a different spell list)). Or he could be an ex-monk barbarian. He's no longer able to progress as a monk, but he keeps his monk abilities anyway. While an ex-barbarian monk would no longer be able to rage.
Aubri 04-22-05, 04:26 PM	I DID say "NON-barbarian", Gez. As in no Bbn levels. :) And if you're going to drag in OA, well, that's a different game entirely...
JBW 04-22-05, 04:41 PM	An "adamantine" warforged doesn't contain significant quantities of the metal--only a thin coating to help stop blows. I'd have to call that thin coating significant if it has the ability to stop blows. ;) Still, I think that the key point of Adamantine Body and Mithral Body is that the metals are concentrated around the internal portions of the Warforged's head, trunk, and joints rather than on the living construct's external striking surfaces. And yes, the amount would be significant. Jay
Aubri 04-22-05, 04:54 PM	I'd have to call that thin coating significant if it has the ability to stop blows. ;) Obviously it's almost as thick as a suit of adamantine armor, but that hardly makes it as solid as a pure adamantine axe. You might as well ask why a guy in adamantine full plate can't break stuff with his grapple or his unarmed strike...
Ithamar 04-25-05, 04:37 PM	I don't think anyone has mentioned this yet, but on pg. 37, the Shifter section, it mentions feats specifically for shifters. The text refers to "Shifter Multi-task". I'm pretty sure it is supposed to be "Shifter Mult-attack" from the ECS, but I thought it was kind of funny. Who knows, maybe as your Shifter advances in levels, he gets really good at doing multiple tasks? He can be cooking dinner and sharpening his weapon at the same time. :)
elecgraystone 04-26-05, 03:07 PM	#10: Sorry again, I don't have the book in front of me, so I can't look up the specifics. But anyway, there apparently IS no 'why' that's going to satisfy you. There's no mechanical reason--it's a flavor issue. Jesse Decker isn't going to appear in a puff of smoke and explain it for you, no matter how many times you ask. You might as well ask why your hypothetical gnome doesn't get the +1 thowing bonus halflings get. Didn't he throw things as often as the halfling children did? :rolleyes: #13: Nope, sorry, go look at the feat again. It doesn't have the Special line that says you can take it multiple times, so you can only get it once. #13 I know of at least 3 monsters that think you are wrong. I know there are more but I found these quick. Tiger feats from srd: Alertness, Improved Natural Weapon (bite), and Improved Natural Weapon (claw). Also dire tiger and were-tiger. It works just like weapon focus=only once/weapon. They forgot the notation for multiple times. #10 that bonus is RACIAL for a hafling which I could agree with.(racial bonuses are inherent, NOT LEARNED!) However it isn't a racial feat and that if why I don't get it. ANYONE can get the feat and not every 1/2ling has it. Again, if the feat to LEARN the weapon is a fighter feat. It would be like saying that only 1/2lings can buy the weapon focus for it as a fighter feat because they are real good with it! It's part of the exotic weapon feat tree. like dodge, mobility, and spring attack. Now say only an elf could take spring attack as a fighter feat. That doesn't make sense either! The feat leading up to the feats in question are fighter feats for all and the new ones aren't those for all and aren't racial. And eberron doesn't use regional feats.(which could work to) I don't want to see a bunch of new feats coming out that are different kinds of feats depending on your race. Now I could see an eberron substitution level or something like that ADDING some general feats to their bonus list, but the 1/2lings and drow are plain old NORMAL fighters with the same old bonus feat list. There are enouph different types of feats without adding situational ones. :(
elecgraystone 04-26-05, 03:31 PM	Obviously it's almost as thick as a suit of adamantine armor, but that hardly makes it as solid as a pure adamantine axe. You might as well ask why a guy in adamantine full plate can't break stuff with his grapple or his unarmed strike... He can PUNCH with his gauntlet(both armor AND weapon). An adamantine shield used with a shield bash! So he CAN break stuff with his armor!(I've noted the only 2 armor parts that show up on the weapon chart, but you can see the point!) IE:a warforgeds armor IS his body! A gauntlet is an UNARMED attack that does real damage! Another question. If a gaint picked up a dead fighter in adamantine armor and used the body to hit a golem with a dr/adamantine,don't you think it MIGHT make it through it's DR? As to grappling, I could care less!:cool: In my 20+ years of gaming I've never used a grapple to cause damage and I don't see that changing. To imobilize yes! To kill? no! Also to how solid a weapon is to be affective. A adamantine throwing star that is destroyed after one hit goes through DR. Are you telling me that there is less adamantine in the strike of a warforged than a throwing star? And like I said, if it doesn't work this way, where is the adamantine tracery? MUCH,MUCH more usefull in eberron than cold iron! :confused: :confused: :confused:
Dragom 04-26-05, 03:38 PM	I kind of liked the cultural weapon package feats. Darguun Mauler and Valenar Swordsman and Talenta... whatever it is. And I like how the two feats that allow you to eventually be able to use the Boomarang like an effective rangeweapon instead of being a clumsy Dart. The restriction to Halfling is all that you don't like? Mabe you would prefer having a +1 or better racial bonus to thrown weapons as a prerequisite. Like the +1 or better natural armor bonus required to take improved natural armor. Does it make you feel better if you think of it that way?
Chiba_Monkey 04-27-05, 07:12 AM	A swollen or inflamed Drizzt?! How awful! We might have to amputate. ;) Nurse! Forget the scalpel, I'll need a chainsaw...immediatedly. On monks and NAs: I remember seeing this issue in a Sage Advice column. Unarmed attacks are NOT natural weapons and NEVER benefit from things that only improve natural weapons. INA was speifically the focus of the question, and the Sage specifically shot it down. That said, Improved Natural attack can only be taken once for the same attack. INA (claw) and INA (bite) are pretty much 2 different feats, much like Weapon Focus (longsword) and Weapon Focus (dagger). It won't stack with itself.
Aubri 04-27-05, 10:18 AM	#13 I know of at least 3 monsters that think you are wrong. #10 that bonus is RACIAL for a hafling which I could agree with.(racial bonuses are inherent, NOT LEARNED!) ... That doesn't make sense either! #13: You're probably right that the line was forgotten and I don't see any reason allowing INA on each weapon would be unbalancing. However, that's not the RAW. There's no errata regarding the feat, so outside of a houserule you can only take it once. #10: What the heck do you want to hear, exactly? If you don't like the RAW you'll have to work it out with your DM. That's all there is to it. He can PUNCH with his gauntlet(both armor AND weapon). An adamantine shield used with a shield bash! ... In my 20+ years of gaming I've never used a grapple to cause damage and I don't see that changing. Why the heck do I care what you have and haven't done? Irrelevant. :P While it's true that you can make an adamantine gauntlet, I'd check with your DM first--especially with the adamantine-clad fighter-as-club. Let me return the question this way: Does a warforged have a gauntlet on? No? Sorry, no DR penetration then. (No, I didn't ask if the fist is similar to a gauntlet.) Are you telling me that there is less adamantine in the strike of a warforged than a throwing star? Yes. Oh, you want more than that? :) As I mentioned before, an adamantine body warforged isn't completely coated in the metal. Anyway, if you disagree, again, that's RAW. House rule as you like, but I would hope your DM wouldn't let you break people's swords with your bare hands at 1st level. I think this discussion has wandered far afield from the original topic. In short, the reason there's no "adamantine tracery" or equivalent effect from the Body feat is because adamantine is a LOT more useful than cold iron or silver. Those metals simply bypass a fairly rare DR type; adamantine actually allows you to destroy objects effortlessly. Can you imagine the ulcers you'd give the DM, constantly sundering everyone's swords, shields, and anything else they have that might be marginally useful?
CelestialBarbarian 04-27-05, 11:54 AM	#13: You're probably right that the line was forgotten and I don't see any reason allowing INA on each weapon would be unbalancing. However, that's not the RAW. There's no errata regarding the feat, so outside of a houserule you can only take it once. #10: What the heck do you want to hear, exactly? If you don't like the RAW you'll have to work it out with your DM. That's all there is to it. Why the heck do I care what you have and haven't done? Irrelevant. :P While it's true that you can make an adamantine gauntlet, I'd check with your DM first--especially with the adamantine-clad fighter-as-club. Let me return the question this way: Does a warforged have a gauntlet on? No? Sorry, no DR penetration then. (No, I didn't ask if the fist is similar to a gauntlet.) Yes. Oh, you want more than that? :) As I mentioned before, an adamantine body warforged isn't completely coated in the metal. Anyway, if you disagree, again, that's RAW. House rule as you like, but I would hope your DM wouldn't let you break people's swords with your bare hands at 1st level. I think this discussion has wandered far afield from the original topic. In short, the reason there's no "adamantine tracery" or equivalent effect from the Body feat is because adamantine is a LOT more useful than cold iron or silver. Those metals simply bypass a fairly rare DR type; adamantine actually allows you to destroy objects effortlessly. Can you imagine the ulcers you'd give the DM, constantly sundering everyone's swords, shields, and anything else they have that might be marginally useful? What does "RAW" mean? :embarrass
JBW 04-27-05, 12:22 PM	Can you imagine the ulcers you'd give the DM, constantly sundering everyone's swords, shields, and anything else they have that might be marginally useful? I'd be even more worried about the ability to tear holes in walls and doors without any real effort. Outside of combat, 1d4+3 (I'm assuming a farily strong warforged with Str 14) every 3 seconds will tear through anything with less than hardness 20 in no time. An iron door, a failry common plot-channelling device in low-level dungeons, will last just over 30 seconds (12 rounds) against the above Warforged. Sure, it makes a whole lot of noise, but most 1st-level parties will have much more trouble getting pat a hardness 10, 60 hp breack DC 28 obstacle. Masonry walls (1 ft. thick) will last less than one minute when pummeled by adamantine slams, and hewn stone walls (3 ft. thick) will hold the Warforged back for only a few minutes. Manacles and chains will be effortlessly shatttered within a few blows... I don't particularly like the way adamantine weapons work within the rules, but allowing warforged to get them so easily and so early in the game is certainly not a good idea. Jay
Siran Dunmorgan 04-27-05, 12:42 PM	What does "RAW" mean? :embarrass Rules As Written —Siran Dunmorgan P.S. Don't be embarrassed. I struggled with this one for a while too.
LordofIllusions 04-27-05, 02:05 PM	What really amazes me is the fact that people actually proofread the entire book looking for mistakes. :rolleyes: ~~~
Aubri 04-27-05, 03:31 PM	Not really... they tend to kinda jump out at you.
elecgraystone 04-27-05, 03:53 PM	#13: You're probably right that the line was forgotten and I don't see any reason allowing INA on each weapon would be unbalancing. However, that's not the RAW. There's no errata regarding the feat, so outside of a houserule you can only take it once. There is errata! I just had to find it!(I don't have the books here!) It's in 3.5 monster manual errata! Also the ebberon book notes that you can take the feat more than once too! So RAW it is.
CelestialBarbarian 04-27-05, 03:53 PM	Rules As Written —Siran Dunmorgan P.S. Don't be embarrassed. I struggled with this one for a while too. Hey man, thanks! :)
CelestialBarbarian 04-27-05, 03:59 PM	There is errata! I just had to find it!(I don't have the books here!) It's in 3.5 monster manual errata! Also the ebberon book notes that you can take the feat more than once too! So RAW it is. Yes the Monster Manual errata specifically says "You can take this feat multiple times, but each time it applies to a different natural attack."
elecgraystone 04-27-05, 04:09 PM	I kind of liked the cultural weapon package feats. Darguun Mauler and Valenar Swordsman and Talenta... whatever it is. And I like how the two feats that allow you to eventually be able to use the Boomarang like an effective rangeweapon instead of being a clumsy Dart. The restriction to Halfling is all that you don't like? Mabe you would prefer having a +1 or better racial bonus to thrown weapons as a prerequisite. Like the +1 or better natural armor bonus required to take improved natural armor. Does it make you feel better if you think of it that way? I like cultural feats. Regional ones too. I didn't like the restriction that it was added to the bonus feats for 2 races. In the ebberon book it said that is you are from the REGION that is in the name of a weapon that you can use it as a martial weapon. Race is not mentioned. So it should be regional feat. I just don't like it being a different kind of feat for different people. If you can learn it it should be the same kind. My gnome fighter from Talenta shouldn't have to train any harder to learn it! And yes, I'd have liked it better having a +1 racial bonus to hit. (however all those drow are going to be bummed when they learn they can't get it!) Remember 1/2lings AND drow can take them as fighter feats.Or JUST a racial/fighter feat. Let me ask it the other way. How did it STOP being a fighter feat just because it was learned be another race? Now, this is just an anoyance, not a real errata. It works, just not how I would like it to. While I WOULD like to see a revision of the feat, I would much rather hear on my other questions.
elecgraystone 04-27-05, 04:10 PM	Not really... they tend to kinda jump out at you. Now this may be the one time that I agree 100% with someone! :D As to your post before about adamantine body, you say that the warforged isn't wearing guantlets. You missed the point. The point is that armor CAN go though DR! Now a warforged isn't wearing guantlets but there is adamantine IN his body. No different that cold iron tracery, which by the description isn't a tracery! Even if the adamantine is just used to reinforce critical parts of the warforgeds body, HIT with those parts. Elbows and knees, as joints, should be reinforced. Unarmed attacks are with ANY part of the body! I idea that ALL the adamantine is 100% internal doesn't make sense. Like putting armor on a tank. Make a really strong frame, then use weaker materials for the armor?:confused: And somehow that strong frame is stopping more damage than the armor? (DR2/adamantine frame IS stopping 2 points of damage?) Now if you were to say that the adamantine INCREACED the crit resistance,OK. But DR? 100% fill a chest with a solid block of adamantine. close the chest and hit it. Does the strength of the metal stop the outside from damage? The tracery feats set a precedent that you only NEED trace amounts on the special materials to bypass DR. A silver spray painting later and look out lycanthropes! Now if adamantine is too strong to be used as/is, don't allow the reduction in hardness, just using it it get through DR. Enough adamantine it bypass DR, but not enouph to bypass hardness. You could make a follow up feat to bypass hardness, setting whatever limit are needed to balance it. As a side note, does the silver tracery REDUCE your unarmed damage by one like other uses of alchemical silver? Or is it like I said in the paragraph above, that there is enough to bypass DR, but not enough to reduce damage?
Aubri 04-27-05, 05:12 PM	There is errata! I just had to find it!(I don't have the books here!) It's in 3.5 monster manual errata! Also the ebberon book notes that you can take the feat more than once too! So RAW it is. Ack! You're right! I looked in the errata file, but I missed it the first time! (I was looking for the feat by page number.) Even if the adamantine is just used to reinforce critical parts of the warforgeds body, HIT with those parts. Elbows and knees, as joints, should be reinforced. I never said the adamantine was internal, but really, it doesn't make a lot of sense to try to break something by slamming your chest against it. :rolleye2: Once again: This is a matter of game balance as much as logic. I already stated I don't like blugeoning adamantine weapons, but my likes aren't relevant here. What IS relevant is that you're getting two feats for the price of one: Body for AC and DR, and a free "Adamantine Tracery" for bypassing the DR of constructs. You're really synthesizing two different arguments here: First, whether Adamantine Body gives your slam the Adamantine quality, and second, whether any form of adamantine armor counts as an adamantine weapon when you strike with it. The only RAW answer I can offer is that the Special Materials section says "weapons fashioned of adamantine have a natural ability to bypass hardness... and armor made from adamantine grants its wearer DR". If you bought armor, your get DR, and that's all you get, whether it includes gauntlets or not. This is an unusual case, since most materials only give you a bonus on one type of item or the other; for example, mithral makes armors a lighter class, while a mithral weapon simply weighs less. Alchemical silver weapons bypass DR/silver, while it's pointless for a suit of armor. Perhaps processing the metal for armor involves a different process than for making weapons, and thus removes its ability to smash objects so easily. All I can really say is, give it up. You're not going to get adamantine weapons for free without duping your DM. Edit: Silver and cold iron bypass DR due to a sort of mystical resonance. Adamantine bypasses DR and hardness because it's really, really hard. The Silver Tracery feat says your slam counts as silver "for the purposes of bypassing DR", so no, no -1 damage.
CelestialBarbarian 04-27-05, 05:27 PM	There is errata! I just had to find it!(I don't have the books here!) It's in 3.5 monster manual errata! Also the ebberon book notes that you can take the feat more than once too! So RAW it is. You can take it more than once, but it doesn't stack. Each time it applies to a different natural attack.
elecgraystone 04-27-05, 06:23 PM	Ack! You're right! I looked in the errata file, but I missed it the first time! (I was looking for the feat by page number.) I never said the adamantine was internal, but really, it doesn't make a lot of sense to try to break something by slamming your chest against it. :rolleye2: Once again: This is a matter of game balance as much as logic. I already stated I don't like blugeoning adamantine weapons, but my likes aren't relevant here. What IS relevant is that you're getting two feats for the price of one: Body for AC and DR, and a free "Adamantine Tracery" for bypassing the DR of constructs. You're really synthesizing two different arguments here: First, whether Adamantine Body gives your slam the Adamantine quality, and second, whether any form of adamantine armor counts as an adamantine weapon when you strike with it. The only RAW answer I can offer is that the Special Materials section says "weapons fashioned of adamantine have a natural ability to bypass hardness... and armor made from adamantine grants its wearer DR". If you bought armor, your get DR, and that's all you get, whether it includes gauntlets or not. This is an unusual case, since most materials only give you a bonus on one type of item or the other; for example, mithral makes armors a lighter class, while a mithral weapon simply weighs less. Alchemical silver weapons bypass DR/silver, while it's pointless for a suit of armor. Perhaps processing the metal for armor involves a different process than for making weapons, and thus removes its ability to smash objects so easily. All I can really say is, give it up. You're not going to get adamantine weapons for free without duping your DM. Edit: Silver and cold iron bypass DR due to a sort of mystical resonance. Adamantine bypasses DR and hardness because it's really, really hard. The Silver Tracery feat says your slam counts as silver "for the purposes of bypassing DR", so no, no -1 damage. Suits of heavy armor come with gauntlets. Unless you are saying that there is some errata that they aren't weapons?:confused: So every adamantine suit comes with at least 2 "free" adamantine weapon! Same with shields! (bash) Now from the SRD. Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts. Now the gauntlet is armor covering your hands that is also weapon. that takes care of punches.(the most common unarmed attack for non-martial arts trained) If gauntlets work for hands then boots for feet? Same for headbutts and helmets! It's not a big logical leap that boots and helmets should follow the rule for gauntlets. Just because it's armor doesn't mean it's not a weapon also! I think that they just didn't expand the "armored" unarmed attack weapons to include boots and helmets because 99% of non-monks are going to punch and monks don't (as a rule) wear armor, not because they shouldn't work just like gauntlets. They got lazy or just didn't think to add them. While this isn't RAW, it makes sense. ;) So a suit as heavy armor should come with 5 "free" weapons, 2 gauntlets, 2 boots and a helmet! It may not make sense to break things by "slamming your chest into it" it makes a lot of sense to use an unarmed attack! (hands, feet, and head!) Charging at it head first is an unarmed attack! So if you think they MIGHT have used a little of that adamantine to keep the warforgeds head on, It should count as an adamantine weapon! And to the "2 feats for free" remember that the character that this would be used by, the monk, would lose a lot of his class abilities by taking the body feat. Since it's "armor", no wisdom to ac, no evasion, fast move, ect.! I don't see a problem with the added bonus, bypassing DR, for losing a huge amount of class abilities! Other warforged only have their one slam (d4 or d6 with imp. natural att) or two(with the new feat) and unarmed attacks (d4 with imp. unarmed att). I don't see anything earthshattering there! The only thing would be the hardness bypass and I don't see why that should be a problem. Just like silver tracery said "for the purposes of bypassing DR" make the body work the same. The hardness bypass could be added as a feat. (no different than waking up one morning and popping spikes out of your body!) PS: I just looked up a monks unarmed attacks from the SRD. "A monk?s attacks may be with either fist interchangeably or even from elbows, knees, and feet" so add elbows and knees to the list! I'd think elbows&knees MIGHT also be reinforced with adamantine! ;)
Aubri 04-28-05, 10:30 AM	Okay, first, please please for god's sake PLEASE don't quote my entire message! Cut it down to the relevant bits, would you?!? And yes, I'm saying that even if the armor comes with gauntlets, you don't get free adamantine gauntlets. A suit of adamantine armor costs 15k gp--you do NOT get 6k gp worth of weapons for free with that! Shields are a different matter--they count as "adamantine weapon" on the chart, because an adamantine shield has no defensive effect. Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts. Now the gauntlet is armor covering your hands that is also weapon. that takes care of punches.(the most common unarmed attack for non-martial arts trained) If gauntlets work for hands then boots for feet? Same for headbutts and helmets! It's not a big logical leap that boots and helmets should follow the rule for gauntlets. Just because it's armor doesn't mean it's not a weapon also! Thank you for making my point for me. This is absurd. If you don't buy an "Adamantine Weapon", you don't get the weapon. Armor gives DR and NOTHING ELSE. That's the way the text reads.
CelestialBarbarian 04-28-05, 11:22 AM	Okay, first, please please for god's sake PLEASE don't quote my entire message! Cut it down to the relevant bits, would you?!? Yes, because we wouldn't want any extra text on the board! ;) That reminds me of a song. Am I the only one old enough to recall it? (singing) I'm in pieces! Bits and pieces! :D
Aubri 04-28-05, 11:35 AM	Hehe! Well, it's usually considered polite to only quote what you're actually replying to.
CelestialBarbarian 04-28-05, 12:57 PM	Hehe! Well, it's usually considered polite to only quote what you're actually replying to. Like this? ;)
fhilbrandt 04-28-05, 01:01 PM	They also messed up in the orc section: The same error from the ECS book as opposed to the corrected data from the errata. A black dragon taught the original orc druids not a green dragon. And they messed up the spelling of the dragons name one paragraph to the next.
Aubri 04-28-05, 01:39 PM	Like this? ;) "Yes, you're very clever. Now shut up." -Grandfather, The Princess Bride
DolArrah 04-28-05, 03:07 PM	Did anyone notice that in the Moonspeaker prestige class, they used the moon Olarune (I think) twice? I know, that isn't important, but, well, grrrr
elecgraystone 04-28-05, 03:27 PM	Okay, first, please please for god's sake PLEASE don't quote my entire message! Cut it down to the relevant bits, would you?!? And yes, I'm saying that even if the armor comes with gauntlets, you don't get free adamantine gauntlets. A suit of adamantine armor costs 15k gp--you do NOT get 6k gp worth of weapons for free with that! Shields are a different matter--they count as "adamantine weapon" on the chart, because an adamantine shield has no defensive effect. Thank you for making my point for me. This is absurd. If you don't buy an "Adamantine Weapon", you don't get the weapon. Armor gives DR and NOTHING ELSE. That's the way the text reads. So please tell me how an adamantine gauntlet you buy by itself is any differtent than the one that comes "free" with every suit of heavy armor? Or are you saying that you DON'T get a complete suit when you buy adamantine armor? Lets look at the SRD.(added underlining) Banded Mail: The suit includes gauntlets. Chainmail: The suit includes gauntlets. Full Plate: The suit includes gauntlets, heavy leather boots, a visored helmet, and a thick layer of padding that is worn underneath the armor. Half-Plate: The suit includes gauntlets. Scale Mail: The suit includes gauntlets. Splint Mail: The suit includes gauntlets. WOW The RAW seems to think that these suits come with weapons! STill from the SRD. Gauntlet: This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack. The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet. Medium and heavy armors (except breastplate) come with gauntlets. And last but not least. Type of Adamantine Item Item Cost Modifier Ammunition +60 gp Light armor +5,000 gp Medium armor +10,000 gp Heavy armor +15,000 gp Weapon +3,000 gp SO I pay for adamantine plate. Plate INCLUDES gauntlets.(RAW) Gauntlets are weapons.(RAW) 2 weapons free.(RAW) Please quote RAW to disprove. And to cutting the message. My bad. In hurry.
CelestialBarbarian 04-28-05, 03:57 PM	"Yes, you're very clever. Now shut up." -Grandfather, The Princess Bride You know, I saw that movie decades ago and the only thing that I recall about it is the one guy who didn't die saying that he's somebody Montoya and "you killed my father" or something. I don't recall the princess or the male lead at all. Anyway, you should respect your elders. :D
Astin_Dextor 04-28-05, 04:00 PM	Its also got a good deal of practicality behind that decision. English does not have a gender neutral pronoun that can be used on people. He, She, and It are the only pronouns we've got to refer to a single individual, and It implies an animal or an inanimate object, not someone with personality and free will. Actually, English does have the concept of a neutral pronoun, which we inherited from German, but we lack a seperate pronoun (thanks to French), so instead the male pronouns are supposed to double as neutral pronouns in the English language. Sorry, I know it's meaningless, but interesting...well, maybe not intersting either.
CelestialBarbarian 04-28-05, 04:07 PM	Actually, English does have the concept of a neutral pronoun, which we inherited from German, but we lack a seperate pronoun (thanks to French), so instead the male pronouns are supposed to double as neutral pronouns in the English language. Sorry, I know it's meaningless, but interesting...well, maybe not intersting either. Not from German, but from Old Norse. If you're going through the posts on this threat in order, you'll have read that before you read this, but just in case ... ;)
JBW 04-28-05, 04:13 PM	Type of Adamantine Item Item Cost Modifier Ammunition +60 gp Light armor +5,000 gp Medium armor +10,000 gp Heavy armor +15,000 gp Weapon +3,000 gp SO I pay for adamantine plate. Plate INCLUDES gauntlets.(RAW) Gauntlets are weapons.(RAW) 2 weapons free.(RAW) Please quote RAW to disprove Let's look at some of the current rules. When you get an enhancement bonus added to armor that includes gauntlets, that enhancement bonus does not also apply a 'weapon' enhancement to the gauntlets. The guantlets can be enhanced seperately for additional cost. When you get an enhancement bonus added to a shield that includes spikes, that enhancement bonus does not also apply a 'weapon' enhancement to the spikes. The spikes can be enhanced seperately for additional cost. In both cases, the 'weapon feature' is divorced from the armor features. So, if you want your adamantine heavy armor with adamantine heavy gauntlets, you need to pay +21,000 gp. if you were to get an adamantine shield (perhaps to avoid sundering) with adamantine spikes, you would have to pay 3,000 gp for the spikes in addition to whatever an adamantine shield's base upcharge would be. Jay
Astin_Dextor 04-28-05, 04:16 PM	Not from German, but from Old Norse. If you're going through the posts on this threat in order, you'll have read that before you read this, but just in case ... ;) D'oh...Ich bin ein fau svinehund!
CelestialBarbarian 04-28-05, 04:18 PM	Let's look at some of the current rules. When you get an enhancement bonus added to armor that includes gauntlets, that enhancement bonus does not also apply a 'weapon' enhancement to the gauntlets. The guantlets can be enhanced seperately for additional cost. When you get an enhancement bonus added to a shield that includes spikes, that enhancement bonus does not also apply a 'weapon' enhancement to the spikes. The spikes can be enhanced seperately for additional cost. In both cases, the 'weapon feature' is divorced from the armor features. Jay These days weapon features and armor features get divorced at the drop of a hat. When I was a kid I remember the first married couple in the neighborhood to get divorced and what a scandal it was! :D
Astin_Dextor 04-28-05, 04:37 PM	Hmm, possible error on p. 23: Under "Warforged Druid" it indicates that such a character keeps his armor bonus while wild shaped. I... don't see that working unless they (or the local Artificer) enchant their plating as Wild. I was confused by this at first as well, until I realized: the +2 armor bonus is only considered to be light armor, and isn't actually armour, but rather replaces the ability to wear armour. The way I reconciled it in my head is by picturing Warforged Druids as being incredibly consipicuous, (wince they keep their immunities and fortification while wild-shapd) and I just see them wild shaping into construct versions of animlas (like effigies in CA)
elecgraystone 04-28-05, 04:38 PM	Let's look at some of the current rules. When you get an enhancement bonus added to armor that includes gauntlets, that enhancement bonus does not also apply a 'weapon' enhancement to the gauntlets. The guantlets can be enhanced seperately for additional cost. When you get an enhancement bonus added to a shield that includes spikes, that enhancement bonus does not also apply a 'weapon' enhancement to the spikes. The spikes can be enhanced seperately for additional cost. In both cases, the 'weapon feature' is divorced from the armor features. So, if you want your adamantine heavy armor with adamantine heavy gauntlets, you need to pay +21,000 gp. if you were to get an adamantine shield (perhaps to avoid sundering) with adamantine spikes, you would have to pay 3,000 gp for the spikes in addition to whatever an adamantine shield's base upcharge would be. Jay Those are some great rules for enchanting. However they mean nothing for BUYING the base armor. It plainly states that medium and heavy armors (other than breastplate) come with gauntlets. It gives you the cost for a suit or armor to be made of adamantine. Are you saying I have to pay the cost for a gauntlet when I buy a normal suit of armor? Even though the rules say it comes with them? Shields don't come with spikes unless you buy them and put them on. They are seperate. Gauntlets are INCLUDED with armor and a suit isn't a complete suit unless it has all INCLUDED parts. To put it another way, you can put 2 sets of enchantments on a shield. It's a martial weapon and a shield. Because you can enchant it 2 ways it should cost 3000 for the weapon and 5000 for the shield for a grand total of 8000? That makes sense if we go by how it is enchanted, right? Or how about an axe-buckler. A shield weapon. I'd have to buy both aspects? How about double weapons? you pay for enchanting both ends. So a adamantine staff costs twice as much as a adamantine spear because it can be enchantes on both ends? Special material rules and enchanting rules are different. Using one to prove a point about the other IS pointless.
Astin_Dextor 04-28-05, 04:46 PM	#2 the tracery warforged feats do not say anything about unarmed attacks being affected.(only natural weapons and grappling damage) However in the warforged section under monk it said that it does. Which it right? If the latter then what reason could there be for the warforged's normal natural and unarmed attacks not being adamantine if he has the body feat? Tracery=cold iron runs through your body/silver tracery covers body. Adamantine body=layer or adamantine. . Actually, stating that a warforged with Adamantine body's natural attacks are adamantine would be redundant. THe feat grants the WF DR 2/adamantine, and a creature's natural attacks can always overcome their own DR, so a WF with Adamantine body can already overcome */adamantine DR on other creatures.
Astin_Dextor 04-28-05, 05:06 PM	Let's look at some of the current rules. When you get an enhancement bonus added to armor that includes gauntlets, that enhancement bonus does not also apply a 'weapon' enhancement to the gauntlets. The guantlets can be enhanced seperately for additional cost. When you get an enhancement bonus added to a shield that includes spikes, that enhancement bonus does not also apply a 'weapon' enhancement to the spikes. The spikes can be enhanced seperately for additional cost. In both cases, the 'weapon feature' is divorced from the armor features. So, if you want your adamantine heavy armor with adamantine heavy gauntlets, you need to pay +21,000 gp. if you were to get an adamantine shield (perhaps to avoid sundering) with adamantine spikes, you would have to pay 3,000 gp for the spikes in addition to whatever an adamantine shield's base upcharge would be. Jay But in both of those cases, the enhancements are from different spells. The Adamantium question is simply one of materials. Two different spells are needed to enchant things for attack or damage, but a material is a material is a material. It's likely that the free gauntlets are already accounted for in the incredibly high costs of the medium and heavy adamantine armors.
JBW 04-28-05, 05:21 PM	So, if we remove the gauntlets (6,000 gp value) from medium adamantine armor (10,000 gp value), we find that it's cheaper to make medium armors from the metal than to make light adamantine armor (5,000 gp value)? That's pretty silly. If this all applies to masterwork status, then I can swindle out a fortune. Masterwork Scalemail sells for 200 gp. If both Gauntlets are also masterwork, then they each are worth 302 gp. Even if I only sell them for 50% value, I can buy the scale mail, sell the gauntlets and throw the rest of the armor away and I've made a profit of 102 gp. No magic, just materials and workmanship... I think the best ruling would simply be to delete all references that medium and heavy armors include gauntlets. "accesories sold seperately" seems to be a simple and elegant solution. Of course, we are talking about warforged, and no where does it mention that the body feats include gauntlets or that warforged hands act like them in any way. Jay
Astin_Dextor 04-28-05, 05:22 PM	And now for my own noticed errors (had to read whole thread to see if anyone else mentioned them already, although it's been a long read, so I may have forgotten about something at the beginning). #1- The Atavist PrC does not include any manifester levels, but is mentioned as a good choice for Psions, and indeed in the adaptation paragraph suggests turning the manifester levels into caster levels....huh? #2- THe Bladebearer of the Valenar feat states that you treat the Valenar Double Scimitar as a martial weapon and can only be taken by Valenar elves, but in chapter five, it says that Valenar elves replace the normal elf proficiencies with free proficiency in the scimitar, short bow, and (you guessed it), the Valenar Double-Scimitar. The only reason I can see for this is that taking the Bladebearer of the Valenar feat prevents you from going into the Exotic Weapon Master prestige class from CW> #3- The Weapon Augmentation infusions seem to outright defy the spirit of the Artificer Class, by having their range listed as "Creature Touched"...shouldn't this be "Construct Touched"? #4- WHy are the shifter Clawbracers so expensive? THey're basically heavily watered down Amulets of Mighty Fists (exc ept they're bracers) that only work when shifting. Is this really supposed to be something a shifter woulde ver bother considering? #5- Why are the traceries, Jaws of death and spiked body feats? SHouldn't these be warforged components? This is more a personal dislike than an error I guess, but it seems weird that they should turn into pac man over night. :OMG! Also gotta express my dislike for Eyre getting ignored by the Moonspeakers...what, is Eyre not good enough for you you elitist :censored:
JBW 04-28-05, 05:24 PM	Using one to prove a point about the other IS pointless. No, it's not pointless. What it is is an attempt to use what we have to make the most sensible ruling possible for when the rules are not explicit. Jay
CelestialBarbarian 04-28-05, 05:59 PM	Actually, stating that a warforged with Adamantine body's natural attacks are adamantine would be redundant. THe feat grants the WF DR 2/adamantine, and a creature's natural attacks can always overcome their own DR, so a WF with Adamantine body can already overcome */adamantine DR on other creatures. See page 307 of the Monster Manual under "Damage Reduction." The paragraph discussing vulnerability to magic weapons--and only that paragraph--says that the natural attacks of creatures with damage reduction #/magic are treated as magic weapons themselves for the purposes of overcoming damage reduction. Unless there's some rule elsewhere to the contrary, this rule doesn't apply to creatures with other sorts of damage reduction. A flesh golem with DR 5/adamantine does not overcome DR #/adamantine with its natural weapons, just as a barbarian with DR #/- doesn't overcome the DR of other barbarians.
Astin_Dextor 04-28-05, 06:05 PM	I'm not sure where it was printed, but I am certain I've seen it somewhere in the DMG or MM. It wouldn't make any sense otherwise. How the heck are the Demons and Devils supposed to wage the blood war when they hurt eachother?
CelestialBarbarian 04-28-05, 06:20 PM	I'm not sure where it was printed, but I am certain I've seen it somewhere in the DMG or MM. It wouldn't make any sense otherwise. How the heck are the Demons and Devils supposed to wage the blood war when they hurt eachother? Silly! :D Devils have DR #/good, or DR #/silver, or DR #/good and silver. The DR #/good means that the weapon must have a good alignment. Devils' weapon natural attacks have the EVIL alignment so they don't overcome DR #/good anyway. Demons have DR #/good, or DR #/cold iron, or DR #/good and cold iron. Demons' weapon natural attacks have the EVIL alignment so they don't overcome DR #/good anyway. Devils' and demons' natural attacks do not overcome each others' DR. :)
ekomega 04-28-05, 07:15 PM	Actually, stating that a warforged with Adamantine body's natural attacks are adamantine would be redundant. THe feat grants the WF DR 2/adamantine, and a creature's natural attacks can always overcome their own DR, so a WF with Adamantine body can already overcome */adamantine DR on other creatures. Check the Keith FAQ, as I believe there was an official ruling on this. Maybe it was just Keith. Anyway, the point is that the Body feats do NOT give DR capabilities to a warforged's slam. That is why there are Tracery feats. As for the "includes gauntlets" debate, I believe that was flavor text and not meant to imply the weapon "gauntlet" is included. Maybe it was this way so you can't wear other gauntlets than the ones associated with the armor. This would make heavy armor interesting, as some of it would take away a magic item body slot. My advice is to ask the Sage and Customer Service. You'll get two different answers, and both might be wrong, but it'll be "official".
Aubri 04-28-05, 11:53 PM	I think I remember it saying you could replace the gauntlets that come with a suit of armor, but I'm too lazy to look it up right now. Agree on everything else, tho. Well, semi-agree. The 'gauntlet' comment IS supposed to indicate that the noted suits of armor allow you to strike for lethal damage using an unarmed strike, because you have a gauntlet on.
sooperspook 04-29-05, 08:02 AM	Don't know if this has been answered already. I looked but coldnt find one. Page 137 Atavists in the game. ...,the atavist's manifester levels could easily be converted... What manifester levels? The Atavist is a combat class not a 'caster' class.. :confused: EDIT: Oooops! Theres the question already! Nevermind... er... Has anyone got an answer?
LordofIllusions 04-29-05, 08:32 AM	Not really... they tend to kinda jump out at you. Spring-loaded errors hunh ? ~~~
Warchicken 04-29-05, 10:00 AM	Something else that no one else has brought up. I don't have my ECS in front of me right now, so I may be incorrect, but I was paging through the ROE last night and I noticed something in the Warforged section. Under the available classes for Warforged, the entry for bards mentioned that because of the bard ability to wear light armor without a chance of arcane spell failure, a warforged with its composite plating and mithral body could benefit from this class without a problem. I could be wrong, but isn't the mithral body considered as medium armor, not light armor. Or could the wording just be a bit vague for that section.
Aubri 04-29-05, 10:39 AM	I thought so too at first, Warchicken, but nope--Mithral Body is light armor, just like a mithral breastplate. A Warforged has no way to get medium armor, I guess! (Unless maybe Darkwood Body is medium? I don't recall.) Spring-loaded errors hunh ? Haha! Yes. :shocked:
Warchicken 04-29-05, 11:15 AM	Cool. So that Warforged Warmage idea has some substance, especially with the new PrC with the runes (the name escapes me right now) Spell-carved something or the other. Hmm..... :thinks: :plotting: :evillaugh: :mage:
Aubri 04-29-05, 11:23 AM	It'll work, yup. Don't expect to play a Warmage in MY game, though. ;) They just seem completely bland to me. I'd much rather play a Warlock.
Warchicken 04-29-05, 11:30 AM	Currently playing a Warlock right now. Its fun to play one in ECS, especially since I'm the backup for the party's Artificer. Of course I prestiged into Acolyte of the Skin. Nothing says Warlock like when you look like a Devil.
Dragom 04-29-05, 05:00 PM	I could be wrong, but isn't the mithral body considered as medium armor, not light armor. Mithral body is Light Armor Adamantine body is Heavy Armor Composite plating is a racial feature and though it has several armor-like qualities (Like armour bonus and arcane spell failure) it really is not armor.
elecgraystone 04-30-05, 11:51 AM	So, if we remove the gauntlets (6,000 gp value) from medium adamantine armor (10,000 gp value), we find that it's cheaper to make medium armors from the metal than to make light adamantine armor (5,000 gp value)? That's pretty silly. If this all applies to masterwork status, then I can swindle out a fortune. Masterwork Scalemail sells for 200 gp. If both Gauntlets are also masterwork, then they each are worth 302 gp. Even if I only sell them for 50% value, I can buy the scale mail, sell the gauntlets and throw the rest of the armor away and I've made a profit of 102 gp. No magic, just materials and workmanship... I think the best ruling would simply be to delete all references that medium and heavy armors include gauntlets. "accesories sold seperately" seems to be a simple and elegant solution. Of course, we are talking about warforged, and no where does it mention that the body feats include gauntlets or that warforged hands act like them in any way. Jay However, you then do not have a complete suit of armor. You should not get the full benefit of the armor if you sell off parts! When have you seen a suit of plate WITHOUT gauntlets? I'd drop the DR one point if a player tried to sell of parts of his COMPLETE suit of armor. Also, I never said that the mastercrafting for the weapon gauntlets would not be added to mastercrafting for a suit af armor. A gaunlets could be mastercrafted as armor or as a weapon or both. Just as a shield could be mastercrafted as both a shield and a weapon. However, special materials come with mastercrafing. SRD:. Adamantine is so costly that weapons and armor made from it are always of masterwork quality; the masterwork cost is included in the prices given below To restate, a suit or heavy armor without it's gauntlets IS NOT HEAVY ANYMORE because all heavy suits (and mediums except breast plate) include them. That' what the word INCLUDES means You might as well sell off your helmet and breastplate too while your at it! Also, you have to ask yourself, who would BUY the gauntlets? For 6000 I'd get gauntlets, or 10000 for a whole suit WITH gauntlets? As weapons, they are the least impressive there is. D3 (Or D2 small) damage X2 crit. spend 1500 buying a gauntlet from you or buying a weapon I use for 3000? Your only buyer MIGHT be a monk high enouph that his unarmed attack damage is great enouph that he would rather use his unarmed attack instead or monk weapons! Also it states in adamantine body that the warforged is effectively wearing heavy armor. Since heavy armor includes gauntlets, they should be effectively wearing those too. Or helmet!(headbutt works just fine for an unarmed attack!) There is enouph adamantine in the warforged to slow them down 10', inflict a 35% magic fail, max dex +1 and a -5 armor penalty! That has to be more than the traceries!
Vharuck 04-30-05, 01:26 PM	Silly! :D Devils have DR #/good, or DR #/silver, or DR #/good and silver. The DR #/good means that the weapon must have a good alignment. Devils' weapon natural attacks have the EVIL alignment so they don't overcome DR #/good anyway. Demons have DR #/good, or DR #/cold iron, or DR #/good and cold iron. Demons' weapon natural attacks have the EVIL alignment so they don't overcome DR #/good anyway. Devils' and demons' natural attacks do not overcome each others' DR. :) If a creature has the DR, then it's natural attacks can overcome that DR. Dr 10/evil can overcome DR 10/evil.
Mudcrow 04-30-05, 02:25 PM	If a creature has the DR, then it's natural attacks can overcome that DR. Dr 10/evil can overcome DR 10/evil. Actually, I believe they removed that rule in 3.5. Creatures natural attacks don't overcome their DR. However, creatures with alignment subtypes have that alignment extended to natural weapons and weapons they weild. That means a pitfiend will have evil and lawful weapons, but they won't over come DR 15/cold iron and good (Balor DR).
ekomega 04-30-05, 04:21 PM	Also it states in adamantine body that the warforged is effectively wearing heavy armor. Since heavy armor includes gauntlets, they should be effectively wearing those too. Or helmet!(headbutt works just fine for an unarmed attack!) There is enouph adamantine in the warforged to slow them down 10', inflict a 35% magic fail, max dex +1 and a -5 armor penalty! That has to be more than the traceries! Please read the Keith FAQ and ask Customer Service if you are unwilling to refer to the places people refer to. This issue has been covered several times, and it has been explicitly stated that warforged do not overcome DR with the Adamantine Body feat. Their fists do not count as adamantine.
sooperspook 04-30-05, 10:51 PM	#3- The Weapon Augmentation infusions seem to outright defy the spirit of the Artificer Class, by having their range listed as "Creature Touched"...shouldn't this be "Construct Touched"? No more different than Bull's Strength, which Artificers also get. the Artificer casts it on something the target wears. #4- WHy are the shifter Clawbracers so expensive? THey're basically heavily watered down Amulets of Mighty Fists (exc ept they're bracers) that only work when shifting. Is this really supposed to be something a shifter woulde ver bother considering? Are Amulets of Mighty Fists 3.5? I'm not sure what book they're from. Anyway, the cost for the bracers are for 2 +1 weapons. I guess since having two claws is basically equivalent to 2 weapons as you get to attack twice per round.
JBW 04-30-05, 11:49 PM	Are Amulets of Mighty Fists 3.5? I'm not sure what book they're from. Anyway, the cost for the bracers are for 2 +1 weapons. I guess since having two claws is basically equivalent to 2 weapons as you get to attack twice per round I believe that the sample Reachrunner has this amulet. Jay
Egres 05-01-05, 08:29 AM	Removed. Point already solved.
CelestialBarbarian 05-01-05, 09:54 AM	If a creature has the DR, then it's natural attacks can overcome that DR. Dr 10/evil can overcome DR 10/evil. Read the rule I referenced in my original post. Unless you can find a rule to the contrary, don't simply naysay it.
CelestialBarbarian 05-01-05, 09:56 AM	Actually, I believe they removed that rule in 3.5. Creatures natural attacks don't overcome their DR. However, creatures with alignment subtypes have that alignment extended to natural weapons and weapons they weild. That means a pitfiend will have evil and lawful weapons, but they won't over come DR 15/cold iron and good (Balor DR). Correct on both points. By the way, your signature line would sound better as "you called the storm, now reap the whirlwind," as thunder doesn't cause whirlwinds, but a storm might. :)
elecgraystone 05-02-05, 12:34 PM	Please read the Keith FAQ and ask Customer Service if you are unwilling to refer to the places people refer to. This issue has been covered several times, and it has been explicitly stated that warforged do not overcome DR with the Adamantine Body feat. Their fists do not count as adamantine. I asked again because of the new tracery feats. A feat that lets you have trace amounts of a special material and go through DR. The argument before was that there wasn't enouph adamantine to be useful at going through DR. The new feats seem to disagree with that. In light of the new feats, I ask again if they should #1 let the adamantine body feat work like the new tracery feats or #2 have an adamantine tracery feat (with or without hardness reduction) I'm just asking for another look at their rulings. It wouldn't be the first time that they changed their minds and changed a ruling. It can't hurt to ask. It would seem to me that an adamantine tracery feat would be made BEFORE silver or cold iron with the number of constructs around and the small amount of outsiders&fey (cold iron) and lycanthropes(silver) in eberron. The number of creatures whith DR/silver (even adding shifters with shifter defense) and DR/cold iron added together don't come close to the amount of creatures around in eberron with DR/adamantine. IE you have to go out of your way to find someone with a DR/cold iron. Not so with adamantine. Count up the number of creatures with a DR/adamantine in the eberron adventures to date then count up the number with DR/cold iron to see my point. Even excluding warforged (A LOT have the feat) you have constructs!
elecgraystone 05-02-05, 12:40 PM	Actually, I believe they removed that rule in 3.5. Creatures natural attacks don't overcome their DR. However, creatures with alignment subtypes have that alignment extended to natural weapons and weapons they weild. That means a pitfiend will have evil and lawful weapons, but they won't over come DR 15/cold iron and good (Balor DR). Creatures with a DR/magic also count as "magic" for there natural attacks. So a creature with the lawful and good subtypes and a DR/magic counts as a good, lawful, magic weapon when using natural attacks! :D
CelestialBarbarian 05-02-05, 12:48 PM	Creatures with a DR/magic also count as "magic" for there natural attacks. So a creature with the lawful and good subtypes and a DR/magic counts as a good, lawful, magic weapon when using natural attacks! :D A creature with DR/magic treats its natural attacks as magic for purposes of overcoming someone else's DR/magic. The lawful and good subtypes are irrelevant for purpses of overcoming DR/magic.
elecgraystone 05-02-05, 12:59 PM	A creature with DR/magic treats its natural attacks as magic for purposes of overcoming someone else's DR/magic. The lawful and good subtypes are irrelevant for purpses of overcoming DR/magic. I was pointing out that a creature could use it's natural attacks to bypass up to three types of DR. 2 alignment types and magic. Lawful and good could matter if the DR was DR5/magic AND (good or lawful) or something like that. Sorry if you thought I was infering that you somehow needed an alignment subtype to bypass DR/magic. I wasn't. I was just adding DR/magic to the list of DR's that let your natural attacks bypass DR.
Neofish 05-02-05, 01:06 PM	So the feat to learn how to use them (exotic weapon prof.) ISN'T regional but a feat that improves the feat you CAn take is? Again, it should be a racial feat if is SO regional or just a plain old fighter feat. If my gnome was orphaned and raised by the halflings of the plains why couldn't he take it as a fighter feat if it's just about region and not a racial feat? I just find it odd that these two feats don't fit the mold of other feats and I don't understand why? Why should how hard it is to get training if a feat make it only general instead of fighter? WHy should my human fighter that went out of his way to learn the boomerang and has used it since 1st level have to use a general feat when a plains hafling that hadn't picked up it 6th get to use his fighter feat? The fact that some races use a feat more that others shouldn't change what kind of feat it is unless it's a racial feat. I was just looking back and I saw this. It makes perfect sense what Edy said, you take EWP to learn how to use the weapon, even outsiders can teach you how to use one, but to learn all the neat trick you'd have had to had alot more time learning from masters of the dang thing, masters that may not teach thier tricks to outsiders...
elecgraystone 05-02-05, 01:57 PM	I was just looking back and I saw this. It makes perfect sense what Edy said, you take EWP to learn how to use the weapon, even outsiders can teach you how to use one, but to learn all the neat trick you'd have had to had alot more time learning from masters of the dang thing, masters that may not teach thier tricks to outsiders... They teach thier tricks to them as a general feat, why not as a fighter feat? "I can see you are a fighter. Come back to me when you are not training as a fighter and I'll teach you my ancient chinese secret!" I said I would have understood if they were a racial or regional feat. THAT would have ment what you said. no training to outsiders. However, as it is, your treacher is training it to 2 different people as 2 different kinds of feats. "I know you, I'll train you in this feat with your fighter training." (fighter feat) "You I don't know,so I'll train you in this feat in your off time" (general feat) :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: Now don't get me wrong, this feat can work as/is. I just don't like how it works and hope that they will not start making more feats with variable type. IE metamagic,fighter,psionic ect for you but general for you. If they fall into more that 1 type fine but variable?
Aubri 05-02-05, 04:39 PM	I asked again because of the new tracery feats. A feat that lets you have trace amounts of a special material and go through DR. And asking, and asking... :rolleyes: Look, if you need further justification, adamantine DR is an Extraordinary ability while Cold Iron and Silver DR are Supernatural. (From the D&D Rules FAQ.) So silver and cold iron bypass a supernatural damage resistance as a matter of mystical resonances, while adamantine weapons' DR/hardness penetration is purely a matter of physical hardness and mechanical destruction of the target. You really remind me of the little kid who asks his dad if he can have a cookie, and he says no, so he goes and asks mom, and if she says no, he goes and asks grandma... :cookie: Everyone has heard and understood your arguments, and told you you're *wrong*. Give it up already, or at least go start a new thread.
Aubri 05-02-05, 04:39 PM	By the way, your signature line would sound better as "you called the storm, now reap the whirlwind," as thunder doesn't cause whirlwinds, but a storm might. :) That's true, but then it wouldn't be quoting the Ghost commando unit from Starcraft. :)
CelestialBarbarian 05-02-05, 05:01 PM	That's true, but then it wouldn't be quoting the Ghost commando unit from Starcraft. :) I'm not familiar with Starcraft, but I am familiar with good metaphors. ;)
LordofIllusions 05-03-05, 02:16 PM	I saw the Races of Eberron book at Border's bookstore--and actually picked it up to skim it over--but I still have yet to actually really sit down and read through the book for errors and such; so I guess I will take you guys word that they are in there. ~~~
Astin_Dextor 05-03-05, 02:50 PM	Are Amulets of Mighty Fists 3.5? I'm not sure what book they're from. Anyway, the cost for the bracers are for 2 +1 weapons. I guess since having two claws is basically equivalent to 2 weapons as you get to attack twice per round. THey're either the first or second WOndrous Item described in the DMG in the magic items chapter.
Vharuck 05-03-05, 03:05 PM	I saw the Races of Eberron book at Border's bookstore--and actually picked it up to skim it over--but I still have yet to actually really sit down and read through the book for errors and such; so I guess I will take you guys word that they are in there. ~~~ Beware which ones you choose to believe. Some of these are blown out of proportion.
LordofIllusions 05-03-05, 03:30 PM	Beware which ones you choose to believe. Some of these are blown out of proportion. Yes, the WoTC boards' posters are known for their overzealous exaggeration at times. ~~~
atanhel 05-03-05, 07:05 PM	I'm not certain about this, for I haven't had the time to skimm trough this tread entirely ( because WotC:ComBoards was out for a while, and because it's 1 o'clock in the moring and I realy don't feel like it at this hour), but am I the first to notice that the moonspeaker does not refer t0 12 but only eleven moons ( erye seems to be an odd one out...) I think it's a mistake, since Olarune is refered to twice, but wtill it bugs me! They clearly state that a moonspeaker worships all 12 moons ( and it even goes in on the 13th moon... weather that oneis linked to Dal Quor or Xoriat, is not important, altough it gives a good campain hook)! found a few other disturbing mistakes, although I hadn't hat time to write them down, so they conveniently ( for WotC) slipped my mind! not that I dislike the book, it's just... to bad I guess
ekomega 05-04-05, 02:44 PM	Here's one that I'm not sure has been pointed out yet: On page 119, the Construct Lock feat. Under the special section, it says if you use an action point to attack a construct and hit, the attack roll is automatically considered to be a critical threat. The problem is that most constructs are immune to critical hits. Exceptions are Living Constructs, which so far are only warforged, or constructs affected by a Human Essence (or Greater Human Essence) spell. Granted, using an action point to get an automatic critical threat is nuts. Especially if you have a Club of Smiting. But the special ability is so limited, otherwise, that is sucks. It's not exactly an error, but just a bad addition to a feat.
Edymnion 05-04-05, 02:54 PM	Not really. Constructs are only immune to the additional base damage the weapon produces on a crit. If you've got a Flaming Burst weapon, the burst still activates and still does extra damage, even if the creature is immune to criticals. Same for just about every enchantment that relies on a critical to activate. So it works great against Living Constructs, and still has a very real use against normal constructs. Good feat, IMO.
elecgraystone 05-04-05, 04:13 PM	And asking, and asking... :rolleyes: Look, if you need further justification, adamantine DR is an Extraordinary ability while Cold Iron and Silver DR are Supernatural. (From the D&D Rules FAQ.) So silver and cold iron bypass a supernatural damage resistance as a matter of mystical resonances, while adamantine weapons' DR/hardness penetration is purely a matter of physical hardness and mechanical destruction of the target. You really remind me of the little kid who asks his dad if he can have a cookie, and he says no, so he goes and asks mom, and if she says no, he goes and asks grandma... :cookie: Everyone has heard and understood your arguments, and told you you're *wrong*. Give it up already, or at least go start a new thread. My bad. I asked questions! I should know better! I KNOW WOTC NEVER changed anything they have said! :rolleyes: All I asked at start was if anything changed with the adamantine body feat and/or if there should be an adamantine tracery feat because of the addition of silver/cold iron tracery feats in the race of eberron book. One of the reasons adamantine body feat didn't work, I was told, is that there isn't enouph adamantine to bypass DR. The tracery feats would seem to change this assumtion. Everything else was a response to replies. As to extraordinary vs supernatural. From SRD: "Extraordinary: Extraordinary abilities are nonmagical, don?t become ineffective in an antimagic field, and are not subject to any effect that disrupts magic. Using an extraordinary ability is a free action unless otherwise noted." "Supernatural: Supernatural abilities are magical and go away in an antimagic field but are not subject to spell resistance. Supernatural abilities cannot be dispelled. Using a supernatural ability is a standard action unless noted otherwise. Supernatural abilities may have a use limit or be usable at will, just like spell-like abilities. However, supernatural abilities do not provoke attacks of opportunity and never require Concentration checks. Unless otherwise noted, a supernatural ability has an effective caster level equal to the creature?s Hit Dice. The saving throw (if any) against a supernatural ability is 10 + 1/2 the creature?s HD + the creature?s ability modifier (usually Charisma)." ALL I can tell by DR/silver or cold iron is that they don't work in an antimagic field but a DR/adamantine does. Sounds like the DR is a "matter of mystical resonances" not the weapon that disrupts it! The DR is magical (for supernatural DR's), NOT the weapon! The DR is "matter of physical hardness"(for extraordinary DR's), not the weapon! Also from SRD: "Some monsters are vulnerable to certain materials, such as alchemical silver, adamantine, or cold-forged iron. Attacks from weapons that are not made of the correct material have their damage reduced, even if the weapon has an enhancement bonus." So the only question seems to be #1 Should the adamantine body of a warforged be counted as being made of adamantine(ONLY thing needed to bypass DR) and/or #2 should there be a feat like the adamantine tracery. (As the SRD and/or the races book said NOTHING about any "mystic resonance" or anything magical being needed) As an aside, I couldn't find any place that the tracery feats were supernatural abilities. That's the only way I could understand your "mystic resonance" idea. I have only responded to posts put up by others. If you think this line of questions is silly or stupid, then don't respond to my posts. You have made it clear how you feel. And not everyone has told me I'm *wrong*. I've had more that a few people agree with me. "Just because you {are} on the losing side, doesn't mean you {are} on the WRONG side." Firefly
ekomega 05-04-05, 10:42 PM	Look at the artwork for the tracery feat. The warforged is covered in the metal. It's all over him. Compare that to a warforged with the body feat. Yet another piece of evidence. Also, for the crit thing, I usually think of golems when I think of constructs, who are immune to magic. Maybe that's why I thought it was so bad. If you have a mace of smiting, it's nuts.
Keenath 05-04-05, 11:14 PM	Regarding the whole issue of armor and gauntlets and warforged... First off, I see no rule ANYWHERE that says the gauntlets that come with armor are of the same material and quality as the armor itself. Obviously the gauntlets are just off-the-shelf standard-issue unless you buy special, high-powered versions of the same. I mean, look at it: Masterwork Chainmail costs you 450 gp. It comes with two gauntlets. A pair of masterwork gauntlets costs you 604 gp. How can the two gauntlets that come with your chainmail cost more alone than with the armor? That's like charging somebody $800 for four tires, unless they take the car too -- then it'll only be $600! If you want gauntlets made of special materials, you'd have to buy them. Otherwise you get special-material armor with normal quality steel plates over your hands.
Aubri 05-04-05, 11:58 PM	My bad. I asked questions! I should know better! I KNOW WOTC NEVER changed anything they have said! :rolleyes: All I asked at start was if anything changed with the adamantine body feat and/or if blah blah blah Yes, yes, restate your arguments again, it might change the answer. Because, you know, I'm too stupid to remember the course of the whole argument. Again--take it to a new thread, please. Good point, Keenath. Thanks!
fhilbrandt 05-05-05, 10:17 AM	At least one point raised early in the thread seems to have been cleared up. Hellcow responded to a query in his thread that changelings do not have the ability to change size to a Small race. I guess we have to wait for published errata.
elecgraystone 05-05-05, 05:25 PM	Regarding the whole issue of armor and gauntlets and warforged... First off, I see no rule ANYWHERE that says the gauntlets that come with armor are of the same material and quality as the armor itself. Obviously the gauntlets are just off-the-shelf standard-issue unless you buy special, high-powered versions of the same. I mean, look at it: Masterwork Chainmail costs you 450 gp. It comes with two gauntlets. A pair of masterwork gauntlets costs you 604 gp. How can the two gauntlets that come with your chainmail cost more alone than with the armor? That's like charging somebody $800 for four tires, unless they take the car too -- then it'll only be $600! If you want gauntlets made of special materials, you'd have to buy them. Otherwise you get special-material armor with normal quality steel plates over your hands. Gauntlets can be mastercrafted as armor and/or weapons like shields. When you but a mastercrafted suit of armor you get the "armor" mastercrafting. To get the +1 to hit with them you would have to pay the extra for that. SRD:"Adamantine is so costly that weapons and armor made from it are always of masterwork quality; the masterwork cost is included in the prices given below." From this line I don't see why something that is more than 1 category, ie(shield also weapon and gauntlet armor and weapon), shouldn't be mastercrafted BOTH ways. Now still from SRD:"This ultrahard metal adds to the quality of a weapon or suit of armor." And "This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack. The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet. Medium and heavy armors (except breastplate) come with gauntlets" So I buy a suit of armor and get gauntlets free to complete the suit. If I buy a suit of adamantine armor it comes with gauntlets and since it's part of the armor, it's included in the price. Plate includes a helmet, not adamantine? Breastplate comes with helmet and greaves, not adamantine? Chain shirt doesn't get a adamantine cap? So after I buy an adamantine suit of plate I get a NORMAL steel helmet, gauntlets and generic padding? Or mithral? I buy really light armor only to get heavy gauntlets and helmet? I know I'M laughing at the guy walking out of the armory wearing a mis-matched suit of armor! (I got a bridge to sell HIM) Nice new mithril armor with NORMAL steel gauntlets and helmet. To go with your car idea, it would be like buying a car with all the options and finding out it doesn't come with what ALL cars come with like tires or a battery! If you trick out the car, are you really going to put on retreads? As/is RAW states that a complete suit of heavy and medium armor comes with gauntlets. (except breastplate) Special materials makes the suit of armor (should include the gauntlets) out of the material. If not you do not have a complete suit of armor and should have a negative effect. (like reduced DR and AC) If you start removing parts from plate, you end up with breastplate!
elecgraystone 05-05-05, 05:52 PM	Yes, yes, restate your arguments again, it might change the answer. Because, you know, I'm too stupid to remember the course of the whole argument. Again--take it to a new thread, please. Good point, Keenath. Thanks! You said it, not me! :D To make you happy, I'll not respond to you again As I said in my last post to you, I know your position. If you don't want to add anything and just criticize my bringing up an old point in light on new info, then I don't see what we have to talk about. I thought this thread was on things incorrect, missing or confusing in the RoE. I think Adamantine tracery(missing&/or confusing) counts. Also, since adamantine body is also reprinted, I thought asking if anything changed because of the new tracery feats would qualify also. I had a list of questions and this was just one of them. You seem to forget that I'm only 1/2 the posts on this question. The rest are post replying to mine. You and others keep it going by posting. If someone post and i don't agree with it I'm going to respond. Simple as that. SO unless the moderator asks me to move this to a new thread, I think I'm in the right place.
CelestialBarbarian 05-05-05, 06:27 PM	[snip] Now still from SRD:"This ultrahard metal adds to the quality of a weapon or suit of armor." And "This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack. The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet. Medium and heavy armors (except breastplate) come with gauntlets" [snip] As/is RAW states that a complete suit of heavy and medium armor comes with gauntlets. (except breastplate) Special materials makes the suit of armor (should include the gauntlets) out of the material. If not you do not have a complete suit of armor and should have a negative effect. (like reduced DR and AC) If you start removing parts from plate, you end up with breastplate! It does seem logical that if you buy an adamantine version of armor that comes with gauntlets that you get adamantine gauntlets. That would at least suggest that attacks made with the gauntlets would overcome DR #/adamantine. I've never had a player in my game use adamantine armor, at least not since 1st Ed, so I've never ruled on the issue, but as a matter of logic allowing adamantine gauntlets overcome DR #/adamantine makes sense. Most likely the authors of 3.5 simply didn't consider the matter. Since relatively few characters likely to wear gaunlets use their fists as their primarily weapon, likely the issue hadn't received that much attention (although please correct me if there errata or FAQ address the issue). With regard to the warforged, the Adamantine Body feat doesn't specify whether the adamantine covers the surfaces used by the warforged slam attack. I think that Keith Baker has answered the question in the negative, and although he says that his answers don't constitute offical errata, in lieu of offical errata to the contary, I'd accept his answer as definitive. To return to the issue of gauntlets, I can see where a DM might regard the ability to overcome DR #/adamantine as unbalancing. Such a DM could easily restore balance by simply raising the market price of adamantine armor that comes with gauntlets. Because of adamantine's extreme hardness, smiths have a great deal of difficulty working with it, especially when trying to make fine, articulated items like gauntlets. A DM could reasonably rule that a suit of adamantine armor including gauntlets costs, say, and extra 50-100%. With an cost the character would effectively have to pay something for the improved offensive ability he gains with adamantine gauntlets.
elecgraystone 05-05-05, 06:45 PM	I've got a new question. Does a warforged with the unarmored body still count as wearing metal armor for chill/heat metal and repel metal or stone? Does he have the same vulnerability to rusting grasp?How about a 3rd level reforged? How about ironwood body? In essence, How much of the metal is replaced/removed for these feats/class features and is in enouph to remove or reduce the vulnerability form being made of metal. Just thought of another one. Is the second slam a second natural attack or are you attacking twice with the same natural attack? This is important because if it is a second natural attack then the warforged could get multiattack. (2 slams and a bite from jaws of death) If it's the same natural weapon attacking twice then you could use a battle fist to increase the attack from both strikes. One more. Construct lock. To use the special power (IE auto-crit thread with hit&action point use), do you have to use the feats power (IE:paralyzed) or could you just use it for the crit threat and roll to see if you crit? Just one more. Do shifter count as humanlike or human-decended for the human heritage feat? The first line of the shifter section in RoE states "traces their lineage to distant human and lycanthropic ancestors". I'd think yes, but I've seen hellcow say that changlings do not qualify and their text from the eberron book(changed in RoE to read "humanoids" instead of human) said that they come from humans and dopelgangers. He said something about them being a unique species that breeds true. however the same thing can be said about 1/2elves and they qualify. Most 1/2elves in Khorvaire are born of 1/2elf parents. A quote from the RoE. "those {half-elves} that belong to the 2 half-elf dragon-marked houses breed true as a race of their own" Mongrel-kin ARE subtype human and they are made up of just about every humanoid know! I'm inclined to house rule it that both qualify if it turns out neither does. All done now. Rats, I was on a roll.
elecgraystone 05-05-05, 07:08 PM	Ok CelestialBarbarian. Adamantine body has "a layer of adamantine provides forminable armor." Unarmored body states that "your body is crafted without it's normal layer of armor" Unarmored body lets you use armor and robes. So logic tell me that since the adamantine body feat boosts the warforged composite plating, it's not a big jump to think that the layer is to the plating. The unarmored body feat shows that the composite plate takes up the armor/robe slots. So the adamantine should be in the armor/robe slots. And since heavy armor worn should cover the gauntlet slot (since heavy armor includes gauntlets) his fists (and helmet/headbutts!) should be covered in adamantine. So while in never 100% said that it's armor plates are made of adamantine, I can follow the yellow brick road to the logical conclusion. (to grandma's house we go!) As an aside. If you think that having gauntlets of adamantine w/armor may be too powerful, remember that you are wearing something in yout gauntlet/gloves slot when magic items roll around. So free weapon but no magic item unless you enchant it. Also, if you enchant it as a weapon, you pay 50% more for adding gauntlet powers like gauntlets of ogre power. SRD:" For items that do take up a space on a character?s body each additional power not only has no discount but instead has a 50% increase in price." So it's not all bonus. And if you enchant the armor, the gauntlets already have an enchantment (part of armor), so the weapon enchantment AND the wonderous item enchantment both cost 50% more. I think the pro's are balanced by the con's. And thanks for seeing my point of view and saying so! :D
CelestialBarbarian 05-05-05, 07:19 PM	Ok CelestialBarbarian. Adamantine body has "a layer of adamantine provides forminable armor." Unarmored body states that "your body is crafted without it's normal layer of armor" Unarmored body lets you use armor and robes. So logic tell me that since the adamantine body feat boosts the warforged composite plating, it's not a big jump to think that the layer is to the plating. The unarmored body feat shows that the composite plate takes up the armor/robe slots. So the adamantine should be in the armor/robe slots. And since heavy armor worn should cover the gauntlet slot (since heavy armor includes gauntlets) his fists (and helmet/headbutts!) should be covered in adamantine. So while in never 100% said that it's armor plates are made of adamantine, I can follow the yellow brick road to the logical conclusion. (to grandma's house we go!) As an aside. If you think that having gauntlets of adamantine w/armor may be too powerful, remember that you are wearing something in yout gauntlet/gloves slot when magic items roll around. So free weapon but no magic item unless you enchant it. Also, if you enchant it as a weapon, you pay 50% more for adding gauntlet powers like gauntlets of ogre power. SRD:" For items that do take up a space on a character?s body each additional power not only has no discount but instead has a 50% increase in price." So it's not all bonus. And if you enchant the armor, the gauntlets already have an enchantment (part of armor), so the weapon enchantment AND the wonderous item enchantment both cost 50% more. And thanks for seeing my point of view and saying so! :D You're welcome. :) The fact that some types of heavy armor include gauntlets does not mean that every sort of heavy armor has to include gauntlets or that the adamantine plating on a warforged has to cover its hands. The hands make relatively small targets, and a warforged appears to start out with fairly tough hands anyway, so it might make more sense to cover other, larger, and more vulnerable areas with the expensive and hard-to-work adamantine. Remember also that while the warforged treats Adamantine Body as heavy armor for purposes of class abilities that don't work while wearing heavy armor, Adamantine Body does not require the warforged to have proficiency with heavy armor at all. Adamantine Body resembles heavy armor in some ways but doesn't actually constitute heavy armor. I didn't say that I find allowing adamantine gauntlets to penetrate DR #/adamantine unbalanced; I said merely that I could understand that a DM might find it unbalanced. For a DM with who finds it unbalanced I offered a relatively simply means of balancing it.
elecgraystone 05-05-05, 07:47 PM	You're welcome. :) The fact that some types of heavy armor include gauntlets does not mean that all heavy armor has to include gauntlets or that the adamantine plating on a warforged has to cover its hands. The hands made relatively small targets, and a warforged appears to start out with fairly tough hands anyway, so it might make more sense to cover other, larger and more vulnerable areas with the expensive and hard-to-work adamantine. I didn't say that I find allowing adamantine gauntlets to penetrate DR #/adamantine unbalanced; I said merely that I could understand that a DM might find it unbalanced. For a DM with who finds it unbalanced I offered a relatively simply means of balancing it. #1 As/per SRD weapon section "Medium and heavy armors (except breastplate) come with gauntlets." So by RAW all DO. I think the idea is that heavy armor pretty much covers ALL of your body to give you the bonuses AND minuses. And as constructs of war hands are VERY important. No hands=headbutting. Same with feet=crawling. Cheak out the picture on page 18 of RoE. You can see those cord-like parts between the plates on his hand. So I think his "normal" hand is pretty vulnerable. And even if you don't think the hands should be covered, how about the head? Headbutt is an unarmed attack too! Elbow?(also pg18 picture, check out the elbow guards!) Knee? Foot? Gauntlet used only because it's the only "armor" weapon. However I don't see how an elbow/headbutt/knee/kick unarmed attack in full adamantine plate is any different than a fist unarmed attack with a gauntlet. When most people think unarmed attack, punch comes to mind first! All the warforged should need is one on these with adamantine plates on it to qualify. #2 Sorry, I worded it badly.:weep: I didn't mean you when I said "you". I ment a general "you"(anyone reading post). Just wanted to show that ther are some con's.
CelestialBarbarian 05-05-05, 09:49 PM	Even if we assume that the SRD means that all heavy armor anyone introduces must include gauntlets--and I wouldn't make that assumption--remember that Adamantine Body doesn't constitute heavy armor, or indeed, armor at all.
ekomega 05-06-05, 11:21 AM	Just one more. Do shifter count as humanlike or human-decended for the human heritage feat? Keith has stated that he does not believe these feats were designed with Eberron in mind. The book states it works for half-elves because in the PHB half-elves are not true breeding. I think a similar answer stands, so that other races besides humans in Eberron are not considered "descended from humans" if they are true breeding, and therefore do not qualify for these feats. The reason this came up is a changeling, or something, taking human heritage and then manifesting a dragonmark (by RAW). There's no official word, as far as I remember.
ekomega 05-06-05, 11:29 AM	Is the second slam a second natural attack or are you attacking twice with the same natural attack? Construct lock. To use the special power (IE auto-crit thread with hit&action point use), do you have to use the feats power (IE:paralyzed) or could you just use it for the crit threat and roll to see if you crit? For Construct Lock, it does not indicate that you have to use the feat's power, therefore you do not. The feat's power allows you to "forego the confirmation roll", but the special note only indicates that your attack is considered a threat. So you can decide. For second slam, the feat allows you to make a second slam attack in any round that you make a full attack action that includes a slam attack. Clearly this indicates that it is attacking twice with the same slam. Otherwise, you could use two slam attacks and the second would not take a -5 penalty. See the Shield Guardian monster, which has two slams at the same attack bonus. Not to insult you, but these questions are very clear upon reading of the book.
Astin_Dextor 05-06-05, 11:42 AM	On page 119, the Construct Lock feat. Under the special section, it says if you use an action point to attack a construct and hit, the attack roll is automatically considered to be a critical threat. The problem is that most constructs are immune to critical hits. Exceptions are Living Constructs, which so far are only warforged, or constructs affected by a Human Essence (or Greater Human Essence) spell. I can't remember the specifics of the feat, but as I recall, the feat has a special effect on criticals, and this makes the AP for threat thing really, really good.
Aubri 05-06-05, 04:37 PM	Boy, Elec, you sure like to hear yourself quote rules text. *sigh* Anyway, there is not and never will be an Adamantine Tracery feat because it would be so unbalancing in terms of being able to destroy objects at will. If you want to write the feat so it only bypasses DR but not object hardness, go right ahead, but expect your players to ask why. Yes, gauntlets can be masterworked, but a MW suit of armor does NOT come with MW gauntlets! That's the whole point! If the gauntlets used a 'different' masterworking process (which is absurd, since EVERY item has different qualities that make it MW) then trading them for weaponized MW gauntlets should affect the defensive qualities of the armor. It doesn't. I think Adamantine tracery(missing&/or confusing) counts. Yes, and now you've posted the supposed error. And been going on about it for a full page or more. I've got a new question. Does a warforged with the unarmored body still count as wearing metal armor for chill/heat metal and repel metal or stone? Does he have the same vulnerability to rusting grasp?How about a 3rd level reforged? How about ironwood body? If it doesn't explicitly state the change, then yes, they still contain metal. Is the second slam a second natural attack or are you attacking twice with the same natural attack? It's another natural attack. A natural weapon can only attack once per full attack; 2 claws and a bite counts as 3 attacks, so 2 slams count as 2. Sorry, only one battlefist attack per round unless you're a monk or using iterative attacks. Do shifter count as humanlike or human-decended for the human heritage feat? The first line of the shifter section in RoE states "traces their lineage to distant human and lycanthropic ancestors". Probably not, but ask your DM. "Human heritage" seems to be intended for half-humans. The "human descent" phrase suggests to me something related to humans as duergar and derro are to dwarves--not a mixed race that fissioned off long ago, but rather something "mostly human" like an Aasimar or an Elan (from the XPH). Half-elves being a race doesn't matter, since they still have half-human blood--it just comes a quarter from each parent. Again, and call me a Thread Nazi* if you want, while the questions are valid, this is the "Errors in RoE" thread--your questions are better directed to the Ask Keith Baker thread or a new one, if for no other reason than that most people who aren't already reading this thread will never see them down here on the eighth page. *No board for you! One year! :king:
ekomega 05-06-05, 05:01 PM	I can't remember the specifics of the feat, but as I recall, the feat has a special effect on criticals, and this makes the AP for threat thing really, really good. It lets you forego the crit roll and make another attack roll to paralyze the construct for one round. Which I didn't realize, but it is really nasty with the action point ability. Still, the mace of smiting combo is better. A huge advantage for the warforged who fights constructs, no matter what.
ekomega 05-08-05, 03:22 AM	It's another natural attack. A natural weapon can only attack once per full attack; 2 claws and a bite counts as 3 attacks, so 2 slams count as 2. Sorry, only one battlefist attack per round unless you're a monk or using iterative attacks. I disagree. This attack is very conditional, as stated in the feat and as I mentioned above. You only get the extra slam when making a full attack action with your slam. How is that another natural attack? You're not getting another set of claws, or a bite, otherwise you could use them all the time. This feat amends the rules that a natural weapon can only be used once.
Aubri 05-10-05, 10:11 AM	I can see where you're coming from, and it IS an unusual situation--what you basically have is "slam +5 and slam +0 and bite +0". Now, I don't have RoE in front of me at the moment, but I'll try to remember to look this up at home. Could you just tell me this: does it have a Special line that says something like "you may only attack once per turn with your slam"?
elecgraystone 05-11-05, 06:40 PM	For Construct Lock, it does not indicate that you have to use the feat's power, therefore you do not. The feat's power allows you to "forego the confirmation roll", but the special note only indicates that your attack is considered a threat. So you can decide. For second slam, the feat allows you to make a second slam attack in any round that you make a full attack action that includes a slam attack. Clearly this indicates that it is attacking twice with the same slam. Otherwise, you could use two slam attacks and the second would not take a -5 penalty. See the Shield Guardian monster, which has two slams at the same attack bonus. Not to insult you, but these questions are very clear upon reading of the book. It could be that they made it another attack. Unless you have the dual wield feat, pounce or something like that you can only make one attack unless you make a full attack action, so the fact that you have to use one to use the feat doesn't really mean anything. A bear can only use it's bite and claws attacks at the same time with a full attack action. They are different attacks, not multiples of the same attack! If you are right and you attack with a sword and use your slam as a secondary attack, is the second slam a -10? (-5 secondary natural attack and -5 2nd secondary attack?) I asked this question because if it is like you think it breaks the rule that you only get one attack per natural attack form. I agree that normally if you have more than one of a natural attack form (IE 2 claws) they use the same attack, but normally you can't use a natural attack twice either. So both ways break the rules! It could be that you are using your other arm for the extra slam. (Just like large+ creature can have 2 slams) from SRD:"Slap or Slam: The creature batters opponents with an appendage, dealing bludgeoning damage." They have 2 arms. Normally, they could use either arm for their slam attack. This feat could be the ability to use BOTH (like 2 weapon fighting), with a -5 on one because they can't normally use both at once. I can see this feat working both ways. Both have pro's and con's. And as you can see, it couldn't be THAT clear because I'm not the only one to see this different that you. As to the construct lock, that IS the way I read it, I was just making sure! Just bringing up the fact that as/is, it's pretty nasty! Wanted to make 100% sure.
ekomega 05-11-05, 08:48 PM	I mentioned this problem in another thread. No matter what, Second Slam has to break the rules. There are two options: Option 1) Second slam adds a second slam attack, but it is at a -5 penalty, and can only be made during a full attack action. This gives you a second slam attack, i.e. a second natural attack, but it is very limited in its use and not as functional as any other natural attack you could add on (i.e. a bite). If it is really a second natural attack, then the -5 penalty would imply that this is the secondary attack and the first slam is the primary natural attack. However, you can still only use it in a full attack action. If you use another weapon, and have both natural attacks as secondary, both natural attacks would normally have a -5 bonus (unless you had multiattack). However, I believe the intent is that the first slam would be -5 (the primary one) and the second would be -10 (the secondary one). Otherwise, why did they state the -5, instead of just saying "as any other secondary attack, it takes a -5 penalty when used with a primary attack" or whatever? This is very confusing and needs clarification. Compare to adding a bite attack, where a character makes a full attack with a weapon, and a slam and a bite as secondary. Both the bite and slam would be at -5, with no need to state that. However, this feat does state -5. Were they just making sure you remembered, or that there's an additional -5? I believe the intent is the latter, an additional penalty for a second slam. Option 2) Second Slam adds an iterative attack for your slam attack. This breaks the rule of only being able to attack once with any natural weapon, even as part of a full attack. However, in the context of using a weapon and making slam attacks as secondary, it makes the -10 penalty suggested earlier much more reasonable. This way, the first slam gets a -5 per being a secondary attack, and the second slam gets a -10, because it is an iterative attack of the first slam. I don't know what the intent was, or if the -10 penalty was the intent. I think it was. Option 2 is a lot easier to deal with because it breaks a rule that I think is easier to break, whereas Option 1 is more confusing. However, it is confusing overall, especially when you can take a feat and add a bite attack and forego any of this second slam nonsense, and the possibility of a -10 penalty to attack with the second slam. Upon examining closer, it is all up to personal preference and how you want to rule, until errata comes out. I hope they clarify this.
Zunishahd 05-12-05, 02:25 PM	RoE pg. 50 "Changeling Holidays" -There is no mention as to which day in particular the Feast of the Traveller is celebrated. likewise; RoE pg. 65 "The Void of Taratai" -no dates provided, and The Days of Remembrance implies that each Spirit has a set 5-day span that all Kalashtar observe across Khorvaire.
Dragom 05-12-05, 02:37 PM	It's the feast of the Traveller... I'm sure you don't know which day it's on unless someone tells you. And they could be lying :rolleyes:
ekomega 05-12-05, 03:01 PM	likewise; RoE pg. 65 "The Void of Taratai" -no dates provided, and The Days of Remembrance implies that each Spirit has a set 5-day span that all Kalashtar observe across Khorvaire. I thought it specifically said that most kalashtar don't celebrate most of the holidays. Otherwise, their whole year would be holidays. They only celebrate the holidays of the spirits that inhabit the kalashtar in their community, and even then, maybe not so much. Let me check and... "Few kalashtar communities have representatives from more than ten lines, so in any given community there isn't a celebration every week." Page 65, "The Days of Remembrance." So yeah, that's not an error. As for the omission of the 5 days that they all celebrate, The Void of Taratai, I don't believe that is an error. Leaving it out is not an error. If anything, they probably wanted DMs to make it whenever they want instead of forcing something on DMs.
Dragom 05-12-05, 03:52 PM	Option 3: second slam gives you a second slam attack like some golems have. Indicating that you slam first with the left and then with the right arms. Both slams being at full ATB. This would allow you to use a slam as an light off hand weapon when making full attacks or allow you to, when weaponless and shieldless, make two slams. How natural weapons work when used in combination with other attack-forms is something that is often underexplained in D&D. Claws, bites and slams do tend to get confusing when in combination with single weapon fightering, two-weapon fighting and monks flurries. This entire area of D&D could use a good deal of clarification. Not for me of course, I figure I know how this stuff should work. And as such I will explain how it should be, You could use claws and slams (With the second slam feat), with out another feat, to make two attacks at full or when wearing a shield make a single attack (No second slam feat required for that), or when wielding a weapon in one hand you can treat the single slam or claw as light weapons (Second slam required here, and two-weapon fighting also helps here). And a Bite is always at -5 and is just tacked (if you want to use it) on whenever you make a full attack, unless you decide to use it as a primary mode of attack and forgo all other attacks, like in a charge, at which point its at full ATB.
elecgraystone 05-12-05, 04:09 PM	Option 3: second slam gives you a second slam attack like some golems have. Indicating that you slam first with the left and then with the right arms. Both slams being at full ATB. This would allow you to use a slam as an light off hand weapon when making full attacks or allow you to, when weaponless and shieldless, make two slams. How natural weapons work when used in combination with other attack-forms is something that is often underexplained in D&D. Claws, bites and slams do tend to get confusing when combination with single weapon fightering, two-weapon fighting and monks flurries. This entire area of D&D could use a good deal of clarification. Not for me of course, I figure I know how this stuff should work. Can't work as written. second attack is at -5 (per feat), so it's option #1 or #2 unless you change the feat. Natural attacks normally can't be used "off hand". If used with a melee attack them are -5 (-2 or -0 with multi attack/imp. multi attack). It doesn't matter that it's light. Now the razorclaw shifter trait lets you use your "off" claw as a "light off-hand weapon" taking a -2 to all attacks (like flurry), but this is an exception. It's like a "claw-flurry of blows" more than "2 weapon fighting" with claws. It would have made more sense to make the secondary claw attacks from the trait take a -2 than do it this way, but thet's the way it is. This makes it more confusing trying to figure out what they were thinking with the 2-slam feat.
Dragom 05-12-05, 05:53 PM	I know whats written. I just think it's a little less important then what works. Wizards simply has not put a lot of thought into how Natural weapon attacks and normal weapon attacks work when combined into a single full attack of various kinds.
Greyman 05-13-05, 04:37 AM	Manufactured Weapons: Some monsters employ manufactured weapons when they attack. Creatures that use swords, bows, spears, and the like follow the same rules as characters, including those for additional attacks from a high base attack bonus and two-weapon fighting penalties. This category also includes “found items,” such as rocks and logs, that a creature wields in combat— in essence, any weapon that is not intrinsic to the creature. Some creatures combine attacks with natural and manufactured weapons when they make a full attack. When they do so, the manufactured weapon attack is considered the primary attack unless the creature’s description indicates otherwise and any natural weapons the creature also uses are considered secondary natural attacks. These secondary attacks do not interfere with the primary attack as attacking with an off-hand weapon does, but they take the usual –5 penalty (or –2 with the Multiattack feat) for such attacks, even if the natural weapon used is normally the creature’s primary natural weapon.Simply put, a warforged can normally use a slam in addition to attacks with a manufactured weapon, but it is considered a secondary attack (and thus is made at a -5 penalty to the attack bonus, and only adds 1/2 times the character's strength bonus). With Jaws of Death, the warforged can also make a bite attack, which is again a secondary attack (whether or not the warforged attacks with a manufactured weapon). Second Slam, however, poses a problem of whether it is a secondary natural attack, or if the feat provides a quirky iterative mode to a natural attack sequence. That is, do you add 1/2 times your strength bonus (as for secondary attack) or 1+1/2 times your strength bonus (as for a primary attack), and when used in conjunction to an attack with a manufactured weapon, is it made at -5 or -10? (Personally, I read the feat as providing an iterative sequence to a natural attack mode.)
elecgraystone 05-16-05, 02:12 PM	Simply put, a warforged can normally use a slam in addition to attacks with a manufactured weapon, but it is considered a secondary attack (and thus is made at a -5 penalty to the attack bonus, and only adds 1/2 times the character's strength bonus). With Jaws of Death, the warforged can also make a bite attack, which is again a secondary attack (whether or not the warforged attacks with a manufactured weapon). Second Slam, however, poses a problem of whether it is a secondary natural attack, or if the feat provides a quirky iterative mode to a natural attack sequence. That is, do you add 1/2 times your strength bonus (as for secondary attack) or 1+1/2 times your strength bonus (as for a primary attack), and when used in conjunction to an attack with a manufactured weapon, is it made at -5 or -10? (Personally, I read the feat as providing an iterative sequence to a natural attack mode.) Yep! Like I said either a possible second attack with your battle fist or being able to qualify for multiattack (2 slams and a bite. Adding a new secondary attack makes more sense to me but I have a feeling that they ment it to be a second attack with your existing slam. The extra-secondary attack just uses less paperwork. If you take the 2 weapon fighting tree you could end up with three sets of iterative attacks if you go with the second idea! At this point, both work, so it will be up to DM's to pick one until the errata comes out. Also noticed something interesting thas weekend. Combine the special ability from construct lock feat with the lightning mace style feat. Nasty! You get to add your action point to to your attack, threaten with any attack that hits and gain an extra attack if you hit (because any hit threatens!). Man, warforged can put the smackdown on each other! :eek:
drasticale 05-16-05, 07:03 PM	The gauntlets are specifically made weapons to deal out lethal damage. Look at someone wearing fullplate, and yes they have gauntlets, but they still do nonlethal damage; because in essence... the gauntlet is meant to stop blows, and turn swords that have made it past the guard on the parrying weapon... <The above was just hot air... I'm an idiot, who forgot that he was just reading about gauntlets and armor in the PH; and somehow let every single rule disappear out of his tiny little mind.> So, specially made masterwork gauntlets <spikes come to mind> cost more... Not only do you dole out lethal damage; but you get a +1 to your attack... Now, if only you could get past that whole AoO thing. And yes, I have seen a set of full plate without gauntlets... just not many. ;)
Euangelion 05-17-05, 12:21 AM	The gauntlets are specifically made weapons to deal out lethal damage. Look at someone wearing fullplate, and yes they have gauntlets, but they still do nonlethal damage; because in essence... the gauntlet is meant to stop blows, and turn swords that have made it past the guard on the parrying weapon... So, specially made masterwork gauntlets <spikes come to mind> cost more... Not only do you dole out lethal damage; but you get a +1 to your attack... Now, if only you could get past that whole AoO thing. And yes, I have seen a set of full plate without gauntlets... just not many. ;) I'm confused. I thought that regular gauntlets did lethal bludgeoning damage while spiked gauntlets did lethal piercing damage, and neither one provokes an AoO. Did I miss something in the conversation altogether?
drasticale 05-17-05, 12:42 AM	Eh, and I mispoke.... I meant that having gauntlets specially made was where you'd garner the masterwork bonus, not from buying masterwork armor... If you have to look at it this way... masterwork armor comes with a set of regular gauntlets. And as I took it, considering that attacking with gauntlets that aren't spiked are considered an unarmed attack, they would still provoke an AoO unless you had Imp. Unarmed Strike.
Gurv 05-17-05, 12:54 AM	I'm confused. I thought that regular gauntlets did lethal bludgeoning damage while spiked gauntlets did lethal piercing damage, and neither one provokes an AoO. Did I miss something in the conversation altogether? You are mostly correct. You are only mistaken in that normal attacks with normal gauntlets are actually still considered unarmed attacks (and may therefore provoke AoO). A rundown: Gauntlets, (which come as part of a suit of banded mail, chainmail, full plate, half-plate, scale mail, or splint mail) are simple weapons that deal lethal damage (which happens to be the same amount as the nonlethal damage dealt by an unarmed attack from a creature of the same size) but otherwise function as an unarmed attack. A spiked gauntlet is a simple light weapon that deals slightly more lethal damage than normal gauntlets and counts as an armed attack when used. They do not come free with any type of armor and must be purchased seperately. Whether purchasing a masterwork suit of armor means that you get a masterwork pair of gauntlets is not covered in the RAW. It seems unlikely that it would be so, since it would ultimately result in people buying masterwork armor and selling the gauntlets off at a profit.
Euangelion 05-17-05, 08:51 PM	Thanks for the clarification.
Save-vs-DM 05-18-05, 08:05 AM	Okay, I'm not quite sure of this is an error, but it's bugging the heck out of me. The Dancing With Shadows Feat Graceful Lunge grants you a bonus on your attack roll the round after you fight defensively equal to the penalty. Linger Defense gives you a bonus to your ac without the penalty to attack rolls that round. Isn't this the exact same thing just worded differently? For example - Bob the Kalashtar uses graceful lunge after taking a -4 on his ac from combat expertise. The next round he gets a +4 bonus to his attack roll and a -4 penalty to his attack roll from combat expertise, for a net bonus of +0 Bob then uses Lingering Defense taking -4. Bob no longer has to fight defensively to gain the bonus +4 to ac and has a net +0 to his attack. I can't figure out the difference between these two options. (It's a great feat though) Someone PLEASE tell me if Avatists have manifster levels or not! If you are a monk/soulkinfe and take levels of avatist, do both your unarmed damage and soulblade damage improve? What happens when you posses Soulblade Warrior and then gain Free Draw? Do you manifest a mind blade as a swift action or a free action? Other than thought, didn't spot any errors that havn't been pointed out already. Later, Save vs DM
Sarlax 05-18-05, 01:12 PM	The Dancing With Shadows Feat Graceful Lunge grants you a bonus on your attack roll the round after you fight defensively equal to the penalty. Linger Defense gives you a bonus to your ac without the penalty to attack rolls that round. Isn't this the exact same thing just worded differently? Nope. They're different, even in the way you wrote them. Here's how they'd work. Graceful Lunge: Round 1: Kal uses Combat Expertise to take a -3 on attacks and gains a +3 to AC. Round 2: Kal has a +3 to his first melee attack (the previous round's bonus now applies to attacks regardless of whether he's still using Combat Expertise). Lingering Defense: Rounds 1 & 2: Kal uses Combat Expertise to take a -4 on attacks and gain a +4 to AC. Round 3: Kal has a +4 to AC but no penalty to any attack rolls. Each of these two options gives you a bonus once you're done using Combat Expertise, but each maneuver gives a different bonus.
Sarlax 05-18-05, 04:56 PM	If you are a monk/soulkinfe and take levels of avatist, do both your unarmed damage and soulblade damage improve? That's what a normal reading suggests, but the first sentence for that ability says: "You gain the ability to deal extra damage with a particular favored type of attack." That suggests that it's just one attack. Compare it to prestige classes which increase caster level, which specify that if the PC has multiple suitable casting classes, it can only pick one whose caster levels increase. However, I don't think it would be unbalancing to allow both abilities to improve. You can't deal both damage values on a single attack, which means that a monk/soulknife/atavist will be choosing on each attack whether to use his Unarmed Strike or his Mind Blade. What happens when you posses Soulblade Warrior and then gain Free Draw? Do you manifest a mind blade as a swift action or a free action? You'd manifest it as a free action, I'd rule. Just as bonuses overlap, I'd say that Free Draw overlaps with the Soulblade Warrior benefit. And it's absurd to have a feat that weakens your normal version of this ability.
elecgraystone 05-19-05, 12:37 PM	Whether purchasing a masterwork suit of armor means that you get a masterwork pair of gauntlets is not covered in the RAW. It seems unlikely that it would be so, since it would ultimately result in people buying masterwork armor and selling the gauntlets off at a profit. If someone sold off his masterwork gauntlets, I wouldn't let them have the -1 ACP for masterwork! Like a race car with bald tires! you need ALL the car it top shape! I'd say that they are masterwork (armor) not masterwork (weapon). So a gauntlet w/ a masterwork suit could be enchanted but offers no attack bonus. I'd say the same thing would be true of other weapon/armors like the dwarven buckler-axe. It could be either, neither or both! ;) The part I brought up is that adamantine items are always mastercrafted. There is nothing that said that if an item falls under more than one subset (Ie armor/weapon/shield) that it is mastercrafted in only one aspect. SRD: "Adamantine is so costly that weapons and armor made from it are always of masterwork quality" Since a gauntlet is a weapon AND armor, It should be masterwork in both ways. Just as my buckler-axe should be both. It's part of the cost of the adamantine.