Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Bryarr 11-03-03, 05:14 AM	Ok, I'm looking at the spell description of blasphemy. Here's the relevent part. Range: 30ft. Area: Nonevil creatures in a 40ft.-radius spread centered on you. Sooooo....which is it? Is this an error? Bry
Hypersmurf 11-03-03, 06:21 AM	Holy Word, Dictum, and Word of Chaos all say Range: 40 ft., and Area: 40 ft. radius. Blasphemy's range is a typo. -Hyp.
Shadowfax7 11-03-03, 11:25 AM	Agree with Hypersmurf . . . now for the rant. WOTC put out the 3.5 PHB errata after the book was out 3 months and it was less than 2 pages !!! Couldn't they have taken their "time" and included all the errors which were blatant ? or must there be successive erratas ? :mad:
Seeker95 11-03-03, 02:48 PM	The errata is to change errors that affect game mechanics. In the blasphemy example, the typo does not affect game mechanics. Regardless of what the "range" says, the area of effect takes obvious precedence. "40' radius, centered on caster" supercedes any range listing. Many of the things we vocal ranters (read: members of the discussion boards) consider errors are typos or text disagreements. Very few of the typos affect mechanics, and most of the text disagreements have an existing order or primacy. Beyond that, there have been very few errors affecting game mechanics. There happen to be a lot of things the boards population simply disagrees with and likes to argue about.
Hypersmurf 11-03-03, 03:15 PM	In the blasphemy example, the typo does not affect game mechanics. Regardless of what the "range" says, the area of effect takes obvious precedence. "40' radius, centered on caster" supercedes any range listing. No, it doesn't. "A spell’s range is the maximum distance from you that the spell’s effect can occur, as well as the maximum distance at which you can designate the spell’s point of origin. If any portion of the spell’s area would extend beyond this range, that area is wasted." By the definition of the "Range" entry, the range listing supercedes the area. If we did not have the other three aligned spells to compare the stat block against, Blasphemy would be a 40 foot radius that could only affect things within 30 feet. We would have no way of knowing if the entries were both correct (which, while possible, is unlikely), or if only one were correct, which one it should be. It is an error, it does affect game mechanics, and it belongs in the errata. Fortunately, we do have three other mechanically-equivalent spells to compare it to. -Hyp.
Seeker95 11-03-03, 05:03 PM	HyperSmurf, in this case, for the hyper-literal reading to affect game mechanics, you have to leave your brain at the door. But I realize I am beating a dead horse. Some people really enjoy making every typo into a meta-catastrophe. Identifying an easy solution simply ruins their day.
Hypersmurf 11-03-03, 05:26 PM	HyperSmurf, in this case, for the hyper-literal reading to affect game mechanics, you have to leave your brain at the door. Seeker - if there weren't three other spells to compare it to, how would you know if the spell should actually read: Range: 30 ft. Area: Non-evil creatures in a 30 ft. radius or Range: 40 ft. Area: Non-evil creatures in a 40 ft. radius ? It seems likely there's a typo, but how do you know which figure is wrong? In the absence of further information, the rules are clear - any area that extends beyond the range of the spell is wasted, so 30' is the limit. As it happens, we have further information, so we know which figure is the typo. But if it weren't for those three other spells, the fact that we wouldn't know which figure is wrong means that the typo is an error that affects game mechanics. "Leave your brain at the door"? Someone transposed their 3 and 4 keys while typing the spell. But how would you know when? The easy solution is "Compare to Holy Word". But saying "Just ignore the typo" is not the easy solution when it's not clear what the typo is... -Hyp.