 |
Ye Olde Gaming Companye
Community Forum
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
JimLeCat
Strategoi
Joined: 01 Feb 2010
Posts: 31
|
 Posted: Sun May 02, 2010 10:37 am Post subject: Possible errata? |
 |
|
Hi,
I'm not sure if all of these qualify as errata. If you agree, then I'll move them to the errata thread.
Example characters, P.165 - where does her +2/+2 bonus with a dagger come from? She has no relevant disciplines and no relevant magic items that I can see.
Robe of the Mage, P.216 - power 4 says '...in half the normal time (4 hours).' 4 hours is the normal time, so shouldn't this say 2 hours?
NPCs, P.239 - '...flush out every detail...' - should this not be '...flesh out every detail...' ?
Cheers,
Jim |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
JimLeCat
Strategoi
Joined: 01 Feb 2010
Posts: 31
|
| Posted: Sun May 02, 2010 1:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, and the character sheet for James T. Swill III lists ambidexterity as a discipline, but gives his handedness as Right!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JimLeCat
Strategoi
Joined: 01 Feb 2010
Posts: 31
|
| Posted: Sun May 02, 2010 2:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
... and Artemis Gould is shown as having one unused discipline point, when by my calculations he has used all of them - and one too many proficiency points!
Also, why is his to-hit modifier with a shortbow listed as +4?
Cheers,
Jim |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JimmySwill
YOGC Staff
Joined: 02 Jan 2008
Posts: 1390
Location: Torsche
|
| Posted: Sun May 02, 2010 2:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wow, Jim. Ok!
| Quote: |
Example characters, P.165 - where does her +2/+2 bonus with a dagger come from? She has no relevant disciplines and no relevant magic items that I can see.
Robe of the Mage, P.216 - power 4 says '...in half the normal time (4 hours).' 4 hours is the normal time, so shouldn't this say 2 hours?
NPCs, P.239 - '...flush out every detail...' - should this not be '...flesh out every detail...' ? |
Yes, yes and yes. All issues. -I think that dagger was supposed to be magical. Will add to errata.
| Quote: | | Oh, and the character sheet for James T. Swill III lists ambidexterity as a discipline, but gives his handedness as Right! |
Actually, that isn't necessarily incorrect. Jimmy has a -1 with his off-hand (his left) after he purchased Ambidexterity. Now, it is debatable as to what would happen if Jimmy lost his right hand... interesting.
I'll calculate Artemis' points when I get a chance, but you are right about his bow.
Thanks Jim. We should have had you around when we were proofing!
_________________
Take a page out of the Unicorn Bible and dance all night by the Light of the Dragon's flame. -Champions of Breakfast |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JimLeCat
Strategoi
Joined: 01 Feb 2010
Posts: 31
|
| Posted: Sun May 02, 2010 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So, you consider him trained ambidextrous rather than naturally so, with a definite bias otherwise?
That reminds me of another couple of points I wanted to clear up. Firstly, does ambidextrous need to be taken as part of the character background, or can you choose it later on? Secondly, as written the discipline implies that while a character must have an on-hand and off-hand, they could switch between them. If you agree with this, would you be OK with a character switching during combat - say by declaring at the start of a round that they are doing so?
And I wouldn't say I'm necessarily that good as a proof reader - more that I've been paying attention to details to get a feel for the rules. I've been converting characters from old D&D modules (Irilian atm) to get a handle on the char gen.
Cheers,
Jim |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JimmySwill
YOGC Staff
Joined: 02 Jan 2008
Posts: 1390
Location: Torsche
|
| Posted: Sun May 02, 2010 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JimLeCat wrote: | | Firstly, does ambidextrous need to be taken as part of the character background, or can you choose it later on? |
Any discipline can be learned, so yes, you can choose it later on. I suppose one would practice doing everything with their off-hand for a good while. (Actually, that would e an interesting thing to try...)
| Quote: | | Secondly, as written the discipline implies that while a character must have an on-hand and off-hand, they could switch between them. If you agree with this, would you be OK with a character switching during combat - say by declaring at the start of a round that they are doing so? |
To be honest, I'm not immediately sure how I would rule here. I don't think it's critically different either way, but I am leaning towards the assumption that ambidexterity makes your off-hand nearly as good as your on-hand, but that they aren't made equal. I could see it reasonable to assume the latter though. I'm non-committal here. Even so, if you wanted to switch weapons each round and look all fancy, you'd need Quick Draw, or you'd lose your 'off-hand' attack for the round. Ha! There it is. Either way you cut it, you have an off-hand. Ha! Ha! But that reasoning assumes that Quick Draw isn't unnecessary if you have Ambidexterity! What have you done, Jim?! 
Ok, here it is: Even with Ambidexterity, you technically have an off-hand. Jimmy Swill's record sheet is correct. Actually, the note under Ambidexterity suggests to me I might have walked down this road of confusion before: Note: Ambidexterity only reduces off-hand attack penalties; it does not enable a character to employ special skills, such as Multiple Attacks, with his ‘off-hand’ weapon.
Thanks Jim. That was kind of fun.
_________________
Take a page out of the Unicorn Bible and dance all night by the Light of the Dragon's flame. -Champions of Breakfast |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
