Core Rules Errata

[Solomoriah]

Because not all the monster descriptions were done by the same person, or at the same time.

Consistency, they say, is a hobgoblin. However, if someone wants to provide a breakdown of the monsters that need to be updated, I'll put them into my in-progress next release. Yes, I do plan to release updated rules, and eventually a 3rd Edition; but I will still hold to the plan that nothing major changes, just as with 1st vs. 2nd Editions. No edition should ever be truly obsolete.

[Sir Bedivere]

I'll provide a breakdown of the monsters w/ AC discrepancies (armor, AC, armored/unarmored movement) in the next week or two.

I agree w/ not making major changes. Doesn't it just need some corrections to resolve the errata? Well, I'm sure new spells, gear, and monsters could always be added, too. Is there anything else you're thinking about for the 3rd edition?

[swirler]

where is the errata listed? I haven't found it.

[Solomoriah]

Ah, because it doesn't actually exist yet. This thread, and the comments for the core rules, are about all there is of it right now.

[Sir Bedivere]

Well, the weeks have come and gone. I started a new job and got swamped by work, so my RPG time has plummeted. I still plan on going through the monsters for the armor & armored movement discrepancies, but it will probably be December before I'm done. If it needs to be done sooner, I provided a decent start earlier in this thread that someone else can build on.

Meanwhile, are there going to be any new monsters in the next release? If so, I should check them as well.

[Solomoriah]

No new monsters. No new anything. It is my firm goal to never produce a copy of the core rules that makes a previous copy in any way invalid.

As to the errata checking, there's no rush. If I get a 3rd edition done by this time next year, I'll be surprised. It's not so broke as to need fixing that fast.

[swirler]

No new monsters. No new anything. It is my firm goal to never produce a copy of the core rules that makes a previous copy in any way invalid.

I'm James Davis and I approve this message.

[Sir Bedivere]

Monsters, Armor Class, and Movement: Errata

I've gone through the whole monster section in the Core Rules looking at AC & movement rates, and here are the errata:

1. On p. 54 in the paragraph titled "Movement," there is the following sentence: "For example, Goblins have a normal walking movement of 20', and this is all that is listed for them." Actually, Goblins also have an unarmored movement rate listed.

2. Centaurs, cloud/fire/frost/hill/stone/storm giants, orcs, and minotaurs need to have armored movement rates listed.

3. For humanoid leaders, like hobgoblin chieftains, it might be useful to list their armored movement rate, which (due to higher AC) is lower than the regular hobgoblin movement rate. (Also goblins, orcs, etc.)

4. The cyclops is listed as having the same dress as the hill giant. The hill giant's furs, etc., presumably give him his armored AC, but the cyclops doesn't have an armored AC listed. If the cyclops DOES have the same AC as a hill giant, then both its AC and the movement need to be adjusted.

5. It would be useful for the descriptions for cloud & storm giants, gnomes, hobgoblins, kobolds, lizard men, minotaurs, ogres, and urgoblins to mention what kind of armor they wear.

I would be happy to go through these and make any changes Solomoriah agrees on.

[Sir Bedivere]

In addition to actual errata, there were some odd things when I compared movement and AC for the various monsters in the core rules.

One example would be that gnomes, who are 3 to 3 & 1/2 feet tall, humans, and cloud giants, who are 18 feet tall, all have a base movement rate of 40'. It seems to me that gnomes should have an unarmored rate less than 40' and giants should have one greater than 40', if we take humans as the measure of things.

There are several other anomalies like this that I noted, but it might be the sort of thing Solomoriah has determined not to change for backwards compatibility reasons.

I'd be happy to work on adjusting movement rates IF this sort of thing would be useful. What do you think?

[Solomoriah]

First of all, thank you for spending so much time finding all this!

Regarding your last post: Movement rates for all player character races are set at the same figure intentionally. Some "advanced" games apply a distinct, indeed prohibitive, penalty to movement for the small characters; however, given that we credit them with Strength nearly as good as the big 'uns, that, combined with smaller size and lighter weight, makes up for the shorter legs. IMO, of course, but that's how I wrote it. Also, it follows the "target edition."

Movement for giants is intentionally penalized because of their greater weight; I can think of more complicated ways to represent their greater inertia, but simply keeping movement rates low is easy, and backwards compatible as well.

This is my thinking, anyway.