5e Bug Reports (Part 5)

[Paperclipkiller]

You know me and I like my consistency. Not a bug but a consistency thing for this one.

Sword Coast Adventurers Guide - Campaign Guide is found under "Campaign Guide" when loaded.

SCAG - Player's Guide is found under "Core Rules" when loaded.

Both versions of Eberron Rising from the Last War are found in "Source Book" when loaded.


What differentiates SCAG-Campaign Guide from Rising from the Last War in regards to being a Campaign Guide vs Source Book?

Also SCAG- Players shouldn't be under Core Rules but either a Supplement or Source Book.


Edit Addition: In the Item Group "Magic Items - D&D Eberron Rising from the Last War - Players" you have an item called "Infused Shield Armor" when it just needs to be called "Infused Shield".
Shouldnt Guildmaster's Guide to Ravnica be a Sourcebook and not a Supplement since it details how to run a Ravnica campaign?

[Paperclipkiller]

Remnants of the Last War

Infused Repulsion Shield doesn't have an additional +1 to its AC.

There technically needs to be a Infused Returning Net, even though that is the most pointless infusion ever. Maybe an Artificer gives it to someone to non-lethaly test their throwing skills I dunno.


This next one is more a suggestion then a bug, and it requires a bit of time consuming work.

The Enhanced Weapon and the Enhanced Defense Infusion each add a +1 and eventually +2 to their respective infusions. At the moment, the "Infused Weapon/Armor" on the list has no bonuses, just a description that they should have a +1/+2. Maybe adding in a +1/+2 version of each of the items so both versions are accounted for could be added?


Here's an interesting question. Since the Artificer technically needs DMG stuff to be complete, is it possible to create a DMG-Players version just for that list? That way the DM doesn't need to enable sharing the full DMG to the players. Maybe just call it DMG-Eberron Artificer Item List or something? That way they still need to get the DMG purchased to access the items, but then DMs can share it easily.

[astromath]

I'm going to redo all my edits from the beginning on a doc file using OpenOffice. Looking at chapter 1, I spotted a formatting error that I did not spot before. Be patient. I'll be posting the doc file in a few days. I'll be doing one doc file per chapter.

[TMO]

I can't find this being reported anywhere but I just noticed that the Eye of the All-Father map in Storm King's Thunder is scaled incorrectly. Each square should be 20' rather than 10'.

[Zacchaeus]

I can't find this being reported anywhere but I just noticed that the Eye of the All-Father map in Storm King's Thunder is scaled incorrectly. Each square should be 20' rather than 10'.

No it isn't. The grid is 5 feet. The underlying baked in grid on the map is 10 ft but the FG grid is 5.

[Zacchaeus]

You know me and I like my consistency. Not a bug but a consistency thing for this one.

Sword Coast Adventurers Guide - Campaign Guide is found under "Campaign Guide" when loaded.

SCAG - Player's Guide is found under "Core Rules" when loaded.

Both versions of Eberron Rising from the Last War are found in "Source Book" when loaded.


What differentiates SCAG-Campaign Guide from Rising from the Last War in regards to being a Campaign Guide vs Source Book?

Also SCAG- Players shouldn't be under Core Rules but either a Supplement or Source Book.


Edit Addition: In the Item Group "Magic Items - D&D Eberron Rising from the Last War - Players" you have an item called "Infused Shield Armor" when it just needs to be called "Infused Shield".
Shouldnt Guildmaster's Guide to Ravnica be a Sourcebook and not a Supplement since it details how to run a Ravnica campaign?

I don't have an answer, but possibly the author of SCAG had reasons for designating the players guide as a source book and I suppose that since it says Campaign Guide in the title the logical thing to call it was Campaign Guide. The Ravnica guide was done by our president so I'm not changing that
I didn't really know what to call the Eberron book since it's a bit of everything so 'source' seemed to cover all the possibilities.
I suppose for consistency they should all be the same but then someone will come on and argue that this should be that, so it's a kind of no win situation. In the end what it's called is irrelevant really but I will take a note and maybe try to get it all consistent.

[Zacchaeus]

Remnants of the Last War

Infused Repulsion Shield doesn't have an additional +1 to its AC.

There technically needs to be a Infused Returning Net, even though that is the most pointless infusion ever. Maybe an Artificer gives it to someone to non-lethaly test their throwing skills I dunno.


This next one is more a suggestion then a bug, and it requires a bit of time consuming work.

The Enhanced Weapon and the Enhanced Defense Infusion each add a +1 and eventually +2 to their respective infusions. At the moment, the "Infused Weapon/Armor" on the list has no bonuses, just a description that they should have a +1/+2. Maybe adding in a +1/+2 version of each of the items so both versions are accounted for could be added?


Here's an interesting question. Since the Artificer technically needs DMG stuff to be complete, is it possible to create a DMG-Players version just for that list? That way the DM doesn't need to enable sharing the full DMG to the players. Maybe just call it DMG-Eberron Artificer Item List or something? That way they still need to get the DMG purchased to access the items, but then DMs can share it easily.

The weapons and armour should have the +1 bonus on them. I think there was a bug in par5e which was preventing the bonus being added, which got fixed, and I then forgot to go back and reparse Eberron. So I'll add that to me list. I can also do +2 versions as well.

A net doesn't have the ammunition property so I'm not sure how you conclude that it should be included as a returning weapon.

I'm not keen on doing a players DMG for magic items that can be duplicated (it would require one for Xanathar as well). If this were a general thing that was common to a number of classes then that's fine but too much for just one class that most will probably never hear of or use. I'm going to leave it up to the DM how they handle this infusion.

Incidentally I don't recommend sharing the DMG with the players; it is very likely to eat up too much memory in FG Classic.

[Zacchaeus]

I'm going to redo all my edits from the beginning on a doc file using OpenOffice. Looking at chapter 1, I spotted a formatting error that I did not spot before. Be patient. I'll be posting the doc file in a few days. I'll be doing one doc file per chapter.

Thanks astromath; plenty of time. My revision of CoS that I am working on is taking way longer than I thought it would.

[TMO]

No it isn't. The grid is 5 feet. The underlying baked in grid on the map is 10 ft but the FG grid is 5.

Unless there is an errata I'm unfamiliar with, the baked in grid is supposed to be 1 square = 20 feet:

EOTAFScale.png

Every description of each room implies that the FG grid is off.

[Paperclipkiller]

A net doesn't have the ammunition property so I'm not sure how you conclude that it should be included as a returning weapon.

The stipulation for Returning Weapon was the Thrown property. So technically there should be a Returning Net since it has the thrown property. Even if in combat it's absolutely useless since it can't restrain after it returns to your hand.