Typos

Page 16. Last sentence “Some class may have other minimum ability requirements which must be met in addition.”
I think it should be “classes”, not “class”.
While I’m here;
Page 8. Second column. Start of dialogue. “We rode out the gates and the massive wings…”
Personally I think it should read “We rode out of THE gates and…” but some may not find this an issue.
Lastly, all the hyperlinks I’ve clicked on so far are working. I’m viewing with Acrobat 9 Pro on a Windows 7 PC and obtained my pdf from the GameSalute site.

Page 114: ADJUSTMENTS TO XP section refers to both bonuses and penalties from prime requisites, but the prime requisite rules on p. 17 only provide bonuses.

re: PDF links: I think there’s something wrong with the version demoss is downloading from DTR. All of the links on page 10 are working for me, and the hovers are accurate.

P. 125, Divine Worship table: last row is -4, should either not be there at all, or be +5 or more.

This is probably picking at nits, but…
p. 19
“2 1st level spells”, should be “two 1st level spells”.
“1 2nd level spell”, should be “one 2nd level spell”.
“4 1st level spells”, should be “four 1st level spells”.
“3 2nd level spells”, should be “three 2nd level spells”.
p. 124
“2 1st level spells”, should be “two 1st level spells”.
“1 2nd level spell”, should be “one 2nd level spell”.

Page 17. “…and the number of languages the character is able to learn to read and
write, as described below.”
Can the character not speak the language?! Shouldn’t it be, “…learn to speak, read and write…”?
Page 17 - a nit-pick. “…dialects (e.g. Orc, Goblin).”
I was always taught that e.g., and i.e., have a comma after them.
Page 17 - a nit-pick. “2 ability points may be sacrificed…”
I was always taught that of you wanted to start a sentence with a number you spelt it out rather than write the numeral. Thus, “Two ability points…”
While I’m at it, I would habitually spell out all numbers from 0 to 9, inclusive, and use numerals only for 10 and greater. That may just be my idiosyncrasy.
Page 18 “…maximum result (e.g. an 8 for fighters or a 6 for clerics.)”
Apart from the e.g. not having a comma, the full-stop should be outside of the bracket. It only goes within the bracket if the text within the bracket is a complete sentence.

While I’m at it, I would habitually spell out all numbers from 0 to 9, inclusive, and use numerals only for 10 and greater. That may just be my idiosyncrasy.
APM: I always thought that was the rule, too, but when I actually looked it up, it’s not actually the rule. The actual rule is much more complex, with many exceptions. For instance, if you are listing several values from the same group, and at least one of them is larger than nine, you should use numerals for all of them.
Consider the sentence: “Characters can progress from levels [one/1] to [fourteen/14].” There are three ways you could write it:
a) Characters can progress from level one to 14.
b) Characters can progress from level one to fourteen.
c) Characters can progress from level 1 to 14.
Option “c” is the correct method, even though it involves using a numeral for 1, which is normally written out.
I tried my best to get all of this right in the document and I think in 95% of the cases I did, but I’m sure I slipped up here and there.

Hi! This is my first post, so I hope I am not making a fool of myself here. Maybe it’s something I’m confused about, but I think it’s a typo.
The Assassin’s progression table on p. 26 says “Assassin (Fighter)” at the top, and this agrees with the remark on the previous page to the effect that the assassin’s attack and saving throws advance as a fighter, at +2/3 levels. And the values for level 1 are the same as for the fighter. However, the values advance in increments of 2 levels, rather than in alternating 1-2 increments. So the advancement depicted on the table is +2/4 levels.
Hope this helps!

p 49-51 seem to use terms Loyalty and Morale somewhat interchangably for henchmen. It would be better to use just either one – or clarify the difference, if there is one.

APM: I always thought that was the rule, too, but when I actually looked it up, it’s not actually the rule. The actual rule is much more complex, with many exceptions.
Excellent. I’m a university lecturer and scientist, so I’m constantly marking student coursework and giving them feedback. Normally I’m a stickler for obeying conventions and being consistent as it’s a key skill in the sciences. Thus, I’d appreciate being directed to your source of this information (that’s not a way of saying I’m doubting you). I can then add that to my list of conventions such as table and figure headings, full-stops and paragraphs, et al.

Stainless, my source was the Grammar Book, “Rules for Writing Numbers”, hyperlinked below.
http://www.grammarbook.com/numbers/numbers.asp

Page 41 states a light catapult is 1800lbs, while the heavy is 1200lbs.
Page 44 - Galley, Large description states “a large gavlley” where it should be “a large galley”

@creases Yes, agreed on the Assassin Attack and Saving Throw table… it looks like although the Assassin should be using the Fighter tables for this, the table that got put here was copy-pasta’d from the Thief core class… I’m assuming that the class should really be using the Fighter save/attack progression, but the thief HD…

Page 20 Mage Spell Progression Table
The column headings, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 and offset to the right so that they don’t line up with their respective columns.
Page 21, bottom of left column. “This cleric may use any shields or fight with two-handed weapons…”
I think it should be “The cleric”, not “This”.
P.S. Alex, thanks for the URL. It’s a very useful site.

The Assassin table is absolutely an error. We’ve already gone to print, so we’ll have to issue errata.

p. 85. Restore Life and Limb appears out of alphabetical order.

Just a request, but when the errata is issued, please can the actual rules’ errata be presented clearly separate from typographical errors (assuming the latter will be included)? It’s annoying when you get an errata document and find it’s all jumbled together, and you have to trawl through lists of, “‘the fish’ should be ‘a fish’” that don’t impact on play at all, just to find the elements that do.
Colin

please can the actual rules’ errata be presented clearly separate from typographical errors<<
seconded

please can the actual rules’ errata be presented clearly separate from typographical errors<<
+1. (But please include clarifications in the “rules errata” list.)

I assume that even though the rules have already gone to print, there’s no barrier to fixing the PDF and release a new version of that so that current owners can get an update?