I'm sure someone might have already commented on this, but I believe the weight for saddles should be changed for small creatures riding medium mounts. A saddle for a heavy warhorse (30lbs) should not weigh the same as one for a riding dog, and currently there is no distinction, so by RAW they weigh exactly the same amount.

If it was meant to be as a small-sized backpack or set of clothing, the saddle would weigh 7.5lbs, which I think is much more reasonable given the size of the creatures in question.

I thought you divided weights by a certain number for creatures smaller than medium?

Mergy wrote:

I'm sure someone might have already commented on this, but I believe the weight for saddles should be changed for small creatures riding medium mounts. A saddle for a heavy warhorse (30lbs) should not weigh the same as one for a riding dog, and currently there is no distinction, so by RAW they weigh exactly the same amount.

If it was meant to be as a small-sized backpack or set of clothing, the saddle would weigh 7.5lbs, which I think is much more reasonable given the size of the creatures in question.

I thought you divided weights by a certain number for creatures smaller than medium?

Saddles in particular seem to have been left out of this. While backpacks for example have a subscript 1 indicating the weight is reduced for smaller versions (1 These items weigh one-quarter the amount when made for Small characters.), saddles do not mention any such exception; hopefully this is a mistake and can be part of next print's errata.

I thought you divided weights by a certain number for creatures smaller than medium?

For armor/weapons it is usually half. While items like tents and clothing, (which I'd classify a saddle as) weigh a 1/4th the Medium amount.

This is a rules extrapolation I admit, but I think it is a safe assumption.

Please keep rules discussion in the Rules Questions forum.

Hm, this shows up as updated today in "My Downloads", but I'm unable to actually download it at this time. A glitch?

Hm, this shows up as updated today in "My Downloads", but I'm unable to actually download it at this time. A glitch?

Hrm...Notified the tech team to take a look at this—they're on it!

Zaister wrote:

Hm, this shows up as updated today in "My Downloads", but I'm unable to actually download it at this time. A glitch?

Hrm...Notified the tech team to take a look at this—they're on it!

any update?

Liz Courts wrote:

Zaister wrote:

Hm, this shows up as updated today in "My Downloads", but I'm unable to actually download it at this time. A glitch?

Hrm...Notified the tech team to take a look at this—they're on it!

any update?

squirrels in the server?

This product wasn't actually updated at all. We did some updates on Wednesday evening that apparently resulted in this. We're working on restoring order and kicking those squatting squirrels out :)

Or attached Mynocks? Chewing on the power cables, perhaps?

Removed some posts. If you'd like to discuss the mechanics of the game or discuss it compared to other games, please do so in another thread/forum.

Removed more posts. The product discussion thread isn't the best place to debate Pathfinder rules and mechanics. We have forums just for that purpose.

This product now has a Lite pdf download option available. Learn more about it here!

Chris, yet another reason why you guys ROCK!!! :)

Thank you, Paizo. You listen to we customers. Love you!

I was wondering if anyone had experience with getting the Core Rulebook printed in a more user-friendly size. I was thinking four “trade paperbacks”—characters, rules, DM material, and spells—would do the job…

Lulu.com has some examples of the 3.5 ruleset being done up that way Michael.

Introduction: I want to begin saying that I love the CRB on both the printed and PDF versions. However I want to provide some feedback about small issues I have experienced. I will provide a small background of myself to help you understand the reasons for my suggestions.

Background: Several years ago I played a couple of DND 3.5 sessions (Just enough to understand the basics but not enough for being proficient with it). Also my RL Day Job check comes from writing and delivering IT training on Spanish language.

Feedback: From my point of view several sections need more of what we call “cross reference and duplication”.

Allow me to provide an example: A newbie don’t understand how Feats works so she goes to the Feats chapter and find that there is no explanation for the feats mechanics but instead a list of feats. The actual mechanic is on different chapter. The list is great however a small explanation of the mechanics even if this means “duplication” of information will help a lot. Another possible solution is to provide a small reference about where to find the mechanics information.

I know that I can use the search feature to look for the mechanic; however one doesn’t have that luxury on the printed version. Even on the PDF version is confusing for beginners to go all thru the whole book searching just to be sure that they are not missing a piece of vital info about the topic in question.

I also think that the character creation section at the beginning of the book should be a little bit more elaborated to make it beginner friendly.

Suggestion: A possible solution is the approach taken on the PHB 3.5. Please compare page 87 on the PHB 3.5 vs. page 112 on the PF CRB. The PHB contains some duplication of the information presented on other pages. Also there is a reference to a table in a different page. This provides a simpler reading for beginners. As a matter of fact I sometimes read the PHB 3.5 in order to understand a concept and them I look for the correct numbers and mechanics on the CRB.

Conclusion: My opinion is that the PF ruleset is an evolution in the right direction and I consider it far better than the 3.5 ruleset. I hope that Paizo never replicates the behavior of drastically and frequently changing the CRB with new editions. But I think that new editions or printings should slowly and incrementally keep “tuning up” the wording, format and mechanics to make the book more readable for new players.

Errata:
This looks to be a problem you inherited from 3.5, but the 'specific' shield called a "Darkwood Buckler" has a description that indicates it's not a buckler, but a light shield. Please fix either the name or the description so they make sense together.

Just to confirm if I order it from Paizo direct (and paying the premium to get it to NZ beyond what I would pay Amazon) it will be the latest (5th) printing?

And how long do people think before the next printing appears?

More errata inherited from 3.5:

The Goat of Terror figurine of wondrous power says that one of its horns can be used as a "+3 heavy lance". The distinction between heavy and light lances went the way of the dodo a long time ago.

I just got the PDF of the book to tide me over until i can get the real one.
What is the difference between the Lite one and the regular one?

There's no editorial difference between the two versions. The Lite version has been modified to work well on less powerful devices such as tablets and smartphones. Some graphical elements have been removed which allows for faster loading.

That is helpful thankyou. I want to put it on my nook simple touch so this is good.

I can't wait just to have a finalized rule set!

That's not snark, mind you. I just want to see the final version of the rules and start implementing them asap. I've been using Alphas and then Beta for a long time now, and would settle down with the finished product at last.

Unfortunalty, it's quite disappointing what they did on the wizard, when you compare with the sorcerer. They either overdid the sorcerer or beaten down the wizard. I feel it's quite unbalance between the perk&advantage the sorcerer gets and what the wizard gets.

I say: Paizo, shame on you. You clearly favored the sorcerer, and overpower it and did not do a good job on the wizard.

Watcher wrote:

I can't wait just to have a finalized rule set!

That's not snark, mind you. I just want to see the final version of the rules and start implementing them asap. I've been using Alphas and then Beta for a long time now, and would settle down with the finished product at last.

Unfortunalty, it's quite disappointing what they did on the wizard, when you compare with the sorcerer. They either overdid the sorcerer or beaten down the wizard. I feel it's quite unbalance between the perk&advantage the sorcerer gets and what the wizard gets.

I say: Paizo, shame on you. You clearly favored the sorcerer, and overpower it and did not do a good job on the wizard.

Are you tangentially aware of the fact that 3.5 Sorcerer was a poor man's red headed stepchild of Wizard, and anything that makes him remotely more attractive a choice is a good thing, yes?

And even with all the pizzaz PF gives the Sorcerer, he's still the inferior choice (a few corner cases aside), if you're looking purely from the "ability to trivialize every encounter" point of view?

It's nothing big in an average joe game, but people who play Rocket Tag Turbo D&D Streetfighter Edition laughed at the 3.5 Sorcerer and they still laugh at Pathfinder Sorcerer.

There's no editorial difference between the two versions. The Lite version has been modified to work well on less powerful devices such as tablets and smartphones. Some graphical elements have been removed which allows for faster loading.

Personally I think it actually looks better, too. I would say the Lite version is probably the greatest idea in regards to the PDF market so far. The simpler, smoother design kind of makes me wish I could get a non-PDF Lite version.

Me's wonderin when the different printings for the Core Rulebook were released and stuff. Also where to find TREASURE!!

Just to check that it's a typo - the True Resurrection spell (p. 362) does indeed require a material component (M) consisting of a 25,000 gp diamond plus a divine focus/holy symbol (DF), and not an unspecified M plus a DF/holy symbol made of a 25,000 gp diamond?

Otherwise that's one expensive holy symbol, and one very cheap M for such an important and high-level spell!

And if that's a typo, then why hasn't the PRD been changed to reflect that?!?!?

Sorry if this has come up before, I tried doing a search but couldn't find what I was looking for. If I purchase the pdf now, and say seven months down the line they finally compile enough errata that they decide to make a sixth printing. Will I need to purchase the pdf again to get the newest information, our could I just re-download it with all the updates, no charge/no separate errata file?

Sorry if this has come up before, I tried doing a search but couldn't find what I was looking for. If I purchase the pdf now, and say seven months down the line they finally compile enough errata that they decide to make a sixth printing. Will I need to purchase the pdf again to get the newest information, our could I just re-download it with all the updates, no charge/no separate errata file?

Hey bud. No, you do not have to repurchase the PDF. You can just redownload it and have the errata updated!

(casts resurrect thread)

And even with all the pizzaz PF gives the Sorcerer, he's still the inferior choice (a few corner cases aside), if you're looking purely from the "ability to trivialize every encounter" point of view?

On the other hand, sorcerer is one of my two favorite classes to suggest for brand new players. It's got none of the fiddly memorizing spells junk of pretty much all the other casting classes, few or no special abilities to worry about, and very little of the uber-tactical combat knowledge that virtually all the martial classes require.

I like giving someone a sorcerer, saying "okay, you can do these four things whenever you want and magic missile three times per day. Other than that, your job is to stay out of the combat," and letting them play. Sure there's one special ability from the bloodline, but having one special ability isn't really a big deal. What other class is that simple these days?

Ranger is the other one, which is pretty straightforward too, except that rangers do have to worry about battlefield tactics, and keep track of their favored enemy, and so on. Thus, in my mind a bow-wielding ranger is easier.

This is certainly no longer the days of AD&D, where the new player was always a fighter, and you handed them a sword and said "okay, your job is to hit stuff until it's dead." :)

I think I found a sentence with a word missing on page 86 of the core rulebook. On the right hand column under Taking 20, second sentence.

This is what is says:
"In other words, if you a d20 roll enough times, eventually you will get a 20."

Should be:
"In other words, if you (do or make) a d20 roll enough times, eventually you will get a 20."