Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

List of Errata in Pathfinder Core Rulebook


Paizo Products

701 to 750 of 805 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

ENHANCEMENT BONUSES (TO ARMOR/SHIELD AC)

I'm not sure if it's worth an errata, but certainly it's worth a FAQ entry or some improvement in the core rulebook wording.

Summing up, the problem could be expressed with the question, if a wear a +2 buckler and I cast the Shield Spell, my AC against physical attacks is (ignoring other bonuses): 14? 16?

--
The issue:

Back in the 3rdEd/3.5 days enhancement bonuses, and all bonuses, were explained in detail on some page of the Dungeon Master Guide. Unfortunatelly that description was never written in the d20 SRD.
Actually it isn't a big problem because most bonuses follow the same rules, but there are exceptions.
Enhancement bonuses, which is the problem here, is one of those exceptions.

The explanations about how enhancement bonuses work are different in different places of the book, and all the info is scattered. The wording about how enhancement bonuses to AC stack with other bonus to AC is sometimes terrible.

The issue isn't often asked, as many 3.5 veterans already know how it works, however it's confusing (even for experienced players) and I'm sure that many new players and GMs are doing it wrong... and don't know it.
Some past threads about the problem:
Link1.
Link2.
Link3.

As we know the enhancement bonus of an item doesn't apply to the user, it actually enhances a bonus granted by that item, subtle but big difference (for further info: Articles in the WotC site, look for "Does It Stack?" ).
I.e. My wizard wearing a +2 padded armor casts Mage Armor, his regular AC (ignoring everything else) is 14. It is NOT 16, the +2 enhancement bonus raises the padded armor's armor bonus to AC from +1 to +3, that's all, +3 armor bonus from the padded amror and +4 armor bonus from anything else (i.e. the spell) won't stack.
My wizard using a mithral +1 buckler casts the Shield Spell, his AC is 14 again.
If my wizard uses a +5 buckler and casts the Shield Spell, his AC is 16.

---

The wording:

Chapter 6 Equipment/ Section Armor (page 149) says that armor grants a armor bonus, shields grant shield bonus. And obviously a shield bonus to AC won't stack with another shield bonus to AC, same for the armor bonus. No info about enhancement bonus to AC, but works for me.

In Chapter 8 (Combat)/ Section Combat Statistics / Armor Class/ Other Modifiers (page 179), there's a nice text:

Quote:


Enhancement Bonuses: Enhancement bonuses apply to your armor to increase the armor bonus it provides.

As happen often in the Core Rulebook armor is used for "armors only" in some sentences and "armor and shields" in other sentences. Writting "They apply to the armor (or shield) to increase the armor (or shield) bonus it provides" instead, wouldn't hurt.

In Chapter 15 (Magic Items)/ Section Armor(page 461) the following sentence tries to explain:

Quote:


Magic armor bonuses are enhancement bonuses, never rise above +5, and stack with regular armor bonuses [...]

Regular armor bonus? What's a regular armor? or a regular bonus? What's not a regular armor bonus?

One could say that the armor bonus from Mage Armor is as usual and regular as anything else, and the magic armor enhancement bonus would stack with mage armor, if the set of armor bonus doesn't stack the enhancement bonus still do, nothing prevents that.
Enhancement bonuses raise the armor's armor bonus as said in chapter 8, the actual wording in chapter 15 is weird, overcomplicated and prolly wrong. In chapter 8 it increases the armor bonus, in chapter 15 it stacks with "regular" armor bonuses, not the same.

In page 462 shields are "explained".

Quote:


Shield enhancement bonuses stack with armor enhancement bonuses.

So, shield enhancement bonuses don't stack with a shield bonus? Do they stack with ANY shield bonus? maybe... magic armor means "armor" in some sentences, "armor and shield" in other sentences?

On a side note, "All magic armor is also masterwork armor, reducing armor check penalties by 1.", the same should apply to shields (nothing said in the magic item section), as explained somewhere in Chapter 6.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Strife2002 wrote:

]

This is being discussed at length in another thread. It seems the errata didn't change anything, only clarified (apparently you could NEVER use one end of a double weapon while only holding onto it with one hand). The thread suggests that the devs are aware of the issue and are leaning towards changing the word "wield" to "held"

It's kind of interesting that in this instance "wield" is interpreted as using, but when you "wield" two weapons in the same round, you don't incur the TWF unless you choose to make the extra attack. *sigh*

So in light of this thread, the language of TWF needs to be changed so it reflects the actual interpretation of use. Or, maybe more specifically, there needs to be a sentence added that says that you can make iterative attacks with different weapons without incurring the TWF penalties, and that the penalties only occur if you choose to make the extra attack.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Amulet of Mighty Fists: does it overcome DR as magic weapons do?

I.e. Does and Amulet of Mighty fists +3 (+3 enhancement bonus) confer the ability to ignore DR silver and cold iron to your unarmed and natural attacks? (page 562 and 496 of the Core Rule Book)

The question is also related to when "weapon" means weapon, or weapon+unnarmed attacks+natural attacks.

From this thread: Link

Grand Lodge

Strife2002 wrote:

...

- P. 45: Remove Viewing ability from the Knowledge Domani, first sentence, the words "at will" should be deleted.

...

- P. 323: Polymorph spell, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence, "animal, humanoid or elemental" should be "animal, magical beast, humanoid, or elemental."

Couple of corrections and changes to these. One, obviously it should be Remote Viewing. Two, mentions of magical beast should be removed from Polymorph, since it functions like Beast Shape II, which can't make magical beasts (beast shape III does that). Thus, magical beast should be added to the description of things that can be transformed into for Greater Polymorph, since it goes all the way up to beast shape IV.

Grand Lodge

I can't remember if it was like this in 3.5 or not, but on page 147, when it's describing various weapons, it has an entry for a mace, followed by an entry for a heavy mace. There isn't, however, a "mace" listed on the tables for equipment. It's probably referencing the light mace. Very minor, I know.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Whoa, wait a sec...

Sai description wrote:
A sai is a metal spike flanked by a pair of prongs used to trap an enemy's weapon. With a sai, you get a +2 bonus on Combat Maneuver Checks to sunder an enemy's weapon. Though pointed, a sai is used primarily to bludgeon foes and to disarm weapons.

Emphasis mine. Shouldn't that be to disarm, not to sunder? It's always been disarm in the past, and I don't see how you'd use the tool to destroy weaponry (simulationist buffs out there, feel free to educate me)

Andoran RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

I think it would work like a swordbreaker - you catch the weapon inbetween the tines and twist to break it. It should be limited to swords, daggers and other thin bladed weapons. It should also apply to disarm though I'd think.

Grand Lodge

yeah that's the only real reason I called it out, because in 3.0 and 3.5 is specifically gave a bonus to disarm. Seeing sunder made me think there may have been a weird copy/paste error from the elven curve blade description.

Grand Lodge

Pages 146 and 151 - Gauntlets and hide armor

On page 146, the description for gauntlets states:
"Medium and heavy armors (except breastplate) come with gauntlets."

And indeed, every description of the armors in those categories state they come with gauntlets except for breastplate, which says it covers torso only.

Except, however, hide armor, which does not state it comes with gauntlets.

Does hide armor come with gauntlets? My gut says no.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

Page 155 - Goods and Services section

Not an errata, per se, but more of an observation. It's always bothered me, even back in 3.x, that the tables in this section have a note about how certain items weigh less for Small characters, and that containers for Small characters hold a quarter of the amount of a Medium-creature-sized container, yet we're not given an amount of how much they hold. Take the basic backpack, for example.


Strife2002 wrote:

Whoa, wait a sec...

Sai description wrote:
A sai is a metal spike flanked by a pair of prongs used to trap an enemy's weapon. With a sai, you get a +2 bonus on Combat Maneuver Checks to sunder an enemy's weapon. Though pointed, a sai is used primarily to bludgeon foes and to disarm weapons.
Emphasis mine. Shouldn't that be to disarm, not to sunder? It's always been disarm in the past, and I don't see how you'd use the tool to destroy weaponry (simulationist buffs out there, feel free to educate me)

Actually the Sai grants +2 to disarm foes, because it has got the Disarm special ability

Page 144:
Disarm: When you use a disarm weapon, you get a +2
bonus on Combat Maneuver Checks to disarm an enemy.

(until they modify the combat maneuver rules)

But yes, the Sunder bonus seems out of place, if it isn't meant to be a Sunder weapon the line about the bonus should be just removed. Aside of intentions and simulatinism it seems correct.

Grand Lodge

Thanks Ike, I did forget how the Disarm special ability works.

Also:

Page 159 - EXTREMELY TRIVIAL FORMATTING ERROR THAT SHOULD BE TAKEN AS A CRY FOR HELP

Every item on the table of goods and services has a weight expressed in lbs (pounds). A hammer is 2 lbs., manacles are 2 lbs., etc. Any item with a weight of only 1 pound is expressed singularly (sans "-s"). An hourglass is 1 lb, for example. 4 items, however, have a weight of 1 pound but have their abbreviation pluralized. Mug/Tankard, oil (1-pint flask), sealing wax, and whetstone all are "1 lbs."


Strife2002 wrote:

Page 155 - Goods and Services section

Not an errata, per se, but more of an observation. It's always bothered me, even back in 3.x, that the tables in this section have a note about how certain items weigh less for Small characters, and that containers for Small characters hold a quarter of the amount of a Medium-creature-sized container, yet we're not given an amount of how much they hold. Take the basic backpack, for example.

The amount containers hold was contained in the 3.0 Player's Handbook. In fact, it's in the 3.0 SRD. Here's a link to the appropriate Equipment RTF file.

Grand Lodge

Oh wow...math. Thank you, though.

Qadira

The individual items capacity is also included on each items detail description on d20pfsrd.com's Goods & Services page.. that info was compiled from various 3.x and 3rd party sources. While it's not "official" in that it wasn't printed by Paizo, it's something to go on at least.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Distant Scholar wrote:
The amount containers hold was contained in the 3.0 Player's Handbook. In fact, it's in the 3.0 SRD. Here's a link to the appropriate Equipment RTF file.

Well, that would explain why it has never been reprinted. Noting that 1 cubic foot is a backpack's carrying capacity does us no real good, especially considering we haven't been given the physical dimensions of other objects that could be put into a backpack. On the other hand, since we have weights of objects, just telling us what the max weight that a backpack could carry would be much more useful.

So, Paizo, what is the max weight that a backpack can carry?


That's officially left up to us. I'd say that backpacks have 120 lbs. capacity medium, 30 lbs. small. Because I can. Hahahahaha! *cough* Anyway, people who picture it as 60 lbs. capacity also picture it as 1 cubic ft. capacity, while Sean Reynolds said that he pictures it as holding 2 cubic ft. So there's that.

Grand Lodge

Strife2002 wrote:

Pages 146 and 151 - Gauntlets and hide armor

On page 146, the description for gauntlets states:
"Medium and heavy armors (except breastplate) come with gauntlets."

And indeed, every description of the armors in those categories state they come with gauntlets except for breastplate, which says it covers torso only.

Except, however, hide armor, which does not state it comes with gauntlets.

Does hide armor come with gauntlets? My gut says no.

Quick addendum to this one, the hide armor in the Beginner's Box also doesn't mention gauntlets, while the other armors that normally do do.

Cheliax

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Quicken Spell-Like Ability has pre-req of "Spell-like ability at CL 10th or higher." but to quicken a 0-level spell the table says CL 8th.
Seems to contradict itself.

Same deal with Empower Spell-Like Ability, pre-req of 6th, 0 level spell 4th.

Grand Lodge

chopswil wrote:

Quicken Spell-Like Ability has pre-req of "Spell-like ability at CL 10th or higher." but to quicken a 0-level spell the table says CL 8th.

Seems to contradict itself.

Same deal with Empower Spell-Like Ability, pre-req of 6th, 0 level spell 4th.

I'll go ahead and throw these in the Bestiary errata threads since that's where these feats are listed.

Grand Lodge

Page 538 - Armor of arrow attraction

This cursed item says it takes up the "body" slot. Being armor, it should take up the "armor" slot.

Grand Lodge

Page 538 - Armor of rage

Two things:

1) This cursed item says it takes up the "body" slot. Being armor, it should take up the "armor" slot.

2) The first sentence says "this armor is similar in appearance to armor of command..." The problem is there is no armor of command, but there is a breastplate of command which functions like breastplate armor, not full plate.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Staves

There is a very important thread happening here regarding the pricing of staves. Some serious errata is needed here, most likely. Whether the Core Rulebook is wrong or the APG is wrong, we have yet to hear officially.

Grand Lodge

Page 329 - Rainbow pattern spell

The components line for this spell mentions a "see text" at the end, but there's nothing within the text regarding components. What was likely left out of the description was a blurb saying that bards, and only bards, must include a verbal component when casting this spell, in addition to the other components. This conclusion is drawn from other spells that have this.

Grand Lodge

Strife2002 wrote:

Staves

There is a very important thread happening here regarding the pricing of staves. Some serious errata is needed here, most likely. Whether the Core Rulebook is wrong or the APG is wrong, we have yet to hear officially.

A handful of us in the thread linked above have been breaking down the pricing of the various staves in order to determine how/if they were calculated correctly. While going through the core rulebook's staves, it was discovered that many DO NOT follow the pricing rules for staves described in the magic item creation section of the book. Many, it seems, have prices that were chosen specifically to create nice, neat values (like any stave whose last digit was not a 5 or 0) or to match other staves like it (like all the magic school staves).

Going through the prices we found a couple of things that enlightened us on rules that were either vague or missing. Specifically, it was discovered that focus components are not factored into the cost, and when doubling the cost to determine price you do not double the cost of the material components (that is, they're only added in once).

I doubt we'll see an errata for this, so within the spoiler below I've gone ahead and posted the legitimate, rule-following prices of CRB staves for any GMs out there as anal as me. Any fraction was rounded up to the next gold piece.

CRB Staff Prices:
Abjuration: Price 81,900 / Cost: 40,950
- If focus components were calculated the CRB values would actually be correct. Since no other staff uses the cost of a focus in its pricing, we have to assume focus component costs aren't used.

Charming: No change

Conjuration: Price: 81,900 / Cost: 40,950

Defense: No change

Earth and stone: No change

Divination: Price: 86,067 / Cost: 45,117
- The material component costs were mistakenly left out.

Enchantment: Price: 81,900 / Cost: 40,950

Evocation: Price: 81,900 / Cost: 40,950

Fire: Price: 18,934 / Cost: 9,467

Frost: Price: 41,334 / Cost: 20,667

Healing: No change

Illumination: Cost: 25,750
- This one's interesting because the price is actually correct in the CRB, but the cost was mysteriously missing 5,000 gp from its total.

Illusion: Price: 81,900 / Cost: 40,950

Life: No change

Necromancy: Price: 90,234 / Cost: 49,284
- The material component costs were mistakenly left out.

Passage: No change

Power: No change
- We have to assume this, because this staff does additional crazy stuff that adds to its price and can't be calculated exactly.

Size alteration: Price: 26,134 / Cost: 13,067

Swarming insects: No change

Transmutation: Price: 84,500 / Cost: 42,250

Woodlands: No change
- We have to assume this, because this staff does additional crazy stuff that adds to its price and can't be calculated exactly.

Grand Lodge

Page 529 - Scabbard of keen edges

This magic item doesn't take up a slot, however the scabbard of stanching, scabbard of vigor, and sheath of bladestealth from the APG are all similar items and all take up the belt slot. Assuming we'd like to maintain uniformity, either the APG's 3 magic items are wrong, or the CRB scabbard is wrong.

Grand Lodge

Page 568 - Prone condition description

The second sentence of the Prone condition ends with "...and cannot use a ranged weapon (except for a crossbow)."

It should say "(except for a crossbow or shuriken)."

Although technically firearms can be used prone too, but that's a different matter since this description is only for the Core Rulebook.


Omission:

The Ranger tracking bonus applies to "follow or identify tracks". However, I can find no mention of the DC or skill used to identify a creature from its tracks.

The Survival skill mentions that the Ranger bonus applies to "find or follow tracks", but does not mention identifying the creature that made them.


5 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

Trap Spell Descriptions (Fifth Printing)

I'm sorry to have to bring this up again, but I finally broke down and bought the PDF so that I could see if it had been fixed, and no. There are still problems with the boilerplate text in all the trap spell descriptions. Here are some examples; in each case, the page number refers to where the relevant paragraph is (the spell description could start on the previous page).

Explosive Runes (p.280) wrote:
Magic traps such as explosive runes are hard to detect and disable. A character with the trapfinding class feature (only) can use Disable Device to thwart explosive runes. The DC to find magic traps using Perception and to disable them is 25 + spell level, or 28 for explosive runes.

Fire trap (p.283) reads similarly.

Glyph of Warding (p.291) wrote:
Note: Magic traps such as glyph of warding are hard to detect and disable. A character with trapfinding can use the Perception skill to find the glyph and Disable Device to thwart it. The DC in each case is 25 + spell level, or 28 for glyph of warding.
Symbol of Death (p.356) wrote:
Note: Magic traps such as symbol of death are hard to detect and disable. A character with trapfinding can use the Perception skill to find a symbol of death and Disable Device to thwart it. The DC in each case is 25 + spell level, or 33 for symbol of death.

Symbol of death, symbol of fear, symbol of insanity, symbol of pain, symbol of persuasion, symbol of sleep, symbol of stunning, and symbol of weakness (pp.356-357) all use the same language.

P.359, Teleportation Circle wrote:
Magic traps such as teleportation circle are hard to detect and disable. A character with the trapfinding class feature can use the Disable Device to disarm magic traps. The DC in each case is 25 + spell level, or 34 in the case of teleportation circle.

Now that's just incoherent.

. . .

So, you removed the "rogue (only)" language. That's great. However -- setting aside the inconsistency of presentation -- when you copied over the spells' boilerplate text from 3.5, there is still a major rule change that you have so far failed to address in all but explosive runes, fire trap, and teleportation circle (and there poorly):

In the PFRPG, anyone can use the Perception skill to detect magic traps!!! *

Do I have your attention yet? Good. Now, you're going to have to change them all anyway; so how about we tweak them all for consistency, clarity, and readability while we're at it.

I like that "Note: " at the beginning of some of them. It's nice. The wording for explosive runes is technically correct, but "thwart" is a bit comic-booky -- "disarm" fits the Disable Device skill description better -- and the last sentence is rather awkward. How about taking the best from each one, shuffling things around a bit, and combining them into something like this...

Generic Trap Spell wrote:
Note: Magic traps such as generic trap spell are hard to detect and disarm. The DC in each case is 25 + spell level, or 26 for generic trap spell. Only characters with the trapfinding class feature can use the Disable Device skill to disarm magic traps.

Isn't that slick? I think it's slick. Rules-correct, unmistakable in meaning, and easy to read. So, now let's look at some special cases.

Spike Growth (p.348) wrote:
Magic traps are hard to detect. A character with trapfinding can use the Perception skill to find a spike growth. The DC is 25 + spell level, or DC 28 for spike growth (or DC 27 for spike growth cast by a ranger). Spike growth can’t be disabled with the Disable Device skill.
Spike Stones (p.348) wrote:
Magic traps such as spike stones are hard to detect. A character with trapfinding can use the Perception skill to find spike stones. The DC is 25 + spell level, or DC 29 for spike stones. Spike stones is a magic trap that can’t be disabled with the Disable Device skill.

There's more than one problem with the spike spells: anyone can detect them, and they're not even traps. According to the description of the Disable Device skill, they're magic hazards. So, how about something like this...

Generic Hazard Spell wrote:
Note: Magic hazards such as generic hazard spell are hard to detect. The DC is 25 + spell level, or DC 26 for generic hazard spell. Unlike traps, magic hazards can't be disarmed.

I'm not completely happy with that; but at least it's accurate, clear, and consistent with other parts of the CRB, which is more than can be said for the current wording.

Snare (p.344) wrote:
When you cast snare upon it, the cordlike object blends with its surroundings (DC 23 Perception check for a character with the trapfinding ability to locate).

That can be fixed just by shortening it: "When you cast snare upon it, the cordlike object blends with its surroundings (DC 23 Perception check to locate)."

* If you don't believe me, then please look at the description of the trapfinding class feature on p.68; or compare the restriction section of the Disable Device skill description (p.95) with the absence of one for the Perception skill (p.102); or just read the section on Traps, with particular attention to p.417.


poor visibility (not a condition per se, but effectively it is), and dazzled both are LOGICALLY not compatible with blinded, but per RAW there is nothing suggesting that blinded in mutually exclusive with them (or, a stronger version of them). this can create problems with 2 different mechanics for 1/2 movement 'overlapping'/stacking, and blind characters being able to tumble to bypass 1/2 movement, while characters with poor visibility can't do that per RAW. (who knows what happens if they close their eyes?)

link here: http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz5izj?Do-fog-spells-reduce-movement#21


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

The section on Wizard's Spellbooks in Chapter 3 mentions that they add two new spells at every level. That one of those spells must be of the Wizard's school of specialization is only mentioned in Chapter 9, buried with complicated rules about adding spells from scrolls and other spellbooks. Since it is such a small, easily missed rule, it would be very helpful if that line of information was also included in the Wizard class section. d20pfsrd already does this. Or, if it is one of those half-forgotten rules that doesn't need to exist anymore, that it be excised from the Magic chapter.

Grand Lodge

Straight from SKR's mouth....

The Core Rulebook staves are the correctly priced ones. The APG staves are the ones at fault. Apparently Ultimate Equipment will reflect these changes. Your wallets weep.

Grand Lodge

Pg. 56 - Fighter weapon training groups

Is there any reason thrown splash weapons (alchemist's fire, holy water, etc.) haven't been included in the Thrown weapon category?

Contributor

Strife2002 wrote:

Page 529 - Scabbard of keen edges

This magic item doesn't take up a slot, however the scabbard of stanching, scabbard of vigor, and sheath of bladestealth from the APG are all similar items and all take up the belt slot. Assuming we'd like to maintain uniformity, either the APG's 3 magic items are wrong, or the CRB scabbard is wrong.

The APG scabbard items will be changed to slotless so they don't compete (and lose) to the Str/Dex/Con belt items. We already made this change for Ultimate Equipment.


Pg. 292 - grease

Grease wrote:
Creatures that do not move on their turn do not need to make this check and are not considered flat-footed.

Wait, what? So there are other creatures that *are* considered flat-footed? Tell me more. What if they move and pass the Acrobatics check? What if they just stand up from prone? Inquiring minds want to know!


Fredrik wrote:

Pg. 292 - grease

Grease wrote:
Creatures that do not move on their turn do not need to make this check and are not considered flat-footed.
Wait, what? So there are other creatures that *are* considered flat-footed? Tell me more.

I'm not sure if you're serious, but here's what it says in Acrobatics:

PRD wrote:
You can use Acrobatics to move on narrow surfaces and uneven ground without falling. A successful check allows you to move at half speed across such surfaces—only one check is needed per round. Use the following table to determine the base DC, which is then modified by the Acrobatics skill modifiers noted below. While you are using Acrobatics in this way, you are considered flat-footed and lose your Dexterity bonus to your AC (if any).

So it's saying that if you're not moving, you're not actually "using Acrobatics in this way" as per the skill. Or am I misunderstanding your concern?


I was entirely serious. I assure you that no matter how many times I read the description of grease and the description of how to use Acrobatics to move on "narrow surfaces and uneven ground", it never occurred to me to combine the two. The flavor combo is all wrong -- like orange juice and toothpaste -- and so for me, the mention of flat-footedness in grease was just a bizarre, out-of-nowhere "huh?"


Fredrik wrote:
I was entirely serious. I assure you that no matter how many times I read the description of grease and the description of how to use Acrobatics to move on "narrow surfaces and uneven ground", it never occurred to me to combine the two.

Good point. This is one of those legacy things that used to make more sense in the 3E Player's Handbook, but now doesn't quite make sense because something was tweaked in Pathfinder.


Yeah, I kind of skipped over 3.x. Played AD&D in college, then a long drought, now Pathfinder PbP. I keep on stumbling over things like this, since it seems like everyone else is so deeply immersed in the 3.x rules that they fill in the blanks without even noticing.


Fredrik, I have a couple of newbie players that I am GMing and they have the same issue. I have to explain how things work because PF isnt laid out in a way for newbies to assimilate well. It is unfortunate but hopefully someday they will fix this (without having to pay for a beginners box).

- Gauss


Gauss wrote:

Fredrik, I have a couple of newbie players that I am GMing and they have the same issue. I have to explain how things work because PF isnt laid out in a way for newbies to assimilate well. It is unfortunate but hopefully someday they will fix this (without having to pay for a beginners box).

- Gauss

The Core Rulebook desperately needs a better presentation. Sadly, everyone is so "edition gun-shy" that even if Paizo didn't actually change the rules, a clearer version of the Core Rulebook may well create more problems than it solves.

Although I'd like to believe that the lack of a collector's edition of the Core Rulebook may be a clue that something is in the works. Then again, that might just be wishful thinking...

Grand Lodge

Pg. 334 - Restoration spell

This spell lists a material component of "100 gp or 1,000 gp, see text". The 1,000 gp material component is detailed as being used when you use the spell to heal negative levels. The 100 gp material component isn't mentioned. Presumably it's used when using the spell to heal ability drain, the other use mentioned in this spell description, but it doesn't say.

Cheliax

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

p 384 Eldritch Knight
It says the "Knowledge (nobility and royalty)" is a class skill but there is no "Knowledge (royalty)" skill. It is one of the things you study if you have this skill as stated on p. 100, but isn't a separate skill.

Edit: out of 3197 pathfinder stat blocks in my database not one has a skill with the word "royalty" in it

Grand Lodge

chopswil wrote:

p 384 Eldritch Knight

It says the "Knowledge (nobility and royalty)" is a class skill but there is no "Knowledge (royalty)" skill. It is one of the things you study if you have this skill as stated on p. 100, but isn't a separate skill.

Edit: out of 3197 pathfinder stat blocks in my database not one has a skill with the word "royalty" in it

Ah, yet another 3.x relic. It should just be nobility, as the skill's name was changed for PFRPG.


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The first sentence of Summon Monster could use some tweaking:

Quote:
This spell summons an extraplanar creature (typically an outsider, elemental, or magical beast native to another plane).

Does the extraplanar refer to the subtype? And animal should probably replace magical beast, as there are far more summonable animals than magical beasts. The templates don't change their type to magical beasts anymore, so I think it's a holdover.

And while I'm mentioning possibly inconsequential fluff, the first sentence of Bardic Performance has a 3.5ism.

Quote:
A bard is trained to use the Perform skill to create magical effects on those around him, including himself if desired.

You aren't really using Perform skills to make the effects. Only two of the abilities require it.

Now something that does matter:

Quote:
If a bardic performance has audible components, the targets must be able to hear the bard for the performance to have any effect, and such performances are language dependent.

So playing the drums to inspire courageous behavior in your compatriots is language-dependent.


Pg. 524 - necklace of fireballs

Quote:
Each necklace of fireballs contains a combination of spheres of various strengths. Some traditional combinations, designated types I through VII, are detailed above.

See, here's the thing: they're actually *not* detailed above in any way except costs, and nothing can be deduced from those. The minimum cost per sphere is 300 gp, and the minimum price per necklace is 1650 gp, so there is no way to tell what the heck this magic item description is talking about.

Are we really supposed to figure out some kind of combination of strengths that would come to 1650? Because then I could just as easily figure out a combination of strengths that would come to 1600, or 1700, or whatever. What's the point of these types I through VII? Or are they just another 3.x holdover.

Grand Lodge

Fredrik wrote:

Pg. 524 - necklace of fireballs

Quote:
Each necklace of fireballs contains a combination of spheres of various strengths. Some traditional combinations, designated types I through VII, are detailed above.

See, here's the thing: they're actually *not* detailed above in any way except costs, and nothing can be deduced from those. The minimum cost per sphere is 300 gp, and the minimum price per necklace is 1650 gp, so there is no way to tell what the heck this magic item description is talking about.

Are we really supposed to figure out some kind of combination of strengths that would come to 1650? Because then I could just as easily figure out a combination of strengths that would come to 1600, or 1700, or whatever. What's the point of these types I through VII? Or are they just another 3.x holdover.

Look at the top of that same page. There's a Necklace of Fireballs table detailing what spheres come with each type. A Type V, for instance, comes with a 9d6 sphere, two 7d6 spheres, two 5d6 spheres, and two 3d6 spheres.


The thread is too long to check it all, so I'll just list my errata.

Widen Spell, p. 137: The 3rd printing errata removes "line", but it still refers to "area of one of these four sorts". "Four" should, of course, be "three".

Spell-Like Abilities, Appendix 1, p. 554: "Spell-like abilities can be dispelled and counterspelled as normal." This contradicts p. 221 and Bestiary p. 304, which agree that spell-like abilities cannot be counterspelled.


Strife2002 wrote:
Look at the top of that same page. There's a Necklace of Fireballs table detailing what spheres come with each type. A Type V, for instance, comes with a 9d6 sphere, two 7d6 spheres, two 5d6 spheres, and two 3d6 spheres.

Thanks! My tendency to hyperfocus is sometimes an advantage, sometimes not. This time not. :|

Grand Lodge

Hairy Dude wrote:

The thread is too long to check it all, so I'll just list my errata.

Spell-Like Abilities, Appendix 1, p. 554: "Spell-like abilities can be dispelled and counterspelled as normal." This contradicts p. 221 and Bestiary p. 304, which agree that spell-like abilities cannot be counterspelled.

Yeah...this is one of (more than) a hand-full of things that were corrected in later printings but for one reason or another never made it into the errata documents. This has actually been corrected, and it is as you say: spell-like abilities cannot be counterspelled, nor may they be used to counterspell.

701 to 750 of 805 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Paizo Products / List of Errata in Pathfinder Core Rulebook All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.