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

751 to 800 of 804 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Pg. 185 - Attacks of opportunity paragraph

Last sentence says:

"Spells that require only a free action to cast don’t
provoke attacks of opportunity."

Emphasis mine. This should probably say "swift action" as no spell requires a free action any longer.


Pgs. 17, 24, 30, 555 - skill point vs. rank

There are only a few pages left that reference "skill point" instead of "skill rank". Some of them do it more than once, so I recommend searching the PDF (like I did) to catch them all.


Darkness domain, p. 42: According to the errata, using the 8th level Eyes of Darkness power takes a standard action. Is this right? Personally, I'd have made it a swift action (rather than free, so a deeper darkness spell, for instance, actually hampers you until you have a chance to do something about it).

Knowledge domain, p. 45: nitpicky, but: clairvoyance/clairaudience should be clairaudience/clairvoyance. Also, "at will" is incorrect since it's time-limited.


Weather domain, p. 48: no save DC given for 8th level power Lightning Lord. In line with other 8th level domain powers, it should be 10 + 1/2 cleric level + Wis modifier.


p. 63: The paladin's Holy Champion feature doesn't list a save DC for the banishment effect. If it's really supernatural as listed, rather than spell-like, it would presumably be 10 + 1/2 paladin level + Cha mod.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Hairy Dude wrote:
p. 63: The paladin's Holy Champion feature doesn't list a save DC for the banishment effect. If it's really supernatural as listed, rather than spell-like, it would presumably be 10 + 1/2 paladin level + Cha mod.

Ooh, good point. It also means it would ignore spell resistance.


Animal companions, p. 54: The Cat, Big (Lion, Tiger) has a grab attack, but it's not specified which attack(s) this applies to. In the Bestiary, both lion and tiger have grab on bite, but only the tiger has grab on claw. As a GM I'd probably let the player have it on both even if he has a lion.


Wondrous Items, 504: typo in the description of winged boots: "He can fly three per times day". "Times" and "per" have been exchanged.


Quote:

Great Cleave (Combat)

Benefit: As a standard action, you can make a single attack at your full base attack bonus against a foe within reach. If you hit, you deal damage normally and can make an additional attack (using your full base attack bonus) against a foe that is adjacent to the previous foe and also within reach. If you hit, you can continue to make attacks against foes adjacent to the previous foe, so long as they are within your reach. You cannot attack an individual foe more than once during this attack action. When you use this feat, you take a –2 penalty to your Armor Class until your next turn.

The reference to attack action doesn't correspond to the given action for this ability. It wouldn't make much sense to class it as an attack action, which Vital Strike would apply to, since it can potentially trigger multiple attacks (creating a problem of how to apply the 'single attack' wording of VS). The phrase should probably be amended to 'Standard Action' (i.e. unique action for the ability), matching the first sentence.


or rather than a 1:1 replacement, something like 'you cannot (...) during this action' or 'you cannot use this action/ability to (...)'. I suppose intent on possible interaction with other abilities allowing extra attacks would affect the specific wording... such as enemies somehow taking an AoO, which itself provokes an AoO from you, or abilities giving free attacks on Crits, etc.


Fredrik wrote:
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.

While we're on the subject, when are you'se switching to metric like the rest of the world!? How heavy is a pound? Is it an imperial pound or an american pound? Is there a difference?


Sethizar wrote:
While we're on the subject, when are you'se switching to metric like the rest of the world!? How heavy is a pound? Is it an imperial pound or an american pound? Is there a difference?

There's no difference, but come on, this is a fantasy setting. Maybe Galt, like revolutionary France, uses some sort of decimal system of measures, but otherwise it just isn't setting-appropriate.


p. 338: The searing light spell should probably have the light descriptor.

pp. 351 and 353, summon monster VII and summon nature's ally VII tables: "Mastadon" is misspelled; it should be "mastodon".


Hairy Dude wrote:
There's no difference, but come on, this is a fantasy setting... it just isn't setting-appropriate.

Unless you're using an Italian or French translation of the Pathfinder rules :-)


Even France used pounds (livres) before the Revolution, i.e. in the middle ages.

... having said that, I guess that, if D&D had been developed outside the English-speaking world, it would probably use metric units regardless.

</offtopic>


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

On page 182, errata removed the part about using natural attacks as if Two-Weapon Fighting, but it still mentions TWF in this sentence:

Quote:
Feats such as Two-Weapon Fighting and Multiattack can reduce these penalties.

This could just be a reference to taking the penalties while TWF, but if it's still referring to the old, errata'd away, section it may need to go.

In addition, Mark/Jason commented that the intent with spiked armor isn't so clear, so that could fit in well too.

Grand Lodge

Pg. 47 - Rune Domain

Can't believe I didn't notice this until now (I feel like SOMEBODY is bound to have mentioned this already, but I didn't see it in the thread).

It's already been reported that the Artifice Domain has a slight issue with instant summons being its 8th-level domain spell. Instant summons requires the 0-level spell arcane mark in order to function properly, which the cleric doesn't get. Well apparently the Rune domain has the same issue, as it's its 7th-level domain spell.

As stated before, at least with the Artifice domain, Jason B. has [years ago] stated he acknowledges the issue and until he can come up with a solution he recommends replacing it with another spell like greater arcane sight (again, only speaking for Artifice domain here).

With no official suggestion for replacing the one in the Rune Domain yet, I offer my simple house rule. I alter the text preceding Blast Rune to say:

"Granted Powers: In strange and eldritch runes you find potent magic. You gain Scribe Scroll as a bonus feat and add arcane mark to your list of orisons."

I have a similar fix for the Artifice domain, minus the flavor text and the mention of Scribe Scroll. Keep in mind that those taking the Construct subdomain instead of the standard Artifice domain shouldn't get this caveat, as instant summons gets replaced.


sounds like a good fix strife, arcane mark is very apropos to Rune Domain, unlike Artifice Domain.

====================================================

I discovered a problem with the Perception Modifiers, specifically the description of Unfavorable Conditions,
which effectively cover Dim Lighting amongst other conditions, although that isn't stated up-front (even though 'bright light' is directly mentioned, albeit in the table footnote text). Given Dim Lighting's importance for Stealth, and Stealth's otherwise confusing state of affairs, it seems like a good thing if at least this section of the rules was as clear and coherent as possible...

Quote:

Favorable conditions(1) –2

Unfavorable conditions(1) +2
Terrible conditions(2) +5

(1) Favorable and unfavorable conditions depend upon the sense being used to make the check. For example, bright light might increase the DC of checks involving sight, while torchlight or moonlight might give a penalty. Background noise might reduce a DC involving hearing, while competing odors might penalize any DC involving scent.

I think there is a mistake being made here re: usage of 'penalty' in the table footnote text, and a resulting mis-match between the table footnote text and the table itself, which uses DC modifier language.

I would assume conditions such as torchlight or moonlight should be increasing the DC compared to normal lighting, i.e. would be Unfavorable Conditions... Their text says they would give a 'penalty', apparently to Perception (although that's not stated directly), which would be the functional equivalent to a DC increase. The 'penalty' language doesn't match up to the Table DC increase language though, which is confusing.

EDIT: also, in the rules for Vision and Lighting, torch light within 20' is equated to 'normal lighting' (which presumably doesn't need any DC modifiers). that section also describes the 'increased radius' of torches, along with moonlight and bright starlight, as being examples of 'Dim Light', which matches up with the equivalent (if unclear) treatment given to torchlight and moonlight in the Perception rules... But the Perception rules themselves are rather misleading on what exactly 'Torchlight' should entail... it seems quite easy for a reader to believe that even the 'normal' light within the torch's smaller radius should qualify for some modifier to Perception DC, when I don't think that's intended... So it should distinguish between the inner and outer radii of torchlight. Probably just directly referencing that Dim Light is the crucial factor would be a good idea.

For bright light, I am less clear on intent... The rules say: "For example, bright light might INCREASE the DC of checks involving sight", which isn't problematic in terms of matching the language of the table, and plausibly corresponds to Bright Light being TOO bright to see well, increasing the DC to see...
But the grammar here (using 'while') suggests an intended contrast between Bright Light and Torchlight/Moonlight... And if Torchlight/Moonlight make it HARDER to see (their 'penalty' language suggests that, even if it doesn't match the DC increase format of the table), then a contrasting case should be something that makes it EASIER to see: i.e. Bright Light should help you see things, which means it should LOWER the DC (or give a bonus to Perception) ...But that is the exact opposite of what it states. I believe the Bright Light text IS intended to be a contrast to Torchlight/Moonlight (and is intended to be an example of Favorable Conditions, not clear currently), but it is mixing up the language for DC increase/decrease with bonus/penalty (to Perception).

A similar error is made with the examples for hearing and scent, with the footnote text saying: "Background noise might reduce a DC involving hearing, while competing odors might penalize any DC involving scent." I assume that background noise doesn't HELP you hear other details, rather it's the opposite, so it probably should INCREASE the DC, not decrease it. Likewise, competing odors should work similarly, and make it more difficult to smell... The text for competing odors seems to be mixing up DC increases/decreases with Skill bonuses/penalties, the same sort of mistake that was probably made for Bright Light.

Apparently Dim Lighting is being broken down into two sub-categories (Torchlight/Moonlight and Candlelight), with different modifiers (unfavorable/terrible), which is perhaps 'realistic', but it seems rather OBTUSE that the category 'Dim Lighting' is nowhere mentioned, given that otherwise the game doesn't make any distinctions between sub-levels of 'Dim Lighting', and Dim Lighting itself is so important to Stealth (so people should be able to find relevant rules for it easily). Mentioning Dim Lighting up front would help clarify the increased vs. the normal radius of Torchlight, while helping provide more guidance for lighting conditions that don't correspond to those exact light sources. Something like 'Dim Light, such as from Torchlight or Moonlight' and 'Dim Light, such as from Candlelight' would be so much clearer and USABLE. Meanwhile, the game term 'Bright Lighting' is being directly invoked with no other details. Bright Light in sunshine? Bright Light so bright that it Dazzles? (which conflicts with the penalty for Dazzled)

The footnote text also seems to be using 'may' excessively... Certainly for the specific game term 'bright light', I don't see why it should say 'may', one should be able to simply know if bright lighting makes Perception easier or more difficult. Likewise, if Dim Lighting conditions similarly effect the difficulty of Perception (important for Stealth users dependent on Dim Lighting), that should be able to be stated in a more forthright manner, even if it's divided into Unfavorable/Terrible modifiers. Obviously things that otherwise aren't game terms like 'background noise' and 'competing odors' are going to require GM adjudication more, and 'may' is fine in that case.

Besides fixing the direct mistakes I mentioned, it seems like it wouldn't take any more space to denote Favorable and Unfavorable Conditions with separately numbered footnotes... Breaking down each subject into a separate sentence/line shouldn't need to take up any more space than it does currently. As is, it isn't clear which of the examples (e.g. Bright Light vs. Moonlight) are actually meant to be Favorable or Unfavorable, which would be utterly clear if they were separate sentences/footnes... I figure if it's being Errata'd for the other stuff, 'why not?' break it up into distinct footnotes if it doesn't affect page count.

Ideally, I would simply have DC modifiers explicitly listed on the table for bright light, dim light, and darkness/blindness (blinded is a penalty to perception, but darkness logically should be treated equivalently with other lighting conditions). Even if lighting conditions aren't given their own table entries (duplicating the modifiers for 'general' favorable/unfavorable/terrible conditions), it seems feasible for at least the Vision and Light rules which DO cover all the lighting conditions to reproduce the DC modifiers / Perception modifiers for ALL the lighting conditions: as-is, it only mentions the Perception modifiers for Darkness/Blindness.

Grand Lodge

FAQ update last week everybody; be sure to head over there and witness all the monk love.

Additionally there's a sort-of FAQ addendum on blog. It's all right here.

Grand Lodge

Pg. 523 - Lens of detection

This item was updated in Ultimate Equipment. It now takes up the eye slot and has had its name changed to "lenses of detection".


@Quandary: Check your PDF. My print edition is the fourth printing, and by then the Perception footnotes were correct for how conditions affect the DC. I would like to read a shorter version of that post (says the guy throwing stones in a glass house, while calling rice white).


yeah, my post was rather thorough/long-winded...
mostly thru bringing in the Light & Vision rules which I've found confusing when using the Glossary definition of Low-Light vision and so on.

i don't have the last printing (i'm hoping the next one has alot of errata), but i will quote one succinct line from the PRD:
For example, bright light might increase the DC of checks involving sight, while torchlight or moonlight might give a penalty.
Background noise might reduce a DC involving hearing, while competing odors might penalize any DC involving scent.

What penalty is that talking about regarding torchlight/moonlight? A penalty to Perception check?
That is the same net effect as an increase to the DC (i.e. the same effect results from both Bright and Dim Light, per RAW)?
Or is it using 'penalty' to mean a 'decrease' of the DC? ...Which would make it EASIER to see, which is hardly a PENALTY then.
That matches the grammatic use of 'while' to establish a contrast, though.
The end result is either the two light conditions have the same net effect (which doesn't make sense and conflicts with the grammar),
or they are different but it is the opposite effect one would normally think (that Dim Lighting makes Perception more difficult).

The reading of Dim Lighting which makes the most sense to me ('give a penalty' = penalty to Perception check) doesn't match the format of the Table and all other references to modifiers in the footnote, which specifically reference modifiers to the DC, *NOT* to Perception Checks themself. The second sentence on smells and sound makes similar mistakes with similar results for what the RAW directs you to do: the net effect of the RAW is the opposite of what would expect for both sensory-camouflaging scenarios.

In any case, it's just very confusing for the language used to be switching around so much, as seen by my bolding (increase the DC, give a penalty, reduce a DC, penalize any DC). If an identical mechanical function is being referenced, identical wording should be used, and that should match what the Table is presenting (DC modifiers). It seems fairly important for the rules themselves to be clear on the distinction between increase/decrease of DC and modifiers to Perception, Dim Light saying 'penalty' without reference to what it is penalizing just doesn't seem consistent with the rest of the section (all other conditions mention DC as what they increase/decrease/penalize, even if the result of what they say doesn't make sense) .

If this is just a problem with the PRD, and the print text has been fixed, that's great, they just need to update the PRD.
If I'm remembering correctly though, the last Errata to Perception modifiers was about Invisibility, and that really has nothing to do with this issue...?

EDIT: OK, that qualifies as short-ER, right? :-)

Qadira

Pg. 359 last lines of Teleportation Circle look like they got mangled by a search/replace from the 3.5 SRD.

SRD wrote:
Note: Magic traps such as teleportation circle are hard to detect and disable. A rogue (only) can use the Search skill to find the circle and Disable Device to thwart it. The DC in each case is 25 + spell level, or 34 in the case of teleportation circle.
CRB 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.

should probably read "A creature with the trapfinding class feature can use the disable device skill to disarm magic traps."

the other spells that contain this subnote also just look like victims of Search/Replace reversing a rule that was changed in Pathfinder from 3.5.

Pg. 283 Fire trap, last paragraph.

CRB wrote:
Magic traps such as fire trap are hard to detect and disable. A character with trapfinding can use the Perception skill to find a fire trap and Disable Device to thwart it. The DC in each case is 25 + spell level (DC 27 for a druid's fire trap or DC 29 for the arcane version).

"A character with trapfinding" replaces 3.5's "A Rogue (only)"

"Perception" replaces 3.5's "Search"

but the rules for finding traps have changed, and now anyone can use Perception to find them. but only characters with Trapfinding can disarm them. Teleportation Circle , while mangled by a bad search/replace is the closest to accurate in the current edition. Fire Trap, Glyph of Warding, Snare, Spike Growth, Spike Stones, and Symbol spells also contain wording that comes across as contradictory to the changes in page 417 of Environment > Magic Traps section on perceiving/disarming magic and spell traps.


Quandary wrote:
If this is just a problem with the PRD, and the print text has been fixed, that's great, they just need to update the PRD.

Yes! That explains why I was so confused about what you were saying. There's a problem with the PRD, and so I just now reported it in the thread for that. While you wait for the next printing, I recommend dropping ten bucks for the PDF, since you can always download the latest version. Here's what my fourth-printing hardcopy and fifth-printing PDF both say...

CRB pg. 102, fn. 1 wrote:
Favorable and unfavorable conditions depend upon the sense being used to make the check. For example, bright light might decrease the DC of checks involving sight, while torchlight or moonlight might increase the DC. Background noise might increase a DC involving hearing, while competing odors might increase the DC of a check involving scent.


Seraphimpunk wrote:
stuff about magic traps

*cough* ;)

Cheliax

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

Snatch Arrows feat p. 134

the Benefit text reads "When using the Deflect Arrows feat you may
choose to catch the weapon instead of just deflecting it."

should be "When using the Snatch Arrows feat"

Silver Crusade

chopswil wrote:

Snatch Arrows feat p. 134

the Benefit text reads "When using the Deflect Arrows feat you may
choose to catch the weapon instead of just deflecting it."

should be "When using the Snatch Arrows feat"

No, it means what it says.

Snatch Arrows modifies the use of Deflect Arrows; in essence, you're using both feats simultaneously.

Follow the rules for Deflect normally, but Snatch modifies Deflect in that you end up with the arrow in hand instead of on the floor.

Grand Lodge

Fredrik wrote:
Quandary wrote:
If this is just a problem with the PRD, and the print text has been fixed, that's great, they just need to update the PRD.

Yes! That explains why I was so confused about what you were saying. There's a problem with the PRD, and so I just now reported it in the thread for that. While you wait for the next printing, I recommend dropping ten bucks for the PDF, since you can always download the latest version. Here's what my fourth-printing hardcopy and fifth-printing PDF both say...

CRB pg. 102, fn. 1 wrote:
Favorable and unfavorable conditions depend upon the sense being used to make the check. For example, bright light might decrease the DC of checks involving sight, while torchlight or moonlight might increase the DC. Background noise might increase a DC involving hearing, while competing odors might increase the DC of a check involving scent.

I for one LOVE the PDF copies because they allow me to add notes within the text. Either adding one of those word-bubble-sticky-note things, or highlighting the text and adding a note, so that when you roll your mouse over either it displays a note written by you.

Great for implementing FAQ information, updates to existing rules via newer books, and not-yet-made-official errata.

In fact when they release updated PDFs, I ignore them because I don't want to rewrite many of my notes :p


Good to know it's a problem with the PRD only.
Even though it won't be new to the next print run, I will count this as another factor in favor of buying the next print edition anyways :-) (since I don't have it in the print edition i have)

Grand Lodge

Pg. 270 - Discern location

This spell has an issue because in its information it says "Target one creature or object". The problem with this is that it says "Target" at all (as opposed to Area or Effect), since according to the rules on pages 214-215 of the Core Rulebook for spells that provide target information in their stat blocks:

Text said wrote:
Target or Targets: Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target...

Kinda defeats the purpose of discern location if I have to touch the thing I'm trying to locate.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

There's a mismatch between the CRB's description of bleed and the UMR's description:

Bestiary 3's UMR wrote:

Bleed (Ex)A creature with this ability causes wounds

that continue to bleed, dealing the listed damage each
round at the start of the affected creature’s turn. This
bleeding can be stopped by a successful DC 15 Heal skill
check or through the application of any magical healing.
The amount of damage each round is determined in the
creature’s entry. Format: bleed (2d6); Location: Special
Attacks and individual attacks
CRB's conditions wrote:

Bleed: A creature that is taking bleed damage takes

the listed amount of damage at the beginning of its turn.
Bleeding can be stopped by a DC 15 Heal check or through
the application of any spell that cures hit point damage
(even if the bleed is ability damage). Some bleed effects
cause ability damage or even ability drain. Bleed effects do
not stack with each other unless they deal different kinds
of damage. When two or more bleed effects deal the same
kind of damage, take the worse effect. In this case, ability
drain is worse than ability damage.

On a quick glance, all abilities that cause bleed in the CRB mention that any magical healing would stop it, so updating the condition's text seems like the right answer...

While it seems obvious that the UMR uses the bleed condition, there's a difference in how they are healed ("any magical healing" vs "application of any spell that cures hit point damage"). The Wounding weapon property still mentions the application of cure spells.


Cheapy wrote:
There's a mismatch between the CRB's description of bleed and the UMR's description:

More stealth errata, maybe? (Cf. the grab ability in Bestiary 1 vs. Bestiary 2)


I don't think it's come up in my game yet but if one of my players took bleed damage, I'd allow it to be healed by channelled positive energy - which is technically not a spell but a supernatural ability.


Page 246 in Corebook, Pdf Lite Version, the Hyperlink DeathWatch Spell takes you back to the begining of the spell section instead of the spells entry.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It's probable that this is a problem due to my reading comprehension, but this section of the rules:

Magic Weapons section wrote:
Magic Weapons and Critical Hits: Some weapon qualities and some specific weapons have an extra effect on a critical hit. This special effect also functions against creatures not normally subject to critical hits. On a successful critical roll, apply the special effect, but do not multiply the weapon's regular damage.

could use some slight altering. "On a successful critical roll against such creatures" would make it very clear that the second to last and last sentences are linked thematically.

Grand Lodge

Ghost

I don't have my book in front of me, just noticed this on the PRD. The ghost template description is a little vague on this, but it appears the sample ghost, a formerly alive human aristocrat 7, is missing its human bonus skill points. The template says skills don't change, and so if an elf ghost keeps his skill bonus from keen senses, I don't see why a human ghost wouldn't keep her bonus skill points.

Grand Lodge

(QUICK NOTE: just noticed my post above was put into the wrong thread :-\. whoops.)

Thank you guys for the new errata document!

I noticed that the Artifice domain was finally fixed, replacing the 8th-level domain spell instant summons with statue. The Rune domain, however, was left unchanged, which has the same issue with instant summons as its 7th-level spell. My house rule suggestion for everyone is in the granted powers paragraph of the Rune domain, change the last sentence to say "You gain Scribe Scroll as a bonus feat and add arcane mark to your list of orisons." Arcane mark makes sense for a cleric with the Rune domain anyway. Flavor-rename it to divine mark if the nomenclature makes you squirm.

Grand Lodge

Since a new errata document has been released, it's time for my list o' things that we thought needed fixing and weren't mentioned. Before I get into that though, I just wanted to thank the Pathfinder Design Team for making the Stealth skill OFFICIALLY better with this new printing!

Also I'm aware some of these are going to be categorized by Paizo as "typos" which aren't considered errata unless the typo somehow affects the rules of the game. I'm going to try to limit the mentioning of typos to just those rule-affecting ones and not those like whenever it mentions "prohibited schools" instead of "opposed schools."

Anyway, let's get down to it. Keep in mind that I'm working from a dead-tree version of the 2nd printing of the Core Rulebook updated via sticky-notes to match the 6th. If any of the things I'm reporting below are already in your newer printing, then speak up! These are those hard-to-find corrections that made it into the new printings but weren't mentioned in the errata documents!

Compiled CRB community errata:
Pg. 25 - In the defensive training section for the gnome, change "giant type" to "giant subtype."

Pg. 38 - Lore master class feature, first sentence says "the bard becomes a master of lore and can take 10 on any Knowledge skill check that he has ranks in," however any class can do this. Perhaps it was intended to say they can take 10 on any Knowledge check, even while distracted?

Pg. 39 - Second paragraph under suggestion, first sentence, change "daily use of bardic performance" to "remaining uses of bardic performance."

Pg. 47 - Knowledge Domain, remote viewing granted power, first sentence, delete "at will".

Pg. 48 - Weather Domain, lightning lord granted power is missing its save DC. It should probably be 10 + 1/2 cleric level + Wis modifier.

Pg. 54 - Cat, Big (Lion, Tiger) animal companion, 7th-Level Advancement, Special Attacks say "grab" but doesn't mention what attack the grab is applied to. Typical lions and tigers have grab on their bite attacks, but only the tiger has it on its claw attacks, also.

Pg. 63 - Divine Bond class feature, fourth paragraph, second sentence says Medium paladins usually receive a heavy horse, but that's redundant since it uses the animal companion rules, and the horse animal companion essentially is a heavy horse. It could just say "horse".

Pg. 63 - Holy Champion paragraph, third sentence says an evil outsider that is smote by a paladin with this ability is subject to a banishment effect, but doesn't list its save DC. Because the holy champion ability itself is a supernatural ability, it stands to reason this effect would be, as well. Therefore, rather than being calculated as a spell-like ability, the save DC for a supernatural ability such as this would be 10 + 1/2 the paladin's level + Cha mod.

Pg. 86 - Skill Checks, third paragraph, last sentence, change "if your check result exceeds" to "if your check result equals or exceeds".

Pg. 112 - Item Creation Feats, skill check paragraph, first sentence, change "10 + the item's caster level" to "5 + the item's caster level."

Pg. 136 - Weapon Finesse feat, Benefit paragraph, first sentence mentions all the weapons (from the Core Rulebook) that work with weapon finesse, but leaves out the elven curve blade.

Pg. 137 - Widen Spell feat, Benefit section, last paragraph, change "four" to "three".

Pg. 140 - Weapons section, second paragraph, last sentence, change "if this second attack roll exceeds" to "if this second attack roll equals or exceeds".

Pg. 146 - Gauntlet paragraph, fourth sentence says medium and heavy armors come with gauntlets except for breastplate. It should probably include hide armor as an exception, as well, since there's no mention of gauntlets in the hide armor descriptions in the Core Rulebook, Ultimate Equipment, Beginner's Box, or in the piecemeal armor rules in Ultimate Combat.

Pg. 147 - "Mace:" should be changed to "Mace, light:"

Pg. 147 - The net's description should probably mention it takes two hands to use a net, a precedent set by a series of net-related feats from Ultimate Combat (and common sense).

Pg. 185 - Attacks of Opportunity paragraph, last sentence, change "free action" to "swift action".

Pg. 189 - Disabled (0 Hit Points), second paragraph, first sentence should be changed to read as follows:

"You gain the staggered condition and can only take a single move or standard action each turn (but not both, nor can you take full-round actions), as well as immediate, swift, and free actions as usual."

Pg. 202 - Two-Weapon Fighting, thrown weapons paragraph, the starknife didn't make into the listing here. It's probably treated as a one-handed weapon for this purpose.

Pg. 202 - Two-Weapon Fighting, thrown weapons paragraph, the net is mentioned as being treated as a one-handed weapon for the purposes of throwing it with another thrown weapon in the other hand, which as mentioned before, creates a weird rules situation. According to a handful of net-related feats from Ultimate Combat, a net is normally a two-handed thrown weapon. According to this section, however, a net can be used as a one-handed thrown weapon as long as the other hand is also throwing a thrown weapon. With the Net and Trident feat from Ultimate Combat, a character can use a net as a one-handed ranged weapon while using a light or one-handed melee weapon and still make ranged attacks. None of this is contradictory (except maybe to logic), but it's wildly convoluted.

Pg. 203 - Ready section, distracting spellcasters paragraph, last sentence, "Spellcraft check result" should probably be changed to "concentration check result".

Pg. 220 - Divine Spells section, spell selection and preparation, first paragraph, third sentence, change "a cleric" to "a divine spellcaster".

Pg. 247 - Beast shape II spell, first paragraph, last sentence says if the form you assume has any of the following abilities, you gain them, and it lists scent. When taking the form of a hammerhead or blue shark, however, it's uncertain if you gain the creatures' keen scent ability instead, the normal scent ability, or neither.

Pg. 247 - Beast shape III spell, first paragraph, last sentence says if the form you assume has any of the following abilities, you gain them, and it lists scent. When taking the form of a tiger shark or great white shark, however, it's uncertain if you gain the creatures' keen scent ability instead, the normal scent ability, or neither.

Pg. 262 - Crushing despair spell, material component doesn't specify what it is exactly. Previous editions had it at "(a vial of tears)".

Pg. 266 - Detect Chaos/Evil/Good/Law table, Aligned creature (HD), Faint aura should be changed from "5-10" to "6-10".

Pg. 283 - Fire trap spell, a previous errata changed the second sentence in the fifth paragraph to read "A character with trapfinding can use the Perception skill to find a fire trap and Disable Device to thwart it" when that's misleading. Anyone cause use Perception to detect a magic trap.

Pg. 289 - Giant form II spell, first sentence, change "giant type" to "giant subtype."

Pg. 289 - Giant form II spell, fourth sentence, "resistance to one element" should be changed to "resistance to any elements". Apparently this change was made in later printings already, and was supposed to be in the errata document before this last one, but didn't make it in. It was supposed to instead be mentioned in the latest errata document, but c'est la vie.

Pg. 290 - Glibness spell, all bard spells are supposed to have a verbal component, but this one doesn't.

Pg. 291 - Glyph of warding spell, fifth paragraph, second sentence still has relic text saying only rogues can use Perception to find magic traps and Disable Device to thwart them, when anyone can use Perception to detect magic traps and those with trapfinding can use Disable Device to thwart them.

Pg. 292 - Grease spell, first paragraph, last sentence includes text saying a target affected by this spell that doesn't move on their turn don't have to make a Reflex save to avoid falling and aren't considered flat-footed. The mention of "flat-footed" seems out of place as it's not mentioned anywhere else in the text. It's possible it could be referring to the rules for moving across a narrow surface using the Acrobatics skill, but it's uncertain.

Pg. 323 - Plant shape I, last paragraph, "+2 enhancement bonus" should probably be changed to "+2 size bonus" like it is in the paragraph before it (or vice versa, with "+2 size bonus" in paragraph 2 being changed to "+2 enhancement bonus").

Pg. 323 - Polymorph spell, second paragraph, first sentence, "or magical beast" should be deleted.

Pg. 323 - Polymorph, greater spell, first paragraph, first sentence, change "dragon or plant creature" to "dragon, magical beast, or plant creature".

Pg. 329 - Rainbow pattern spell, components entry says "see text" at the end of it but no text within the description delves into this deeper. It was likely referring to text that was probably cut that mentioned how bards and only bards must include a verbal component with this spell.

Pg. 344 - Snare spell, first paragraph, third sentence, delete "for a character with the trapfinding ability". All characters can use Perception to detect magic traps.

Pg. 348 - Spike growth spell, last paragraph, second sentence has relic text saying only rogues can use Perception to find magic traps.

Pg. 348 - Spike stones spell, last paragraph, second sentence has relic text saying only rogues can use Perception to find magic traps.

Pg. 356 - Symbol of death spell, last paragraph, second sentence still has relic text saying only rogues can use Perception to find magic traps and Disable Device to thwart them, when anyone can use Perception to detect magic traps and those with trapfinding can use Disable Device to thwart them.

Pg. 356 - Symbol of fear spell, last paragraph, second sentence still has relic text saying only rogues can use Perception to find magic traps and Disable Device to thwart them, when anyone can use Perception to detect magic traps and those with trapfinding can use Disable Device to thwart them.

Pg. 356 - Symbol of insanity spell, last paragraph, second sentence still has relic text saying only rogues can use Perception to find magic traps and Disable Device to thwart them, when anyone can use Perception to detect magic traps and those with trapfinding can use Disable Device to thwart them.

Pg. 356 - Symbol of pain spell, last paragraph, second sentence still has relic text saying only rogues can use Perception to find magic traps and Disable Device to thwart them, when anyone can use Perception to detect magic traps and those with trapfinding can use Disable Device to thwart them.

Pg. 356 - Symbol of persuasion spell, last paragraph, second sentence still has relic text saying only rogues can use Perception to find magic traps and Disable Device to thwart them, when anyone can use Perception to detect magic traps and those with trapfinding can use Disable Device to thwart them.

Pg. 356 - Symbol of sleep spell, last paragraph, second sentence still has relic text saying only rogues can use Perception to find magic traps and Disable Device to thwart them, when anyone can use Perception to detect magic traps and those with trapfinding can use Disable Device to thwart them.

Pg. 357 - Symbol of stunning spell, last paragraph, second sentence still has relic text saying only rogues can use Perception to find magic traps and Disable Device to thwart them, when anyone can use Perception to detect magic traps and those with trapfinding can use Disable Device to thwart them.

Pg. 357 - Symbol of weakness spell, last paragraph, second sentence still has relic text saying only rogues can use Perception to find magic traps and Disable Device to thwart them, when anyone can use Perception to detect magic traps and those with trapfinding can use Disable Device to thwart them.

Pg. 362 - True resurrection spell, components entry should be rearranged to indicate that the 25,000 gp diamond is the material component, not the divine focus.

Pg. 363 - Unhallow spell, third paragraph, first sentence, "+4 sacred bonus" should be changed to "+4 profane bonus".

Pg. 378 - Assassin prestige class, requirements, alignment entry says "Any evil" when this contradicts the class's description which says neutral characters sometimes become assassins but often become evil due to the duties of an assassin.

Pg. 384 - Eldritch knight prestige class, class skills, "Knowledge (nobility and royalty)" should be changed to "Knowledge (nobility)".

Pg. 404 - First sentence on the page, delete "that an elven PC might notice just in passing."

Pg. 412 - Ledge paragraph, last sentence, "opposed Strength check" should be changed to "CMD".

Pg. 453 - Table 14-7: Racial Ability Adjustments, Halflings are listed as having a +2 to Intelligence when it should be Charisma.

<<Skipping my tired rant about staff price inaccuracies>>

Pg. 495 - Staff of power, description says the staff is also a +2 quarterstaff, but since quarterstaves are double weapons and this staff is the best money can buy, it was probably meant to be a +2/+2 quarterstaff.

Pg. 496 - Staff of the woodlands, description says the staff is also a +2 quarterstaff, but since quarterstaves are double weapons, and what with this staff being one of the highest priced, it was probably meant to be a +2/+2 quarterstaff.

Pg. 513 - Feather token (whip) - doesn't mention what this item's CMD is, which is important to know when trying to escape a grapple against it.

Pg. 515 - Golem manual, stone golem manual paragraph, last sentence mentions antimagic field is used in the creation of this item which seems random and out of place when no other golem manual requires this.

Pg. 538 - Armor of arrow attraction, change the slot from "body" to "armor".

Pg. 538 - Armor of rage, change the slot from "body" to "armor".

Pg. 540 - Bracers of defenselessness, change the slot from "arms" to "wrists".

Pg. 551 - Creating Magic Weapons, fifth paragraph, delete "XP".

Pg. 554 - Spell Like Abilities (Sp) paragraph, last sentence, spell-like abilities can be dispelled as normal but they CANNOT be counterspelled or used to counterspell. This should be changed to reflect this. It's possible this could be one of those hard-to-find errors that was already corrected but not put into an errata document.

Pg. 562 - Death Attacks, first paragraph says if a character fails their Fortitude save, they die instantly. Pathfinder changed many death attacks to no longer slay, but rather deal profound amounts of damage. As such, the first paragraph should be changed to something along the lines of:

"In most cases, a death attack allows the victim a Fortitude save to avoid or lessen the effect, but if the save fails, the character either takes the full amount of damage or dies instantly, as indicated by the effect."

Pg. 562 - Death Attacks, second bullet point still says that death attacks slay instantly. This should probably be changed to "Some death attacks slay instantly".

Pg. 565 - When Spell Resistance Applies, effect Spells section, first paragraph, last sentence, delete "such as web."

Pg. 568 - First paragraph under Prone, second sentence, change "(except for a crossbow)" to "(except for a crossbow or shuriken)". Technically firearms, too, but that's not in the Core Rulebook.

EDIT: Missed a few. Added them in.


I have to wonder how some of these have persisted for six printings. :-(


Though...I just read the stealth errata, and I must say: Well done.

Grand Lodge

Pg. 566 - Disabled condition

Found some relic text in the conditions section under disabled. 4th sentence mentions that casting a quickened spell is a free action when it is actually a swift action now.

Grand Lodge

This is sort of an addendum to my post a few spots up about errors that didn't make it into the latest errata. Found one of those "fixed errors" that for some reason didn't make it into any of the previous errata documents. As far as I know at this point it was fixed back in the 4th printing of the book:

On page 304, the light spell, first sentence of the description, change "in a 20-foot radius" to "in a 20-foot radius from the point touched".

This errata stopped cheese players from interpreting the rules (incorrectly) as being able to cast the spell on a larger object, thereby creating a torch-like light effect in several squares.

Grand Lodge

In case you missed it, the Core Rulebook got a number of updates to its official FAQ this weekend.


This is actually a proposed change to flavor text for the Dodge feat, rather than the mechanics.

the text reads wrote:
Your training and reflexes allow you to react swiftly to avoid an opponents’ attacks.

It should read

Quote:
Your training and reflexes allow you to react swiftly to avoid your opponents’ attacks. (emphasis mine for clarity)

to bring it in line with the mechanical effect of giving the character a straight +1 dodge bonus.

A small change that I'm surprised hasn't made it through. Maybe few people have a problem with it, but I was confused at first about how Dodge applied, just coming from a 3.5e background.

Cheliax

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

Since the Light spell was changed to add "shedding normal light in a 20-foot radius from the point touched", shouldn't the Continual Flame spell have the same text added to prevent the same thing?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
qhudspeth wrote:

This is actually a proposed change to flavor text for the Dodge feat, rather than the mechanics.

the text reads wrote:
Your training and reflexes allow you to react swiftly to avoid an opponents’ attacks.

It should read

Quote:
Your training and reflexes allow you to react swiftly to avoid your opponents’ attacks. (emphasis mine for clarity)

to bring it in line with the mechanical effect of giving the character a straight +1 dodge bonus.

A small change that I'm surprised hasn't made it through. Maybe few people have a problem with it, but I was confused at first about how Dodge applied, just coming from a 3.5e background.

Could also cut word count by removing "an opponents'" completely from the text, so it says

Quote:
Your training and reflexes allow you to react swiftly to avoid attacks.


Kor - Orc Scrollkeeper wrote:

Conflicted Error:

Page 212
Transmutation - Polymorph

"When you cast a polymorph spell that changes you into a creature of the animal, dragon, elemental, magical beast, plant, or vermin type, all of your gear melds into your body. Items that provide constant bonuses and do not need to be activated continue to function while melded in this way (with the exception of armor bonuses, which cease to function)."

There is another error in the quoted passage: it mentions the elemental type, which no longer exists. Is there a non-awkward way to say elemental sub-type of outsider instead?


I would just use the current sentence, but change "type" to "type or sub-type".
That doesn't explicitly specify that Elemental is the only one of those that is a Sub-Type, but it's not really necessary to.


In the Envirionment Chapter rules for Getting Lost, the following line appears:

"A character with at least 5 ranks in Knowledge (geography) or Knowledge (local) pertaining to the area being traveled through gains a +2 bonus on this check."

"Pertaining to the area" suggests that those skills are specific to one area, in the way Weapon Focus Feat is specific to one weapon. Yet neither skill are ever described in such a way where you specify the region they apply to. This passage also has heavy flavoring of 3.5 skill synergy.

Perhaps an alternative is to allow Knowledge(Geography) or Knowledge(Local) to substitute for Survival checks to avoid getting lost, using the same DC? (Local applying to Urban settings, Geography to wilderness)


In the Combat Chapter, the description of the Full-Round Action type seems misleading to the point of appearing identical to how 1-Round Casting Time Spells works:

"A full-round action requires an entire round to complete. Thus, it can't be coupled with a standard or a move action, though if it does not involve moving any distance, you can take a 5-foot step."

751 to 800 of 804 << 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.