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

Starfinder


Pathfinder Society


Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

List of Errata in Pathfinder Core Rulebook


Product Discussion

801 to 830 of 830 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

In the table for the deck of Illusions (page 509), in the second column (the tarot cards), the five of cups is used twice (for Goblin and Kobold). This is a long standing error (it also shows up in the 3.5 DMG and the 3.5 SRD), but it should be fixed in errata at some point. I guess just not many people use tarot cards for this.

Grand Lodge

personwholives wrote:
In the table for the deck of Illusions (page 509), in the second column (the tarot cards), the five of cups is used twice (for Goblin and Kobold). This is a long standing error (it also shows up in the 3.5 DMG and the 3.5 SRD), but it should be fixed in errata at some point. I guess just not many people use tarot cards for this.

I'm going to go mention this in the Ultimate Equipment errata thread, as well.

On a related note, this may not be an error but I wanted to point out that the two of pentacles is the only card that appears in both the deck of illusions and the deck of many things. This may have been just a huge coincidence, and the designers of these items weren't actively trying to make each deck's cards unique to one another. If for whatever reason a GM wanted to replace one deck's two of pentacles card (say if the party had one of each deck with them), I'd recommend changing the deck of illusions. It creates a duplicate of the deck's owner, so perhaps the VI. Lover card? That card's still fair game and seems appropriate/funny to me.

EDIT: On second thought, maybe for the deck of illusions switch the two of pentacles and the two of staves, and THEN replace the two of pentacles with the VI. Lover card. This would create a duplicate of the deck's owner in the opposite gender, which is even funnier.


Respectfully, this sentence on page 553 of the Core book makes no sense:

"The cost to add additional abilities to an item is the same as if the item was not magical, less the value of the original item."

First of all, it's in the subjunctive so it should be "if the item were not magical." But that'a a quibble.

Second, and more importantly, if you follow that sentence literally, it would produce zero or another nonsense number. So let's say I want to upgrade a MW greatsword to be a +1 greatsword, I'm supposed to start with the cost of the item if it were not magical -- OK, that's 400 (350 MW + 50 for sword). Then I'm supposed to subtract from that the value of the original item. The value of the original item is also 400, so you get zero.

On the other hand -- the example of "Thus, a +1 longsword can be made into a +2 vorpal longsword, with the cost to create it being equal to that of a +2 vorpal sword minus the cost of a +1 longsword." -- makes perfect sense. But that's not what the text is instructing. Instead it should say something like this:

"The cost to add additional abilities to an item is found by taking the value of the item with the added ability(ies) and subtracting the value of the original item."

That would be a good fix for the next errata and printing of the book.

Grand Lodge

DM Jeff in Virginia wrote:

Respectfully, this sentence on page 553 of the Core book makes no sense:

"The cost to add additional abilities to an item is the same as if the item was not magical, less the value of the original item."

First of all, it's in the subjunctive so it should be "if the item were not magical." But that'a a quibble.

Second, and more importantly, if you follow that sentence literally, it would produce zero or another nonsense number. So let's say I want to upgrade a MW greatsword to be a +1 greatsword, I'm supposed to start with the cost of the item if it were not magical -- OK, that's 400 (350 MW + 50 for sword). Then I'm supposed to subtract from that the value of the original item. The value of the original item is also 400, so you get zero.

On the other hand -- the example of "Thus, a +1 longsword can be made into a +2 vorpal longsword, with the cost to create it being equal to that of a +2 vorpal sword minus the cost of a +1 longsword." -- makes perfect sense. But that's not what the text is instructing. Instead it should say something like this:

"The cost to add additional abilities to an item is found by taking the value of the item with the added ability(ies) and subtracting the value of the original item."

That would be a good fix for the next errata and printing of the book.

Just so you know, masterwork weapons cost 300 gp above the base, not 350.


Typo?

p.82 wrote:

Universalist School

Wizards who do not specialize (known as as universalists)
have the most diversity of all arcane spellcasters.

"as as" ????

Grand Lodge

Pgs. 502 & 517 - Belt of Physical Perfection +6 and Headband of Mental Superiority +6

This was brought up in the Ultimate Equipment errata thread, but it applies to the Core Rulebook as well on the page numbers listed above. I'll just go ahead and post what Waffle Joe originally said:

Waffle Joe wrote:
For no apparent reason the Belt of Physical Perfection +6 and the Headband of Mental Superiority +6 have a crafting cost 5,000 GP too high. Their purchase price is 144,000 but their crafting cost is 77,000. 2x77,000 is 154,000. The +2 and +4 versions don't have this issue and nothing else related has this issue and nothing I can find explains the difference in setting, so I'm assuming it's a math error.

I concur.

Grand Lodge

Pg. 378 - Assassin's class skills

In the assassin's class skills, change "Disable Device (Int)" to "Disable Device (Dex)".


Page 17, description for Wisdom: Wisdom is the most important ability for clerics and druids, and it is also important for paladins and rangers. It is no longer important for Paladins, none of their abilities key off of Wisdom. Holdover from 3.5


eternalglory wrote:
Page 17, description for Wisdom: Wisdom is the most important ability for clerics and druids, and it is also important for paladins and rangers. It is no longer important for Paladins, none of their abilities key off of Wisdom. Holdover from 3.5

Agreed, replace paladin with monk.

Grand Lodge

Ultimate Equipment errata's effect on the CRB

Ultimate Equipment got an errata recently, and some of the changes in that book apply to a couple things in the CRB where they were sourced from.

* Pgs. 297 - Feather token, whip, updated to say that the whip has a CMD of 25.
* Pg. 475 - Screaming bolt, add "for one round" at the end of the first sentence.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

p 174, Table 7-9 Carrying load figures for light and heavy horse are low - a light horse's Str is 16 in the Bestiary, which should make the load range 231-690 lbs, and for the heavy horse it should be 402-1,200 lbs.

Grand Lodge

Chemlak wrote:
p 174, Table 7-9 Carrying load figures for light and heavy horse are low - a light horse's Str is 16 in the Bestiary, which should make the load range 231-690 lbs, and for the heavy horse it should be 402-1,200 lbs.

Likewise, I see similar issues further down that list with the Pony and Riding Dog. The Pony should have listed 76.5-150 and the Riding Dog should have listed 100.5-199.5.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Thanks, Strife: I was managing a 5-year-old and it took me half an hour to write that post as it was, let alone checking other things on it.

Dark Archive

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

this kinda spans several books so i'm not sure where to post it

some spells are formatted like so "Major Creation" and "Major Image" other have formatting like this "Curse, Major" and "Mind Swap, Major"

it probably would be a pain for "Major Creation" to be moved from the "M" spells to "Creation, Minor" in the "C"s but the purist in me likes standardization

from Core p.224 "the spells are presented in
alphabetical order by name except for those belonging to
certain spell chains. When a spell’s name begins with “lesser,”
“greater,” or “mass,” the spell is alphabetized under the second
word of the spell name instead."

while major and minor are not explicitly spell out above they seem to fall into the same concept of a "spell chain"


Is there a complete list of Core Rulebook Errata available as a PDF?. I just got the Core Rulebook yesterday and would like to know where the mistakes are.

Edit: Oh, by the way, I have the Sixth Printing (March 2013).


Reckless Hound wrote:

Is there a complete list of Core Rulebook Errata available as a PDF?. I just got the Core Rulebook yesterday and would like to know where the mistakes are.

Edit: Oh, by the way, I have the Sixth Printing (March 2013).

The compiled errata files are produced when the next printing is done.. and then there's an errata file created for each prior printing. So, until the Core Rulebook goes to a 7th printing, there won't be a new errata file and the 6th printing is it.

Some entries in the FAQ for the book will be noted as errata for the next printing. That's a close as you will get for the moment.


Okay, thank you Urath DM!.


Core Rulebook errata (when they're done) can be found here.


Yeah I was aware of that page Matthew, but thanks anyway. I've got all the free goodies downloaded too, thanks Paizo!. :)

Grand Lodge

Reckless Hound, if you're curious about a collection of errata for the edition you have (which is the latest edition as of writing this), then here's a compiled list of items that I put together of errata from this thread that weren't addressed yet.


Strife2002 wrote:
Reckless Hound, if you're curious about a collection of errata for the edition you have (which is the latest edition as of writing this), then here's a compiled list of items that I put together of errata from this thread that weren't addressed yet.

Thanks Strife2002, that's quite the list, it's a lot to take in.

Grand Lodge

Reckless Hound wrote:
Strife2002 wrote:
Reckless Hound, if you're curious about a collection of errata for the edition you have (which is the latest edition as of writing this), then here's a compiled list of items that I put together of errata from this thread that weren't addressed yet.
Thanks Strife2002, that's quite the list, it's a lot to take in.

Don't be too scared. The bulk of that are just typos I think, or obvious clarifications.


@ Strife2002
Have you done the same for the Bestiary?.


Is there any errors in the Bestiary Third printing, dated September 2011?.

Grand Lodge

A number, yes, but I'm not liable to do a compilation for that book, or any book that's stat-block heavy, since the thought of creating that is too much even for MY OCD. My recommendation would be when you're preparing a game (assuming you're a GM), simply open up the Bestiary 1 errata thread, and in the search bar, look up the name of the creature and see if any errors have been posted about it (and compare it to what the 3rd printing is already saying is fixed).


Strife2002 wrote:
A number, yes, but I'm not liable to do a compilation for that book, or any book that's stat-block heavy, since the thought of creating that is too much even for MY OCD. My recommendation would be when you're preparing a game (assuming you're a GM), simply open up the Bestiary 1 errata thread, and in the search bar, look up the name of the creature and see if any errors have been posted about it (and compare it to what the 3rd printing is already saying is fixed).

Alright, thanks for pointing me to that thread!. :)

Grand Lodge

No problem. Here's a full list, by the way, of all the "semi-official" errata threads for the CORE books (semi-official in that posters created them, but they're referenced by the devs when they do corrections):

Core Rulebook (You are here)
Gamemastery Guide
Advanced Players Guide
Advanced Race Guide
Advanced Class Guide (don't be scared by this one. It's a ton of pages long but most of those are just people complaining.)
Ultimate Magic
Ultimate Combat
Ultimate Campaign
Ultimate Equipment
Ultimate Intrigue
Pathfinder Unchained
Mythic Adventures
Occult Adventures
Horror Adventures
Bestiary 1
Bestiary 2
Bestiary 3
Bestiary 4
Bestiary 5
Monster Codex
NPC Codex
Villain Codex


In the pdf of the corebook the bookmark/hyperlink to description of the spell "Mind Blank" is called "Mind Blink"

Grand Lodge

Pgs. 102 & 478 - Identifying Potions

There are contradicting formulae for using Perception to identify potions.

Normally, the rule for IDing a magic item is a Spellcraft check, DC = 15 + caster level.

Potions are special in that they can be identified via Perception as well as Spellcraft; on page 102, the Perception skill says it can be used to do this with a DC equal to 15 + caster level (like normal with Spellcraft).

The Potion description on page 478, however, says they can be identified with a DC = 15 + spell level. Depending on which is right could mean a huge difference in DCs for some potions.

For example, a character trying to ID a potion of barkskin +5 would need to pass a DC 27 Perception check with page 102's method, or a DC 17 Perception check with page 478's method.

SIDE NOTE: Alchemists and investigators can use Craft (alchemy) to ID potions as if using detect magic (Spellcraft method), so if page 478's formula is the correct one, it would always be more beneficial for them to use Perception instead.

EDIT: Also, if page 478's formula is correct, that same potion of barkskin +5 would have the same DC to identify as your standard +2 variety of the potion.

Grand Lodge

Pg. 88 - Acrobatics skill

The rules for falling damage on page 443 don't match the Acrobatics skill's short description of calculating falling damage, and suggest using Acrobatics allows you to ignore the first 10 feet, when it only changes lethal to nonlethal damage (deliberately falling, however, does allow you to ignore the first 10). In the Acrobatics skill's Check description, 3rd paragraph (that starts with "When you deliberately fall"), delete the first sentence and change it to the following:

"When you deliberately fall any distance, even as a result of a missed jump, you ignore the first 10 feet fallen. A DC 15 Acrobatics check allows you to treat the first 10 feet fallen as nonlethal damage. These actions can be combined, and so deliberately falling and passing a DC 15 Acrobatics check allows you to ignore the first 10 feet fallen and treat the second 10 feet as nonlethal damage. If you take any lethal damage from your fall, you land prone."

801 to 830 of 830 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / List of Errata in Pathfinder Core Rulebook All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, 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.