To elaborate on the subject of what ´you cannot move´ vs. movement cannot occur distinction, another poster Karkon summed it up even more consisely:
If this was true then the reverse should be true. That is if I take a 5 foot step then I cannot be bull rushed afterward for any movement. But that is not the case.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I'm sure this has been covered before, but I can't find it in the errata or FAQ.
In the rulebook on page 106 under Spellcraft in the "retry" paragraph it says if you fail a Spellcraft check to learn a new spell, you can try again after one week.
On page 219 under "Spells copied from another's spellbook or scroll" it says you can't try again until you gain another rank in Spellcraft.
I only have the 2nd printing, and it does not seem to be in the errata. Which is correct?
The issue of Untyped AC Bonuses not applying to CMD has been reported, but there is more...
While Armor/Shield/Nat.Armor BONUSES don´t apply, CMD says ´all AC penalties apply´, meaning any penalty to Armor/Shield/Nat.Armor would apply to CMD.
This is really pretty much similar to Touch AC, although instead of starting over from scratch as if AC didn´t exist, Touch AC says what DOESN´T apply to it, namely Armor/Shield/Nat.Armor Bonuses, but goes on to say that all AC penalties apply. At least Touch AC has the fluff wording that ´Touch Attacks ignore Armor´ which gives a clue that one MIGHT also ignore those penalties, but CMD has no such fluff wording in the first place.
------------------------------------------------
I´ve mentioned this several times here on the boards previously, but it´d be nice if Touch Attacks (including spells AND natural abilities, mundane weapons, etc) were coherently defined, and things like Holding a Charge (from Touch SPELLS) was dealt with discretely. As is, Touch Attacks are only defined obliquely thru the part in the AC section about Touch AC (though named Touch Attacks), and in the Holding a Charge rules, along with tangential references here and there (UAS) ...When there happens to exist a TON of Touch Attacks that AREN´T spells or SLAs, it´s frustrating that the only definition of Touch Attacks (not just Touch AC, but their actual characteristics) presumes you are using a Touch Spell.
AFAIK, per RAW, if a monster (or whoever) has a Touch Attack listed in their OFFENCE SECTION than it is a normal attack vector/option, essentially a Natural Weapon, and they can Cleave/Whirlwind Attack/Spring Attack/AoO with it all they want... But that doesn´t apply to Spell (Held Charge) Touch Attacks (?) because those require a Standard Action (unless using UAS/Natural Weapons).
Where this really gets ugly is when you realize not all (multi target/round) Touch Spells actually depend on Holding the Charge... Calcific Touch allows 1 target per round for the duration, and although you can IMAGINE that as regenerating a single Charge each round which you Hold until the end of your turn, the actual RAW doesn´t coincide with that (Holding the Charge only applies when Spell´s don´t otherwise provide for multiple targets over multiple rounds, which Calcific Touch DOES do). And not to make out Calcific Touch to be some problematic step-child, because the Holding a Charge rules clearly forsee that some multi-target/round Touch spells won´t rely on/ be subject to it´s rule set.
...So one is left trying to guess which parts of Holding the Charge to apply to non-Held Touch Spells, and which to not apply. Should the action to deliver Calcific Touch be a Standard Action (or via UAS/Nat.Wpns.) like Held Charge spells? Or is it essentially a Natural Weapon like Monsters with Touch Attacks in their Offence section? ...Suggesting that while it can´t be Iterated, it could be used IN ADDITION to Iteratives as a 2ndary attack - But perhaps because you´re not Holding the Charge, you CAN´T deliver it via UAS/Natural Weapons like normal Touch Spells? ...WHO KNOWS...
With the amount of rules duplication between Combat Chapter and Magic Chapter (which allows space for new sentences) in their place), it seems there´s more than enough room to institute some changes so that the basics are actually covered clearly and everything else is more straightforward on top of those basics.
|
The text in the diagram in page 194 doesn't match the written rules for cover. The text:
"#2. [..] The ogre has melee cover from her [Merisiel], but if it attacks her, Merisiel does not have cover from it, as the ogre has reach (so it figures attacks as if attacking with a ranged weapon)."
That's an error, as the the rule doesn't say that you use the ranged rules for cover if you have reach, but only if your enemy is not adjacent to you. So, Merisiek (#2) would have cover; and Kyra (#3) wouldn't."When making a melee attack against a target that isn’t adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks."
Sorry for digging up this older post from this thread but I tend to agree with angelroble. While brushing up on cover rules I came across this diagram and it seems to contradict the rules.
The Ogre is adjacent to Merisiel, therefore the Ogre should have to abide by the rule:
"When making a melee attack against an adjacent target, your target has cover if any line from any corner of your square to the target's square goes through a wall (including a low wall)."
The rules for Big Creatures and Cover, don't say anything about reach (and almost all big creatures have a natural reach of over 5ft):
"Any creature with a space larger than 5 feet (1 square) determines cover against melee attacks slightly differently than smaller creatures do. Such a creature can choose any square that it occupies to determine if an opponent has cover against its melee attacks. Similarly, when making a melee attack against such a creature, you can pick any of the squares it occupies to determine if it has cover against you."
It's not like the Ogre is attacking with a reach weapon, just it's natural reach. And just because you are choosing a different square to determine cover doesn't disregard the fact that the target is adjacent. Why would a large creature have an advantage against an adjacent creature on a corner? A corner is still a corner no matter the scale of the creature. If anything, small creatures should benefit more from cover, not less. Large creatures have enough benefits from their reach as it is.
If the diagram is correct the rules need to be clarified further, there is no way I would have came to the conclusion in the diagram from the rules.
Please do. I'm 100% sure our errata compilation process could use refinement.I'm hoping my amalgamation of the errata will show some of the noticable oversights -- such as the following info that I posted about 1 year ago on this thread:
Page 37
Suggestion
Major error: "Making a suggestion does not count against a bard's daily use of bardic performance".
Daily uses were scrapped in the final release -- this appears to be some left over Beta babble.
============
From the Bardic Performance entry:
He can use this ability for a number of rounds per day equal to 4 + his Charisma modifier.
At each level after 1st a bard can use bardic performance for 2 additional rounds per day.
Each round, the bard can produce any one of the types of bardic performance that he has mastered, as indicated by his level.
The total Bardic Performance rounds per day is the same as daily uses for tracking purposes. Single spell casts follow the true per day usage method. Bardic Performance may involve several rounds (daily uses) for a single use based on the type.
I believe the issue here is the presentation of Table 3-3 Bard.
With the layout of Class Features in mind: Bold text entries are Class Features (special abilities). Italic text entries are sub-Features (special abilities) gained in either a specific order (as with the bard) or gained in another way (as with barbarian Rage Powers).
As seen below, Suggestion is a type of Bardic Performance.
Name: Level (Bardic Performance rounds [daily uses] used?)
Weapon and Armor Proficiency: 1
Spells: 1
Bardic Knowledge (Ex): 1
Bardic Performance: 1
Inspire Courage: 1 (Yes)
Countersong (Su): 1 (Yes)
Distraction (Su): 1 (Yes)
Fascinate (Su): 1 (Yes)
Inspire Courage (Su): 1 (Yes)
Inspire Competence (Su): 3 (Yes)
Suggestion (Sp): 6 (No)
Dirge of Doom (Su): 8 (Yes)
Inspire Greatness (Su): 9 (Yes)
Soothing Performance (Su): 12 (Yes)
Frightening Tune (Sp): 14 (Yes)
Inspire Heroics (Su): 15 (Yes)
Mass Suggestion (Sp): 18 (No?)
Deadly Performance (Su): 20 (Yes)
Cantrips: 1
Versatile Performance (Ex): 2
Well-Versed (Ex): 2
Lore Master (Ex): 5
Jack-of-All-Trades (Ex): 10
Note that as worded, or not worded, the text of Mass Suggestion functions just like Suggestion. These appear to be the only 2 in the Core Rulebook list with no round (daily use) cost.
So there is no error in the Suggestion entry in the Class Features section when it relates to not requiring daily uses.
There are some ways this could (have) be(en) adjusted within the book to make some things clearer.
1. In Table 3-3, under Special: Change all specific Bardic Performance abilities to italic text to match the body text.
2. In all class tables: Change Special to Feature(s) so it is more in line with the Class Features. This option could work with the first one. This option could be debated in various ways as to the cohesion, or lack thereof, for the various naming method used.
3. The book does not include a How to read... section at the beginning of many chapters. Before the first entry in the Barbarian class text there is no text which defines Class Features. Special Abilities are not defined in the book until Appendix 1. This option would require additional page count that may not be possible in at least a printed revision.
I will leave it at that for now. I could make alternate suggestions to refine the layout as a whole but that is another topic.
Just wanted to say thank you to everyone for spotting these things. Keep up the good work! And always make sure you're referring to the latest printing of the Core Rulebook when you cite something you've discovered.
|
2 separate items, both on p. 323
Plant Shape I - Medium plant grants a +2 enhancement bonus to constitution instead of a +2 size bonus to constitution like all of the other bonuses from the various polymorph spells.
Polymorph, Greater - the spell description states that it functions as polymorph except that it allows the creature to take on the form of a dragon or plant creature. Then it describes how if you use the spell to cause the target to take the form of an animal of magical beast, it works as beast shape IV. However, the polymorph spell does not allow taking the form of a magical beast, so technically, neither does polymorph, greater. The first line of the description should be changed to say that it allows the creature to take on the form of a magical beast, dragon, or plant creature.
Reposting it here because it says it was answered in the errata but I can't seem to locate where.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Another change (sorry if this has been posted already):
In Chapter 4: Feats (pg. 112), the DC to craft a magic item is 10 + the item's caster level. In Chapter 15: Magic Items (pg. 548), the DC is listed as 5 + the item's caster level.
I'm under the impression that the latter is correct, as that is what it was under Beta. This hasn't been addressed in the errata yet, so I thought I'd get an official ruling.
Thanks.
I believe the Magic Items chapter is correct and the DC should be 5 + caster level, but I am still looking into the issue. Either way, this will be corrected.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Here's another that claims it was answered in the errata but as of 4th printing updates doesn't seem to be.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
P. 332 - reincarnation table. This still lists the old ability score modifiers for half-elf and half-orc, even though they now get the same +2 to any one ability score like humans.
Also, for both raise dead and reincarnation, they state that a character brought back to life by those spells gains 2 permanent negative levels, unless they're 1st level, in which case they lose 2 points of constitution. What happens if they're 2nd level? If they gain 2 permanent negative levels, don't they then instantly die, since they have negative levels equal to their HD? I would assume that a 2nd level character brought back by one of these spells would gain 1 permanent negative level and lose 1 point of constitution, but per RAW, you shouldn't use these spells on 2nd level characters.
And another that claims it was answered in the errata. It's possible I guess that these are slated to be in the NEXT printing (5th), but given these posts were from 2009, I'd say there's something amiss here.
On a similar note, right after the 1st printing a bunch of messageboard posts were made by Jason Bulmahn and other Paizo staff, explaining some of the details about the Attack Action / Vital Strike stuff. The Combat Chapter still puts general attack rules e.g. for Crits, Ranged vs. Melee/Natural Attacks, etc, all under the Attack Action, which is contrary to the official reading of Attack Action. There still is NO FAQ on this subject, even though it`s obvious a crucial one that confused alot of people... Why shouldn`t there be an official FAQ? A new player is unlikely to `happen to` dig up the multi-year-old messageboard posts explaining the implications. Ideally, ANY Paizo messageboard posts explaining rules should be in the FAQ.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I found this little problem via the unofficial faq section of the SRD, but noticed it wasn't mentioned anywhere in this thread from what I could tell, so I thought I'd drop it in here as its official mention.
The Artifice domain of the cleric has instant summons as its 8th level spell. Unfortunately this spell requires the spell arcane mark to be used with it, a spell not on the cleric's spell list.
Apparently from what I understand, Jason has acknowledged this issue and says that until he finds a way to officially resolve it, his only advice is to swap out instant summons with greater arcane sight or something similar.
Again, this is just me reminding paizo of the issue's existence in case it got lost in the clutter.
|
|
(this was mentioned back on the bottom of page 5 but seems hasn't been addressed. That was back in 2009 and seems like a pretty glaring error so I'm just throwing it back on here with the assumption it got missed)
Page 221 describes spell-like abilities as not being used to counterspell nor can they be counterspelled.
Meanwhile page 554 describes spell-like abilities as being able to be counterspelled as normal.
So which one's correct?
(this was mentioned back on the bottom of page 5 but seems hasn't been addressed. That was back in 2009 and seems like a pretty glaring error so I'm just throwing it back on here with the assumption it got missed)
Page 221 describes spell-like abilities as not being used to counterspell nor can they be counterspelled.
Meanwhile page 554 describes spell-like abilities as being able to be counterspelled as normal.
So which one's correct?
Check which printing you're reading; the 4th printing has both sections in agreement: SLA's can't be counterspelled or used to counterspell.
|
|
I didn't see this on a skim of the thread:
Page 500
Amulet of Proof against Detection and LocationThe DC of the caster level check to overcome the effects of the amulet is wrong. It is stated as, "DC of 19 (as if the wearer had cast nondetection on herself )."
The DC 19 (base of 11 plus 8th caster level) is accurate for nondetection being cast on/by another being.
The 2nd to last sentence for the Nondetection spell is, "If you cast nondetection on yourself or on an item currently in your possession, the DC is 15 + your caster level."
Since the caster level of the amulet is 8th, the DC should be 23.
Edit: Added hyperlinks.
Claims to be "answered in the errata" but can't seem to locate where.
|
|
Check which printing you're reading; the 4th printing has both sections in agreement: SLA's can't be counterspelled or used to counterspell.(this was mentioned back on the bottom of page 5 but seems hasn't been addressed. That was back in 2009 and seems like a pretty glaring error so I'm just throwing it back on here with the assumption it got missed)
Page 221 describes spell-like abilities as not being used to counterspell nor can they be counterspelled.
Meanwhile page 554 describes spell-like abilities as being able to be counterspelled as normal.
So which one's correct?
Thank you, Sean, I can update my PDF real quick. However I agree with Ike that my 2nd to 4th errata doesn't state it anywhere.
|
|
Then entangle spell uses the word "foes" in the first sentence and then the generic "creatures" through out the rest of the spell. This could read to a valid interpretation of the spell as not affecting the druid and his or her allies. If this was intended it should probably be made clearer in the remaining text of the spell, and if it was not intended the first sentence should probably be changed to 'creatures' to match the rest of the spell text.
And another that says it was "answered in the errata" but doesn't seem to have been.
|
|
Using the 2nd printing here, so sorry if this has been corrected already but not mentioned in the errata (I could see that happening, not because I found some that didn't make it in, but because typos are so insignificant I could see not devoting an entry to them).
Page 86, section about Taking 20 with skill checks, first paragraph, second sentence:
"In other words, if you a d20 roll enough times, eventually you will get a 20."
Should probably be:
"In other words, if you roll a d20 enough times, eventually you will get a 20."
|
|
This was brought up earlier, but hasn't been addressed yet, but I had another question about it anyway so here goes:
Page 54
In the Wolf statistics for animal companions, it doesn't list low-light vision as a special quality the wolf receives. I know animal companions aren't the same as your standard bestiary animals, but it seems pretty natural to me that wolves would get low-light vision (we already saw errata updating the viper, constrictor, and shark to have low-light vision). Someone already brought this up earlier in the thread, back on page 12.
However, I thought about it and now I wonder if low-light vision was intentionally left out of the Wolf stat block in order to give the Dog at least some sort of edge over it. Aside from an extra 2 Dex and all the benefits (and penalties) that come with being a smaller size, the dog is trumped by the wolf in all areas. Low-light vision is another advantage the dog has over the wolf as it is written currently, and I wonder if that was intentional or not.
Righteous Might and Enlarge Person are just listed as School: Transmutation, WITHOUT being of the Polymorph sub-school... Which leaves it unclear whether or not the size increase stacks with Polymorph effects. The Size Bonus stuff doesn´t stack (same type), but the doubling of size certainly appears like it could (neither of them specify ´your natural size´, so if Polymorph effect is cast first, they could plausibly affect the Polymorph Size Category).
Both are different from most Polymorph spells in that they double your existing size, whatever it is, rather than shift you to a given size... If they were stated to be Polymorph spells that would clarify the stacking issue, but they would both need ´waivers´ from the Polymorph rules for being cast on non-Small/Medium creatures, since the ´stat adjustment before applying Spell Effect´ wouldn´t make sense in their case.
Alternately, they could NOT be listed as Polymorph spells, but just have wording specifying that their effects don´t stack with Polymorph spells... But since they FEEL like Polymorph effects, and I would hope would be treated as such for anything interacting with Polymorph effects, calling them such (and dealing with messy ends like negating the un-necessary Stat Adjustment for non-Small/Medium creatures) seems the ´cleaner´ course.
The wolf/low-light vision issue will be addressed in the next printing (btw, many of the things marked "answered in errata" are actually in that category, as we don't have a FAQ option for "we've noted it for the next errata but not the current one because the current one is only about the latest version in print, not the eventual next printing").
I don't see why righteous might or enlarge person need to be listed as polymorph effects or have additional info on why they wouldn't stack with polymorph effects. EP already says "Multiple magical effects that increase size do not stack." RM says "Magical effects that increase size do not stack."
|
|
The wolf/low-light vision issue will be addressed in the next printing (btw, many of the things marked "answered in errata" are actually in that category, as we don't have a FAQ option for "we've noted it for the next errata but not the current one because the current one is only about the latest version in print, not the eventual next printing").
Cool cool. I was hoping that was the case, but some of those posts were a little old and I wondered if they just got missed. (I'm not sure if an errata had come out anytime after they were reported.
EP already says "Multiple magical effects that increase size do not stack." RM says "Magical effects that increase size do not stack."
Cool, we overlooked that, those lines were one of the options I imagined...
The issue only came up when we had to decide whether a monk who could Dispel Polymorph Effects and Illusions via one of his IUS attacks, could do so vs. EP and RM. It worked in our game, but perhaps not per RAW since they aren´t Polymorph technically. Sorry to interrupt the real Errata :-)
|
|
With the latest addition to the FAQ clarifying some things about two weapon fighting, let me just say I find some of the clarifications a little strange. I was under the impression that even if you're not using an extra attack when wielding two weapons, you still take the penalty to your attack rolls, if only because holding a weapon in each hand and coordinating them to attack a foe is an awkward and unnatural experience. The simplicity of directing motor control to a single arm to perform a single function while the other does nothing or is used for balance is what, to me, caused your attacks to be at their most accurate. I understand wielding a shield would refute that hypothesis, but all a shield does is rest impotently at your side.
Anyway, I realize this may just have been a misunderstanding from my 3.0 and 3.5 days (was this how 2WF worked back then too?), and the wording on the 2WF feat, to me again, seems to suggest that having the feat is what allows you to use two weapons sans penalties AT ALL.
Now because this is an errata thread, and I haven't actually used this post for anything like that, I'll post this somewhat related question:
Page 136 - Two-Weapon Fighting feat
Shouldn't this feat somewhere in its benefits mention the fact that having it allows a character to draw two light or one-handed weapons in the time it would normally take them to draw one, as discussed a couple times or so in the Combat chapter?
|
|
With the latest addition to the FAQ clarifying some things about two weapon fighting, let me just say I find some of the clarifications a little strange. I was under the impression that even if you're not using an extra attack when wielding two weapons, you still take the penalty to your attack rolls, if only because holding a weapon in each hand and coordinating them to attack a foe is an awkward and unnatural experience. The simplicity of directing motor control to a single arm to perform a single function while the other does nothing or is used for balance is what, to me, caused your attacks to be at their most accurate. I understand wielding a shield would refute that hypothesis, but all a shield does is rest impotently at your side.
Anyway, I realize this may just have been a misunderstanding from my 3.0 and 3.5 days (was this how 2WF worked back then too?), and the wording on the 2WF feat, to me again, seems to suggest that having the feat is what allows you to use two weapons sans penalties AT ALL.
You know, actually I take it back. If I think about it from the perspective of how double weapons have always worked with two-weapon fighting, it makes sense to me.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Here's a quote from a few posts on the Ultimate Combat errata thread:
I'll buy that, having never used fishing nets myself but seen them cast in various media. Regardless, it should probably be mentioned in the core rules. I'll post in the errata thread for that book.There's no explicit statement that says nets are two-handed weapons in the core rules, but as someone who used to use weighted fishing nets to get bait fish, it's very, very, very difficult to throw one properly with only one hand. They don't unfold properly when thrown with just one hand unless you know exactly how to fold them and throw them. It's also really impossible to fold them one-handed (at least in a time and space sensitive manner, as in combat).Ultimate Combat, page 111, Net and Trident feat
It says:
"Normal: A net is a two-handed ranged weapon."...Since when?
Seriously I can't find anything in the core rules about that.
If this is an error, this feat doesn't do much beyond the damage bonus as it's allowing you to do something you already could.
And so I shall...er, am. So nets are two-handed ranged weapons, is this true? If so it should probably say (or if it does already feel free to say where and call me a moron).
The spell teleportation circle has some language at the end of the spell description that seems to be leftovers from a cut and paste from similar spells:
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.Portions that are not completely clear are "the Disable Device to disarm magic traps" and "The DC in each case is 25 + spell level..." The "DC" section seems to imply that a second skill should be involved.
This appears to be a modified version of the usual boilerplate used for the Symbol spells:
Note: Magic traps such as symbol of death are hard to detect and disable. A rogue (only) 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.It may be that the following is what was intended for Teleportation Circle:
Magic traps such as teleportation circle are hard to detect and disable. A character with the trapfinding class feature can use the Disable Device skill to disarm the magic trap. The DC is 25 + spell level, or 34 in the case of teleportation circle.Alternatively, the intended text may have been
Magic traps such as teleportation circle are hard to detect and disable. A character with the trapfinding class feature can use the Perception skill to find a teleportation circle and Disable Device to disarm the magic trap. The DC in each case is 25 + spell level, or 34 in the case of teleportation circle.This also tangentially touches on the fact, that as written, only a rogue can detect and disable symbol spells, even if other classes have the trapfinding class feature..., this seems to be overly restrictive.
Since no one can read everything, such as one particular tangent in the OOC thread for a random PbP campaign, here's my contribution:
It looks to me like some trap-spell descriptions copy/pasted some 3.5 boilerplate text merely intended to conveniently reference how Trapfinding worked at the time, not override how it would work in the future PFRPG. So, if I were running a game, I would personally houserule it that (c)-type spells actually act like (b). Not saying other interpretations are wrong, just pointing out something you might not have noticed.It would seem that there are:
a) Mundane traps (like, say, a poison needle trap), which anyone can both perceive and disarm.
b) Magical traps (like, say, one that lets a fireball blow up in your face), which anyone can perceive, but only characters (be they rogues, urban rangers, etc) with Trapfinding or an equivalent can disarm.
c) Spells that act as traps (like, say, glyph of warding or symbol of death), which only rogues can perceive, but only rogues with Trapfinding can disarm.
Also, the typo that Caedwyr noted in teleportation circle is still there as of the fourth printing. I think that it should be "the Disable Device [skill]."
|
|
It says:
"Normal: A net is a two-handed ranged weapon."...Since when?
Ok, so I know things looked confusing or even contradictory but I think I've figured this out. Assuming all rules from each book are correct here is what we can conclude about nets:
1) They are two-handed ranged weapons. Specifically two-handed thrown weapons.
2) While two-weapon fighting, you can treat a net as a one-handed ranged weapon as long as the other weapon you are wielding is also a thrown weapon.
3) The Net Adept feat from Ultimate Combat allows you to use a net as a one-handed melee reach weapon.
4) The Net and Trident feat from Ultimate Combat allows you to use a net as a one-handed ranged weapon while two-weapon fighting, but instead of the other weapon needing to be a thrown weapon, you can wield a light or one-handed melee weapon instead.
I know it doesn't make much sense, but rules as written this is what can be concluded and nothing is actually contradicting anything else. The only real hiccup in all this is that nets weren't specified as being two-handed ranged weapons in the Core Rulebook.
Equipment> Buckler shields
Buckler: This small metal shield is worn strapped to your forearm. You can use a bow or crossbow without penalty while carrying it. You can also use your shield arm to wield a weapon (whether you are using an off-hand weapon or using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon), but you take a –1 penalty on attack rolls while doing so. This penalty stacks with those that may apply for fighting with your off hand and for fighting with two weapons. In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you lose the buckler's AC bonus until your next turn. You can cast a spell with somatic components using your shield arm, but you lose the buckler's AC bonus until your next turn. You can't make a shield bash with a buckler.
The first bolded sentence is misleading/confusing, since as the FAQ clarified off hand attacks are synonymous with two weapon fighting, they shouldn't be listed as separate penalties which could plausibly be simultaneously applied. The role offhand and 2WF also plays apart in the second issue...
The second bolded sentence is IMHO misleadingly focusing only on off hand, ie 2WF, attacks,
since per RAW the AC bonus is only lost with off hand attacks, but NOT for using the hand to wield a 2 handed weapon, in which case only the attack penalty applies but you still benefit from the AC bonus. This is my opinion, but that doesn't seem like the intent. To clear up that discrepancy, it should be referring to 'wielding a weapon with that hand' without mentioning off-hand or anything else. In fact, a Two Weapon Fighter could simply designate the weapon wielded by the buckler arm as the MAIN HAND weapon and designate their other weapon as the offhand weapon, and be able to continue using the buckler AC bonus per RAW.
The italic text is part of the problem: it conflicts with the idea that offhand only exists as part of 2WF, since the text here is using offhand as part of simply wielding a 2handed weapon without invoking 2WF. This seems like legacy from 3.0/3.5 or earlier where handedness was more part of the game, but ESPECIALLY given the latest FAQ that 'offhand only exists as part of 2WF' (which is necessary to make sense of other parts of the game IMHO, and for that FAQ to make sense), the reference to offhand here should simply be changed to 'using the hand of the buckler arm' or something to that effect. AFAIK, there isn't really any such thing as 'your offhand' anymore in 3.5/PRPG, there is only 'offhand attacks' which only exist via 2WF. The relation between actual hands and 2WF main/offhand attacks is a somewhat abstract one (given such attacks may be wielded with 1 or 2 hands or no hands at all) that could really use a BIT more explanation (or clearer terminology), but this section doesn't seem to have gotten the memo.
|
|
This one's part nitpicking, part I-think-this-may-justify-an-edit.
All of the symbol spells in this book start with "This spell functions like symbol of death..." except of course symbol of death itself. The thing is that symbol of death mentions its minimum caster level and cost to make it permanent with a permanency spell, but many of these values are different for the different spells that are based off of symbol of death with no mention of it in their descriptions. Yes the table values for the permanency spell itself mention these exact values, but if for whatever reason a player focused more on the symbol spell and not on the permanency spell when using them together, they may end up paying too much or waiting too long.
|
|
Create Food and Water - page 261
I may get some eye rolling over this one but anywho:
The effect line for this spell says "food and water to sustain three humans or one horse/level for 24 hours"
1) I'm sure it can work on all races, not just humans, but I thought I'd point out that someone who takes everything literally may be confused by this
2) Does this create food and water for three humans/level or one horse/level? It doesn't have the "/level" at the end of humans, so as written it looks like it either makes stuff for three humans OR a bunch of horses, depending on your level.
|
|
Create Food and Water - page 261
...2) Does this create food and water for three humans/level or one horse/level? It doesn't have the "/level" at the end of humans, so as written it looks like it either makes stuff for three humans OR a bunch of horses, depending on your level.
Also, can "horses" be swapped out for some other creature that's used as a mount?
P 453 table 14-7 Racial Ability Adjustments (fourth printing)
The ability mods for Halfling NPCs don't match the ability mods for Halfling PCs
(the table gives them -2 STR and +2 INT and DEX)
Is this a mistake or intentional?
p. 500
The fifth printing PDF has the name of the "Amulet of Proof Against Detection and Location" mangled in my copy. It is fine in my 1st printing hardcopy.
The error is the word "Location" being cut off. There is blank space about the correct height for another line immediately below the title bar.
p. 502
The belts of Giant Strength, Physical Might, and Physical Perfection do not link the word "Strength" to the description of the Strength attribute. Dexterity and Constitution are linked in all of the belts where they appear, it looks like.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I made a separate post just for this but I think I put it in the wrong place on the forums...
In the 5th printing errata update for the core rulebook, I found this on its second page:
Page 144—In the Weapon Qualities section, in the Special section, in the Double paragraph in the second sentence, replace “A double weapon can be wielded as a one-handed weapon” with “You can choose to wield one end of a double weapon two-handed”.
What this means is that a wizard can't choose a quarterstaff as a bonded item, because being a double weapon, it would require two hands to always be used to consider it "wielded," thus preventing the casting of spells with somatic components.
|
|
In speaking of Errata issues, one of the new errata updates say to delete the "20 ft. high" part of the effects line for fog cloud. Wouldn't you also delete the same part of the effects line for the other spells that function the same way? Specifically:
cloudkill - pg 256
incendiary cloud - pg 300
Stinking cloud - pg 349
obscuring mist - pg 317
There may be others but I can't remember anymore.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A number of things we determined needed fixing on here that the Errata missed:
- P. 23: Changing "type" to "subtype" in the Defensive Training gnome racial trait.
- P. 37: 2nd paragraph for suggestion, first sentence, "daily use of bardic performance" should be changed to "remaining uses of bardic performance."
- P. 40: Channel Energy ability, mentioning the fact that "living creatures" means creatures with a Constitution score (to specify that Constructs can't be affected by channel energy).
- P. 42: 8th-level spell for the Artifice domain is instant summons, yet clerics can't cast arcane mark, a spell that must be used in tandem with this spell.
- P. 43: This may not be an actual errata, but as I understand it the Pathfinder Society Guide grants clerics of Irori the Improved Unarmed Strike feat for free as a bonus feat (in order to use their favored weapons effectively). Perhaps a footnote should be added to Table 3-6: Deities of the Pathfinder Chronicles.
- P. 45: Remove Viewing ability from the Knowledge Domani, first sentence, the words "at will" should be deleted.
- P. 48: Adding the duration of "1 round" somewhere to the description of the Battle Rage ability in the War domain.
- P. 53: (for anybody using a PDF copy, [possibly older versions only]) Weapon Finesse not included in list of Animal Feats.
- P. 63: 4th paragraph of the Divine Bond class feature, 2nd sentence, "heavy horse" was probably meant to be "light horse."
- P. 78: Something should mention that if a wizard selects a weapon as his bonded item, he need not be proficient with it. Additionally it should clarify that a weapon is considered "wielded" when it is held in a way that allows its use (so a two-handed weapon would make a poor choice).
- P. 79: Paragraph regarding Cantrips, last sentence. "Prohibited school" should be changed to "opposition school." Same thing in the 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph of the Spellbooks part on this page.
- P. 86: 3rd paragraph under Skill Checks, last sentence, word "exceeds" should probably be replaced with "equals or exceeds."
- P. 91: Some addition to the Climb skill mentioning how creatures of size Tiny or smaller use Dex instead of Str to modify their Climb checks.
- P. 108: Some addition to the Swim skill mentioning how creatures of size Tiny or smaller use Dex instead of Str to modify their Swim checks.
- P. 112: Item Creation Feats section, Skill Check paragraph, 1st sentence, changing "10 + item's caster level" to "5 + item's caster level."
- P. 136: The addition of the elven curve blade to the list of weapons that can benefit from Weapon Finesse in that feat's Benefit description.
- P. 140: Weapons section, 2nd paragraph, last sentence, changing the word "exceeds" to "equals or exceeds".
- P. 147: The changing of the description of the net, mentioning somewhere that it requires 2 hands to be thrown properly.
- P. 203: Ready section, Distracting Spellcasters paragraph, last sentence, the word "Spellcraft" should probably be "concentration".
- P. 220: Preparing Divine Spells section, 1st paragraph of the Spell Selection and Preparation part, 3rd sentence, changing the words "a cleric" to "a divine caster."
- P. 262: Crushing despair spell failing to mention what kind of material component it uses (previous versions used a vial of tears).
- P. 266: Detect Chaos/Evil/Good/Law table, the Faint entry for Aligned creature (HD) should be changed to "6-10".
- P. 289: Giant Form II spell, first sentence, "type" should be changed to "subtype." Also in the second to last sentence, the words "one element" should be "any elements." (apparently this was supposed to be in the errata previous to the last one, but never made it, and still hasn't it seems)
- P. 323: Plant shape I spell, last paragraph (the Medium plant section), the words "+2 enhancement bonus" should be "+2 size bonus."
- P. 323: Polymorph spell, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence, "animal, humanoid or elemental" should be "animal, magical beast, humanoid, or elemental."
- P. 334: lesser restoration, restoration, and greater restoration have strange casting times. Lesser takes 3 rounds, normal takes a minute, and greater goes back down to 3 rounds. In previous editions, greater restoration took 10 minutes to cast.
- P. 341: Shapechange spell, second sentence, "beast form IV" should be "beast shape IV."
- P. 362: True Resurrection spell, the diamond worth 25,000 gp coming after the DF part of the components line instead of the M part of it.
- P. 363: Unhallow spell, 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence, "sacred bonus" should be changed to "profane bonus."
- P. 378: Assassin prestige class requirements, Alignment says any evil yet the description mentions neutral characters taking levels in this class.
- P. 412: Ledge paragraph, last sentence, change "opposed Strength check" to "CMD."
- P. 453: Table 14-7: Racial Ability Adjustments, the Halfling mentions gets a +2 to Intelligence when it should be Charisma.
- P. 515: Golem Manual, requirement spells to be cast when creating a Stone Golem Manual mention antimagic field, when this spell is not mentioned at all in what the book contains.
- P. 540: Bracers of Defenselessness, Slot entry says "arms" when it should say "wrists"
- P. 551: Creating Magic Weapons section, 5th paragraph, delete this word "XP"
- P. 554: Spell-Like Abilities (Sp) section in Appendix 1: Special Abilities, apparently in previous reprints of the Core Rulebook, this was fixed, but it was never mentioned in any of the errata documents. Thus, for anyone using an older PDF or an older print edition, this paragraph still says spell-like abilities can be counterspelled as normal, when they cannot, nor can they be used to counterspell.
- P. 559: Table 16-2: Sample Poisons, "Dark reaver power" should be "Dark reaver powder."
- P. 562: Death attacks still mention that they slay instantly, when in PF many death attacks simply do profound amounts of damage.
- P. 565: When Spell Resistance Applies section, 1st paragraph of Effect Spells, last sentence mentions the web spell as being applicable to spell resistance. This is a relic from previous editions, as the web spell is no longer bothered by spell resistance.
**ADDITIONALLY**
A sentence on page 199 describes how combat maneuvers are affected when using them against stunned creatures, claiming that creatures using maneuvers against stunned opponents get a +4 bonus on their CMB checks. When you look at the Stunned condition on page 568, it mentions a -2 penalty to AC. It's unclear if the -2 penalty to AC stacks with the +4 bonus an attacking creature gets when performing a combat maneuver against the stunned creature.
|
|
I made a separate post just for this but I think I put it in the wrong place on the forums...
In the 5th printing errata update for the core rulebook, I found this on its second page:
Page 144—In the Weapon Qualities section, in the Special section, in the Double paragraph in the second sentence, replace “A double weapon can be wielded as a one-handed weapon” with “You can choose to wield one end of a double weapon two-handed”.
What this means is that a wizard can't choose a quarterstaff as a bonded item, because being a double weapon, it would require two hands to always be used to consider it "wielded," thus preventing the casting of spells with somatic components.
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"