This isn't an error at all. The spell Touch of Idiocy has additional effects over and beyond those normally inflicted by an ability score penalty. That's why it specifically spells that out in the spell description.Thanks for the clarification. An example why, despite our griping, we all still love you guys.
Would it ever make sense to add the words "Unlike normal ability drain, ..." to the front of something like that? Not strictly necessary, but it might help people who read it and say "Hey, that's not what it says on p.xx."
A lot of spells break rules, but then again those without 3.5 experience may not know that. I think a general disclaimer in the Magic section might take care of that instead of putting into every spell that breaks a rule.
PS: for the purpose of this discussion breaking the rule means an exception to the rule.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
This isn't an error at all. The spell Touch of Idiocy has additional effects over and beyond those normally inflicted by an ability score penalty. That's why it specifically spells that out in the spell description.Thanks for the clarification. An example why, despite our griping, we all still love you guys.
Would it ever make sense to add the words "Unlike normal ability drain, ..." to the front of something like that? Not strictly necessary, but it might help people who read it and say "Hey, that's not what it says on p.xx."
Adding "Unlike normal ability drain, ..." is strictly necessary.
Without it the spell contradicts the rules on page 555
Adding "Unlike normal ability drain, ..." is strictly necessary.
Without it the spell contradicts the rules on page 555
I do not believe that it does contradict those rules
Right now, page 555 says ability penalties do A (penalize skill checks) and B (reduce DCs).
The spells says it gives a number of ability penalties and does C (limit your spellcasting ability if the ability score goes too low to cast the spell).
Page 555 doesn't say that C can never happen.
The spell doesn't say that C is what happens with every ability penalty, it says that it was part of "this spell's effect."
It might use a different wording if it is rewritten, but I don't see how it is an error.
edit:
" There are many things that the rules don't explicitly say you can't do. The rules don't explicitly say you can't do the "I'm a Little Teapot" dance and instantly heal back to full starting hit points as a result. The rules don't explicitly say your first level character can't have a titanium-reinforced skeleton and cybernetic weaponry.
This is because the rules are structured in such a way as to tell you what you can do--not what you can't. An underlying assumption is that, apart from common-sense actions which anyone can perform, the system will tell you if a given character has a given ability. "
This should work for ability penalties as well.
Chief Technical Officer
|
All,
I just want to make it very clear that Paizo appreciates you and your feedback, and we're very thankful for your desire to help us make our products better.
After seeing recent comments in this thread, we've realized that we weren't all on the same page here with respect to how we generate errata. As a result, we failed to incorporate a lot of your feedback, and for that, we apologize. We've had discussions, and we're all on the same page now. We're now beginning to put things in motion for the fourth printing of the Core Rulebook, and I can assure you that we'll do a better job incorporating your feedback going forward.
I also want you to know that Gary's current number one priority is the creation of a system that will allow you to more easily bring important rules questions and potential errata to our attention, and that will help us deliver more timely responses to the problems you identify. We'll provide more specifics on that as we get closer to rolling it out—probably next week.
|
Page 555 lists how ability penalties affect you. Sure it doesn't say ability penalties doesn't turn you blue or make you bark like a dog.
Listing how it function is telling you how it function. Anything else is exceptions and should be spelled out as exceptions.
What the point in cerating new rules on ability Score Damage, Penalty, and Drain if you start adding exceptions without saying they are exceptions?
But this is an additional effect of the spell, not an effect of the penalty itself. Therefore it is not a exception.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
One other thing, on the issue of page numbers being made incorrect if new text pushes old text onto the next page... it seems like a job for an intern to go through the master document and replace all the static page number references with links to headers and whatnot. It will take a while, but once it's done, text pushing wouldn't be a problem and page numbers would auto-update.
With respect to that issue, we're actually talking about page number references *in other products*. If, for example, the Adventurer's Armory tells you to look at the suffocation rules on page 445 of the Core Rulebook, we better make sure they don't drift to page 446.
It's really not that big a deal—we have a lot of practice at reworking text to fit particular spaces.
|
Director of Game Design
|
Hey there All,
Just thought I would chime in on the subject as well. We are aware that there are a number of issues in the rules that need to be tackled and I will be taking a personal hand in making sure that these problems are addressed.
The first step will be to comb through threads like this, and a few others, to gather up a list of potential outstanding issues. I will be doing this in short order. Next, we are implementing a system by which you will be able to ask questions that will get added to a FAQ for ease of reference. Finally, I hope to have a more active presence here on the boards, keeping tabs on issues as they arise.
Just thought I would give every one the heads up here. There are a number of issues to tackle, but rest assured, they will get addressed.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
But this is an additional effect of the spell, not an effect of the penalty itself. Therefore it is not a exception.Page 555 lists how ability penalties affect you. Sure it doesn't say ability penalties doesn't turn you blue or make you bark like a dog.
Listing how it function is telling you how it function. Anything else is exceptions and should be spelled out as exceptions.
What the point in cerating new rules on ability Score Damage, Penalty, and Drain if you start adding exceptions without saying they are exceptions?
The rules doesn't say it is an additional effect of the spell. And more important it doesn't say it's an exception to the rules on penalties.
I've said what I have to say on this topic.
...and there was much rejoicing...
+1 :-)
..
..
This is very reassuring for me. Altought imho this should have sooner been made a priority.
This is also one of the prime reason I like Paizo as much as I do; there are a lot of companies who wouldn't even give the slightest impression of admitting mistakes, or possible improvements. Let alone present a solution and deadline (other than: "We'll look into it", which translates to: "We wont do anything about it"). Kudos to Paizo!
Hey there All,
Just thought I would chime in on the subject as well. We are aware that there are a number of issues in the rules that need to be tackled and I will be taking a personal hand in making sure that these problems are addressed.
The first step will be to comb through threads like this, and a few others, to gather up a list of potential outstanding issues. I will be doing this in short order. Next, we are implementing a system by which you will be able to ask questions that will get added to a FAQ for ease of reference. Finally, I hope to have a more active presence here on the boards, keeping tabs on issues as they arise.
Just thought I would give every one the heads up here. There are a number of issues to tackle, but rest assured, they will get addressed.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Could we have a yes or no on the issue 'wildshape and shield bonus' so the thread with +220 posts can be locked? :-)
Shiled bonus when wildshaped or not? Or do you need a wild shiled ?
With respect to that issue, we're actually talking about page number references *in other products*. If, for example, the Adventurer's Armory tells you to look at the suffocation rules on page 445 of the Core Rulebook, we better make sure they don't drift to page 446.
Wouldn't that not be an issue if Paizo adhered to Section 5 of the PCL?
5. Compatibility
<snip blah blah blah...>
You may not use page numbers, as they may change in licensed translations and in subsequent printings.
Then, you wouldn't have to worry about it at all. Just reference the rule and chapter where the rule can be found and stop worrying about page numbers at all.
On a sidenote, Thanks Vic and Jason for being so clear on this issue. I hope now that the next round of errata will attempt to cover a much larger number of the issues raised. Further, I hope that the spreadsheet that Kor started (and which is available on d20pfsrd.com now) is helpful in your efforts. If others are willing to do the legwork of filtering through the threads for all of the questions I'd hope you'd save yourself some time and take advantage of that effort.
Could we have a yes or no on the issue 'wildshape and shield bonus' so the thread with +220 posts can be locked? :-)
Shiled bonus when wildshaped or not? Or do you need a wild shiled ?Answered over in that thread.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I saw it. Nice, thanks. You're really cool. :-)
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
With respect to that issue, we're actually talking about page number references *in other products*. If, for example, the Adventurer's Armory tells you to look at the suffocation rules on page 445 of the Core Rulebook, we better make sure they don't drift to page 446.Wouldn't that not be an issue if Paizo adhered to Section 5 of the PCL?
5. Compatibility
<snip blah blah blah...>
You may not use page numbers, as they may change in licensed translations and in subsequent printings.
Then, you wouldn't have to worry about it at all. Just reference the rule and chapter where the rule can be found and stop worrying about page numbers at all.
The PCL doesn't apply to Paizo, but speaking as the person who actually *wrote* it, frankly, I'd rather we *did* use that rule. It's a fair argument, though—using it would make our life easier at revision time, but it *would* make our supplemental products slightly less friendly to use.
The PCL doesn't apply to Paizo, but speaking as the person who actually *wrote* it, frankly, I'd rather we *did* use that rule. It's a fair argument, though—using it would make our life easier at revision time, but it *would* make our supplemental products slightly less friendly to use.
Oh I know it doesn't apply to Paizo, just saying that it seems like one of the biggest problems seems to be concern for page number references being altered. The very thought of using less words or less ideal words or phrasing than necessary, just to avoid pushing a sentence onto the next page, seems to be a far from ideal method for incorporating errata. However, I am not a publisher nor do I have any experience making or selling books, so what do I know :)
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
The PCL doesn't apply to Paizo, but speaking as the person who actually *wrote* it, frankly, I'd rather we *did* use that rule. It's a fair argument, though—using it would make our life easier at revision time, but it *would* make our supplemental products slightly less friendly to use.Oh I know it doesn't apply to Paizo, just saying that it seems like one of the biggest problems seems to be concern for page number references being altered. The very thought of using less words or less ideal words or phrasing than necessary, just to avoid pushing a sentence onto the next page, seems to be a far from ideal method for incorporating errata. However, I am not a publisher nor do I have any experience making or selling books, so what do I know :)
Like I said, it's really not that big a problem. It's just a constraint we have to work with.
The spreadsheet is now available on d20pfsrd.com at http://www.d20pfsrd.com/extras/unofficial-errata-db
Some requests to Kor:
1) Could you add a "Date Reported" column?
2) Could you add a "Paizo Comment" column? Then if someone from Paizo states that 'not a bug' it can be updated with their response etc.If you are interested, I (or you) could make a simple Google Form front-end to that DB so that you (or whomever you allow to edit the spreadsheet) can add items from a form interface. Up to you though.
And to Kor and Quandary (and anyone else really), if you are ever interested in forking the PF codebase, I'm ready and willing to assist with a complete snapshot of d20pfsrd.com to begin from. Its as easy as saying "lets do it" :)
I should have it completed by tomorrow. Once I have it done I will add in:
- Date Reported Column (I have this column hidden currently)- Errata Type Column (typo / clarity / error / etc)
- Pazio Comments
I'm about 80% done. I'm hoping to have it completed by tomorrow.
A great work, Kor !
I would like to point out that issue #65
"Summon Monster II has drone ants while summon monster III has soldier ants Drone ants are the CR3 version on soldier ants"has been solved in the last errata.
"Page 351
In Table 10–1: Summon Monster, change “Ant, drone” in the 2nd Level list to “Ant, giant (worker).” Change “Ant, soldier” in the 3rd Level list to “Ant, giant (soldier).” Add “Ant, giant (drone)*” to the 4th Level list. Make the same changes to Table 10–2: Summon Nature’s Ally on page 353 (do not include the “*” in the Ant, giant (drone) entry on this table)."
I haven't cross-referenced the errata to the updated Paizo errata yet, but thanks for noticing that. I'll remove that now.
Like I said, it's really not that big a problem. It's just a constraint we have to work with.The PCL doesn't apply to Paizo, but speaking as the person who actually *wrote* it, frankly, I'd rather we *did* use that rule. It's a fair argument, though—using it would make our life easier at revision time, but it *would* make our supplemental products slightly less friendly to use.Oh I know it doesn't apply to Paizo, just saying that it seems like one of the biggest problems seems to be concern for page number references being altered. The very thought of using less words or less ideal words or phrasing than necessary, just to avoid pushing a sentence onto the next page, seems to be a far from ideal method for incorporating errata. However, I am not a publisher nor do I have any experience making or selling books, so what do I know :)
It is not that big of an issue for Paizo not to list a page number. I would rather for everyone or no one to be able to use page numbers though.
My vote is for nobody, that way errata can be allowed to move page numbers if needed.
The spreadsheet is now available on d20pfsrd.com at http://www.d20pfsrd.com/extras/unofficial-errata-db
Some requests to Kor:
1) Could you add a "Date Reported" column?
2) Could you add a "Paizo Comment" column? Then if someone from Paizo states that 'not a bug' it can be updated with their response etc.If you are interested, I (or you) could make a simple Google Form front-end to that DB so that you (or whomever you allow to edit the spreadsheet) can add items from a form interface. Up to you though.
And to Kor and Quandary (and anyone else really), if you are ever interested in forking the PF codebase, I'm ready and willing to assist with a complete snapshot of d20pfsrd.com to begin from. Its as easy as saying "lets do it" :)
I should have it completed by tomorrow. Once I have it done I will add in:
- Date Reported Column (I have this column hidden currently)
- Errata Type Column (typo / clarity / error / etc)
- Pazio Comments
You be the man uh I mean Orc.
I plan to post an "updated" errata thread every 1-2 months (as required). For any errata I have missed, please post here in Wraith's thread. If anything I have posted is inaccurate or has been answered in a FAQ / forum post, please let me know in my forum thread. Thanks.
A "live" Google Document Spreadsheet is being maintained here for now:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AtLc76MQz0CudGs0SHVkVDc2dGUzR1p4b2t 3MjVnNHc&hl=en
I plan to post an "updated" errata thread every 1-2 months (as required). For any errata I have missed, please post here in Wraith's thread. If anything I have posted is inaccurate or has been answered in a FAQ / forum post, please let me know in my forum thread. Thanks.
A "live" Google Document Spreadsheet is being maintained here for now:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AtLc76MQz0CudGs0SHVkVDc2dGUzR1p4b2t 3MjVnNHc&hl=en
There was an extra spacing in your link to the Fan Errata which made the link itself non-working.
James/Vic/Jason: Thank you!
There was an extra spacing in your link to the Fan Errata which made the link itself non-working.
As a reminder to anyone posting URLs and links on these messageboards... the board software automatically inserts a space in very long URL's so as not to stretch the page to a point it would require horizontal scrolling. It is always better to create a link to a long URL like
<url="http://this.is.a.very/long.url.com/blah/blah/blah/blah/blah/blah/b lah/blah/blah/blah/blah/blah/blah/blah/blah/blah/blah/blah/blah/blah/blah/b lah/blah/blah/blah/blah/blah/blah/blah/blah/blah/blah/blah/blah/blah/blah/b lah/blah/blah/blah/blah/blah/blah/blah/blah/blah/">URL</url>
Meaning, the display text should be shortened so as not to include the full URL (replace < and > with [ and ] of course.)
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 4
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Kor, I scanned your other thread and the spreadsheet and I didn't find any of the following. My apologies if these have been covered or explained somewhere:
Fly-related possible errata:
1.) The Fly Spell allows double-speed descent. The Fly Skill specifically states that flying creatures descend at their normal flying speed. The skill is a change from 3.5, where a flying creature could descend at double speed. It is unclear whether the Fly spell's double-speed descent is a holdover from previous rules or if it's intentionally giving magical fliers an edge over natural fliers.
2.) The Fly/Overland Flight spells grant a half-caster-level bonus to the user's Fly skill. It's unclear whether this bonus is in addition to, or replaces, the +4 bonus for Good maneuverability (the +4 maneuverability bonus is not specifically called out in the text of either spell)
3.) The following magic items duplicate effects of Fly/Overland Flight spells:
The Cloak of the Bat is the oddity here. It is either incorrectly using full-caster level instead of half-caster level for its Fly skill bonus, OR it is applying the +3 half-caster level bonus in addition to the +4 bonus for good maneuverability. In this case, the magic items should be consistent in how they call out the Fly skill bonus.
Thanks,
-eric
My vote is for nobody, that way errata can be allowed to move page numbers if needed.
Just because page numbers are not referenced in a book doesn't mean they are not used (and memorized) by people. Best to limit any changes to an absolute minimum, imo. Besides, some pages are intentionally on easy to remember pages (399!).
Oh I think its ok to try to avoid adding/changing the page numbers were certain content is located, but by no means should that be a limiting factor to how clear a rule should be. If it comes down to adding a sentence makes a rule 100% clear (yeah right) but it pushes content to the next page, I prefer the rule be more clear vs. worrying about maintaining page numbers.
Oh I think its ok to try to avoid adding/changing the page numbers were certain content is located, but by no means should that be a limiting factor to how clear a rule should be. If it comes down to adding a sentence makes a rule 100% clear (yeah right) but it pushes content to the next page, I prefer the rule be more clear vs. worrying about maintaining page numbers.
+1. I will pay for extra pages as long as I get accurate rules to go with them.
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
shadowdancer's Hide in Plain Sight and assassin's Hide in Plain Sight has different wording. They way shadowdancer's Hide in Plain Sight is worded it might better or worse than assassin's HiPS.
James has made a comment on this, se below, but I'm still confused.
Page 392
Hide in Plain Sight (Su): A shadowdancer can use the Stealth skill even while being observed. As long as she is within 10 feet of an area of dim light, a shadowdancer can hide herself from view in the open without anything to actually hide behind. She cannot, however, hide in her own shadow.
Page 380
Hide in Plain Sight (Su): At 8th level, an assassin can use the Stealth skill even while being observed. As long as he is within 10 feet of some sort of shadow, an assassin can hide himself from view in the open without having anything to actually hide behind. He cannot, however, hide in his own shadow
If James is right then the shadowdancer's Hide in Plain Sight or the assassin's Hide in Plain Sight needs errata (or a FAQ answer is needed).
The wording for those two is different because the categorization of lighting in Pathfinder was a relatively late to the game refinement, and we weren't able to standardize every mention of illumination in the game. The assassin's a good example.In any case, the intent is the same: dim light = shadow. So both of these abilities should work exactly the same, even though the words chosen aren't identical.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
I noticed this issue with the wording of Rainbow Pattern,
though the wording is identical (or effectively so) to the 3.5 SRD version:
Range: medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Effect: colorful lights with a 20-ft.-radius spread
Duration: Concentration +1 round/level (D)A glowing, rainbow-hued pattern of interweaving colors fascinates those within it. Rainbow pattern fascinates a maximum of 24 HD of creatures. Creatures with the fewest HD are affected first. Among creatures with equal HD, those who are closest to the spell's point of origin are affected first. An affected creature that fails its saves is fascinated by the pattern.
With a simple gesture (a free action), you can make the rainbow pattern move up to 30 feet per round (moving its effective point of origin). All fascinated creatures follow the moving rainbow of light, trying to remain within the effect. Fascinated creatures who are restrained and removed from the pattern still try to follow it. If the pattern leads its subjects into a dangerous area, each fascinated creature gets a second save. If the view of the lights is completely blocked, creatures who can't see them are no longer affected.
The spell does not affect sightless creatures.
As written, any creature ¨within¨ the area of effect must make a Saving Throw or be Fascinated. The intent of the spell is PROBABLY for this Save to ONLY apply to those creatures within the INITIAL area of effect, but this distinction isn`t actually made in the spell description... meaning any creatures within the area of effect after you use your free action to move the spell area must also make saves... this allows targetting an infinite number of creatures (until the spell HD limit is used up), even if the original target(s) pass their save, which makes the spell much more of a `certain thing` (knocking 24 HD out of the fight, or at least as as long as there are more enemies to target).
Relatedly, it isn`t clear if you can move the spell effect as a free action for the 1 round/ level after you drop Concentration.
Oldy but a goody: What effect does Cloudkill have on a 6HD creature?
I need that answer too.
Previous edition error:
Page 63
Divine Bond
In reference to the second type of bond being a mount, it states:
"This mount is usually a heavy horse (for a Medium paladin) or a pony..."
The 3.5 edition made reference to a "heavy warhorse" and a "war pony".
Now that the "war" descriptor has been removed, I believe the "heavy" reference was also intended to be removed. Although the Bestiary defines a heavy horse as being a horse with the advanced template, the Core rulebook uses the animal companion stats as listed under the Druid class. One of the following changes needs to occur, depending on the intented usage:
1. Unintended reference, so remove the word "heavy".
2. Intended reference for only horses, so include "(see the Pathfinder RPG Bestiary)", after the reference to a heavy horse.
3. Intended reference for horse only, so include an animal companion stat block under Paladin for "Horse, Heavy"
4. Intended reference for all paladin mounts (unlikely), so all mounts are deemed heavy and should get the advanced template, which will require appropriate clarification.
Ommission error on Page 54:
Wolf is missing "low-light vision" under special qualities. (This error was addressed in the bestiary for the shark and the snakes preceding it, but the wolf got missed).
Ommission error on Page 54:
Snake,(small) Viper poison special attack is missing the con save DC.
Also, the (tiny) Viper stat'd in the Bestiary has a different poison stat (1d2 Con damage) than the (small) Viper animal companion (1 Con damage) -- this might have been intentional though?
man, they do not match up with the Bestiary. What is listed is what you gain. They are not mistakes, they are design choices.
man, they do not match up with the Bestiary. What is listed is what you gain. They are not mistakes, they are design choices.
That is why I qualified the reference with "this might have been intentional though".
The main intent of the post was to point out that there is no DC listed for the poison save. What I was trying to head off, was someone saying "Just use the DC given for the tiny viper". Which would then have prompted a reply from me saying "I'm not sure that the tiny viper stats should be used for the medium viper since the tiny viper poison does different Con damage".
What I was trying to head off, was someone saying "Just use the DC given for the tiny viper". Which would then have prompted a reply from me saying "I'm not sure that the tiny viper stats should be used for the medium viper since the tiny viper poison does different Con damage".
Poison saves are always 10 + half hit dice + CON modifier, that's easy.
What I was trying to head off, was someone saying "Just use the DC given for the tiny viper". Which would then have prompted a reply from me saying "I'm not sure that the tiny viper stats should be used for the medium viper since the tiny viper poison does different Con damage".Poison saves are always 10 + half hit dice + CON modifier, that's easy.
Thanks Zaister I was not aware of that. That would also explain why there is no DC given, since its HD dependant.
Hello, not errata, but lack of information in the Core Rule Book.
When I figth using Two Weapon Fighting, I get one extra attack with the off-hand, using my BAB as attack bonus, and applying some modifiers for TWF. Rigth, no problem.
When I take feats that allow me to do many attacks with my off-hand... what attack bonus I use for those extra attacks? It is not clarified in the feats description or TWF description. Someone that has played 3.5 knows that the modifiers for multiple attacks due to BAB (-5,-10,etc..) apply to TWF too, but by RAW someone may think than in Pathfinder you use your best attack bonus for all your off-hand attacks (the rules look quite vague for that matter). New players and DMs shouldn't need to ask in the boards for that kind of basic information, imo.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
Hello.
Skill Acrobatics:
I try to move through an enemy's space, I fail. The actions described in the Check section of a skill are only done if you succeed, as described in the begining of the Skills Chapter.
So, I can't move through an enemy's space if I fail the Acrobatics check.. but, what happens? I don't provoke AoO because there's no real movement, but I still have my full movement to try again and again until I succeed.
Someone from the Paizo staff suggested that if you fail that check, there's no AoO, but the movement action used ends.
It needs to be clarified in some future errata, imho.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
Minor errata or confusion about the Staggered condition.
Pag. 191, "Nonlethal damage"
Staggered and Unconscious: When your nonlethal
damage equals your current hit points, you’re staggered.
You can only take a standard action or a move action in
each round (in addition to free, immediate, and swift
actions).
Pag. 568, "Conditions"
Staggered: A staggered creature may take a single move
action or standard action each round (but not both, nor
can he take full-round actions). A staggered creature can
still take swift and immediate actions.
For what I can see in some spells, other general rules, etc, I guess you can make free actions (would also be strange to be able to make swift actions but not free actions).
Hello.
Skill Acrobatics:
I try to move through an enemy's space, I fail. The actions described in the Check section of a skill are only done if you succeed, as described in the begining of the Skills Chapter.
So, I can't move through an enemy's space if I fail the Acrobatics check.. but, what happens? I don't provoke AoO because there's no real movement, but I still have my full movement to try again and again until I succeed.Someone from the Paizo staff suggested that if you fail that check, there's no AoO, but the movement action used ends.
It needs to be clarified in some future errata, imho.
RE: "but I still have my full movement to try again and again until I succeed."
You use a move action to make the acrobatics attempt:
Steps:
1. Choose to move at 1/2 speed for full speed.
2. Expend your move action to make the attempt to move (or a full action if you are prone)
3. Resolve the check.
4. After completing the resolution, you still have a standard action left, so if you failed, you could expend an additional move action to try again.
I suspect it is at step 2 where you may be confused, but due to the references of "When moving in this way", and by virtue of the DC increasing on a full speed move, these imply that you have activated a move action. Although I agree that it could benefit from some clarity by indicating its a move action, I suspect that the designers thought that since they were referring to a person moving, that indicating that it was a move action would not be a needed?
Hello, not errata, but lack of information in the Core Rule Book.
When I figth using Two Weapon Fighting, I get one extra attack with the off-hand, using my BAB as attack bonus, and applying some modifiers for TWF. Rigth, no problem.
When I take feats that allow me to do many attacks with my off-hand... what attack bonus I use for those extra attacks? It is not clarified in the feats description or TWF description. Someone that has played 3.5 knows that the modifiers for multiple attacks due to BAB (-5,-10,etc..) apply to TWF too, but by RAW someone may think than in Pathfinder you use your best attack bonus for all your off-hand attacks (the rules look quite vague for that matter). New players and DMs shouldn't need to ask in the boards for that kind of basic information, imo.
Howdy,
The Improved Two-Weapon Fighting and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting feats refer to getting 'another attack with your off hand albeit at a -5/-10 penalty.'
It's not quite as clear as it could be, but seems a little more clear than your impression (IMHO).
Cheers.
You use a move action to make the acrobatics attempt:
Steps:
1. Choose to move at 1/2 speed for full speed.
2. Expend your move action to make the attempt to move (or a full action if you are prone)
3. Resolve the check.
4. After completing the resolution, you still have a standard action left, so if you failed, you could expend an additional move action to try again.
I disagree.
Action: None. An Acrobatics check is made as part of
another action or as a reaction to a situation.
You use acrobatics while you move, trying (succesfully or not) doesn't take an action, it is just part of spending 5' of movement, if you spend it.
Maybe you think that you have to say exactly what movements you are doing before using a move action, and if you get blocked by an invisible wall o similar stuff, your movement ends inmediately and you loose the remaining movement for that action.
I can't see that in the rules; makes sense for some people but half of my players don't think the same.
There's no point in making the DM loose his precious time figuring out if how an important skill works has something to do with some obscure rule in the combat section (which I can't find), just because the description of what happens if you fail (which was here in 3.5) is no longer part of the skill.
I'm pretty sure that it wasn't the designer intentions to not adding that line of text to the skill. Furthermore, there's a huge pic in the page for the Acrobatics skill, they have plenty of space to add text, and I hope they fix that in future erratas so future users benefit from a better ruleset.
Howdy,
The Improved Two-Weapon Fighting and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting feats refer to getting 'another attack with your off hand albeit at a -5/-10 penalty.'
It's not quite as clear as it could be, but seems a little more clear than your impression (IMHO).
Cheers.
Doh!
True, a player has been moaning for months about the TWF rules and always asking if he really suffers that -5/-10, I don't know what edition of the book we have, most probably I was too drunk to see beyond the end of my nose.
Cheers.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
There are two posts in this Thread about the term "grappling" that appears in some parts of the book, but nobody seems to know what it means (the person that initiated the grapple/ performed the combat
maneuver? everyone involved in a grapple, it is the same as the grappled condition? The person being grappled? Is that a line from 3.5 that should had been removed?
There is also the "grappler" term, but it doesn't seem to cause any problem.
If you have a monk in the party, or you use a NPC monk this combat maneuver is very important, I hope it gets clarified in the future. Pathfinder had simplied grappling, at least that's what the foreword of the book says, but there are issues.
I'm summing up all the relevant problems with that "grappling" term (I ignore minor instances of the word, even if they could provoke minor confusions)
"GRAPPLING" vs "GRAPPLED"
SPELL CASTING ISSUES
Page 83, Arcane Spells and Armor
[]
If a spell doesn’t have a somatic component, an arcane
spellcaster can cast it with no arcane spell failure chance
while wearing armor. Such spells can also be cast even if
the caster’s hands are bound or he is grappling (although
concentration checks still apply normally).
[/]
Page 184, Cast a Spell
[]
To cast a spell with a somatic (S) component, you must
gesture freely with at least one hand. You can’t cast a spell
of this type while bound, []grappling[/], or with both your
hands full or occupied.
[/]
Page 201, Grapple (If you are grappled)
[]
Instead of attempting to
break or reverse the grapple, you can take any action that
requires only one hand to perform, such as cast a spell or
make an attack with a light or one-handed weapon against
any creature within your reach, including the creature that
is grappling you. See the grappled condition for additional
details.
[/]
Page 206, Casting Spells (Concentration)
[]
Grappling or Pinned: The only spells you can cast
while grappling or pinned are those without somatic
components and whose material components (if any) you
have in hand. Even so, you must make a concentration
check (DC 10 + the grappler’s CMB + the level of the spell
you’re casting) or lose the spell.
[/]
Page 567, Grappled Condition
[]
...A grappled character who attempts to cast
a spell must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler’s
CMB + spell level, see page 206), or lose the spell...
[/]
It seems clear that casting a spell while under the grappled condition takes a Concentration check.
However the rule of the page 206 may be wrong (or should be added to the grappled condition description to make it more user-friendly), something from 3.5, and it is unclear if those restrictions (about somatic and material components) apply to the grappled condition or just to the "grappler".
DEXTERITY PENALTIES ISSUE
Pag 195, TABLE 8-6 ARMOR CLASS MODIFIERS
The table says, when Defender is "Grappling (but attacker is not)", no armor modifiers, but it has a
Note (#1)
[]
1 The defender loses any Dexterity bonus to AC.
[/]
Again, what means "grappling"?
The grappled condition already gives you a -4 penalty to Dexterity.
That part of the table may be an error from 3.5. Or maybe it should use a modified note "#2 An entangled or grappled character takes a –4 penalty to Dexterity".
Pag 199, Grapple
The text uses "grappling" as what the character that initiated the grapple does
[]
...Once you are grappling an opponent, a successful check allows you to continuegrappling the foe, and also allows you ...
...if you succeed, you can become the grappler,
grappling the other creature...
[/]
SOME MINOR ISSUES
Pag 496, Wands
[]
A wand may be used
while grappling or while swallowed whole.
[/]
Pag 141, Melee and Ranged Weapons
[]
Light: A light weapon is used in one hand. It is easier to
use in one’s off hand than a one-handed weapon is, and can
be used while grappling (see Chapter 8).
[/]
Both the attacker and the defender in a grapple, suffering the grappled condition, can use ligth weapons to attack, but it becomes clear when you read the Chapter 8 rules.