Per the online PRD Glossary:
"A creature with energy immunity never takes damage from that energy type. If a creature has fire immunity, it also has vulnerability to cold. If a creature has cold immunity, it also has vulnerability to fire. Vulnerability means the creature takes half again as much (+50%) damage as normal from that energy type, regardless of whether a saving throw is allowed or if the save is a success or failure."
No mention of being a creature of the fire subtype there.
Oh, how silly. I wonder why they made that change.
|
p. 562 Death Attacks - "...if the save fails, the character dies instantly." Since death effects now mostly do 10 hp/caster level, they don't cause the subject to simply die instantly. This glossary entry should be re-worded to mention that if the damage dealt is enough to bring the target to negative their constitution score, then they die instantly and suffer the effects indicated in the bullet points below it.
This should still be ok. A Death Effect, is simple one that cause you to die, regardless of damage, and also shold have some other minor ramifications, like certain forms of Resurection not being able to raise the character. Also, some spells/items/class features protect against Death Effects.
For example, Death Knell if cast on a dying creature (-1 HP or more), causes it to die instantly, regardless of how much actual HP it has left or if it stabalized. I need to double check now, to se if this has changed, but that is a good 3E example, because it doesn't actually do any damage.
|
|
Oh, how silly. I wonder why they made that change.Per the online PRD Glossary:
"A creature with energy immunity never takes damage from that energy type. If a creature has fire immunity, it also has vulnerability to cold. If a creature has cold immunity, it also has vulnerability to fire. Vulnerability means the creature takes half again as much (+50%) damage as normal from that energy type, regardless of whether a saving throw is allowed or if the save is a success or failure."
No mention of being a creature of the fire subtype there.
Maybe because they are cutting down the Immunities, but want it to be straight forward. In 3E, it started getting rediculous after MM2. There were monsters that where competely on fire, Healed or Buffed by Cold Spells and things like that, which could really annoy casters.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
p. 562 Death Attacks - "...if the save fails, the character dies instantly." Since death effects now mostly do 10 hp/caster level, they don't cause the subject to simply die instantly. This glossary entry should be re-worded to mention that if the damage dealt is enough to bring the target to negative their constitution score, then they die instantly and suffer the effects indicated in the bullet points below it.This should still be ok. A Death Effect, is simple one that cause you to die, regardless of damage, and also shold have some other minor ramifications, like certain forms of Resurection not being able to raise the character. Also, some spells/items/class features protect against Death Effects.
For example, Death Knell if cast on a dying creature (-1 HP or more), causes it to die instantly, regardless of how much actual HP it has left or if it stabalized. I need to double check now, to se if this has changed, but that is a good 3E example, because it doesn't actually do any damage.
My point is that the glossary definition states that death effects all are save or die instantly, when that is no longer true. Now you can fail your save, take the 10 hp/caster level, and not die if you have enough hit points. Some death effects are still save or die, such as death knell, and I think impolsion, but most aren't anymore.
"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."
Although correct in 3.5, all other rules involving grappling seem to contradict this. Most notably:
"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..."
I think that the first quote should read "bound, pinned, or with..."
If true, a particularly insidious error that seems to nullify an intended rule change.
Simple typo: on P83, under Empathic Link- currently reads "The master can communicate emphatically with the familiar, ..." instead of empathically.
I am totally going to enforce the rules as written here. "No... your familiar didn't understand. Try gesticulating wildly?"
(Or maybe "telepathically" would be a better word choice, since spellcheck is saying that "empathically" is not a word.)
Spellcheck is wrong. It's a legitimate formation. At least mine doesn't say "empathicly" is but "empathically" isn't, as I've found with some words, not that I can remember which.
(However, my spellcheck says spellcheck is not a word. Ha!)
|
(Or maybe "telepathically" would be a better word choice, since spellcheck is saying that "empathically" is not a word.)Spellcheck is wrong. It's a legitimate formation. At least mine doesn't say "empathicly" is but "empathically" isn't, as I've found with some words, not that I can remember which.
Yep.
Empathetically or empathically are correct and the distinction from telepathically is important as it a communication conveying only emotional intent, not thoughts or words. This is important for the mage lucky enough to have a wolf familiar and therefore unlucky enough to always get the response 'Kinda hungry...' when querying the familiar in this way.
Page 382 of the core rules:
"Dragon Bite (Ex): At 2nd level, whenever the dragon
disciple uses his bloodline to grow claws, he also gains
a bite attack. This natural attack is made at the dragon
disciple’s full base attack bonus. The dragon disciple
adds 1–1/2 times his Strength modifier on damage
rolls made with his bite. Upon reaching 6th level,
this bite also deals 1d6 points of energy damage. The
type of damage dealt is determined by the dragon
disciple’s bloodline"
It does not indicate what damage die the bite is. D4? D6? In addition since it doesn't indicate if this is a primary attack or secondary, and that it happens at full base attack bonus does that mean all 3 attacks are considered primary and that none occur at a -5 penalty? How does the bite interact with power attack for instance, since it gets 1 1/2 strength bonus, but it is not indicated whether or not it is a primary attack?
Item descriptions including falchion and scimitar are missing.
Many important weapon and item descriptions are missing!
Many important weapon and item descriptions are missing!
OH GOD I JUST NOTICED THAT! James or Jason can we get errata for the 10' pole? I totally don't understand, is it some kind of cheddar or more like a kitten?
Error #1:
Page 125
Feats - Greater Shield Focus
Prerequisites include BAB +1 and 8th-level Fighter.
I suspect the inclusion of BAB +1 is an error. All other fighter feats don't have a BAB requirement and the BAB requirement of this would be redundant due to an 8th level fighter's BAB which would be +8.
Error #2:
Page 126
Feats - Greater Weapon Focus
Prerequisites include BAB +1 and 8th-level Fighter.
Same reason as above.
Error #3:
Page 131
Feats - Penetrating Strike
Prerequisites include BAB +1 and 12th-level Fighter.
Same reason as above.
Please excuse me if this has already been posted or explained, but on page 65 in the section on Combat Style it speaks of being able to acquire "Greater Two Weapon Fighting" at level 10. However, the feat section has the prerequisite for "Greater Two Weapon Fighting" as requiring a BAB of +11. In thinking about this, a BAB of +10 (which for the Ranger is level 10) only allows two attacks as Full-Round actions. Does it seem right that a Ranger would be allowed to get three attacks with his off-hand and two attacks with his Primary hand?
Just my 2 cp.
Please excuse me if this has already been posted or explained, but on page 65 in the section on Combat Style it speaks of being able to acquire "Greater Two Weapon Fighting" at level 10. However, the feat section has the prerequisite for "Greater Two Weapon Fighting" as requiring a BAB of +11. In thinking about this, a BAB of +10 (which for the Ranger is level 10) only allows two attacks as Full-Round actions. Does it seem right that a Ranger would be allowed to get three attacks with his off-hand and two attacks with his Primary hand?
Just my 2 cp.
I never noticed that. I think James is currently on the boards browsing and he may answer that if you post it in the rules section.
I think Sean was here earlier, but I dont know if he is still around.
Is there a discrepancy in the description of Shillelagh between the spell list and the listing of spells or am I missing something and suffering from caffine withdrawal? (1d10 in brief description vs increase size by 2 categories in spell text?)
|
|
The concept of elves not sleeping is, in fact, a Forgotten Realms campaign-specific thing, one that's sort of virally spread to other campaigns.
Actually, it originates with Tolkien... and was in both the v3 and v3.5 PHBs. I think I remember it cropping up in earlier rules as well, but I haven't dug them out of storage to check.
The matter of Elves trancing/meditating not sleeping is continued in "Elves of Golarion" on pg 5. Just thought I would mention this. It may not be pertinent to the discussion.
Just my 2 cp.
|
|
In another thread there is debate about whether Elves are still intended to be able to spot secret doors when passing near them. This ability has been removed from the list of racial traits in the front of the book, but is still mentioned on pages 404 (as an example of a type of die roll the GM should make secretly) and 414 (in the writeup on secret doors).
Also, as mentioned earlier in this thread there are some inconsistencies with the Perception modifiers for locating invisible creatures. On page 563 moving at half speed gives a -5 modifier, moving at full speed -10, running/charging -20, and not moving at all -40. Looking at the three modifiers for moving it would seem like these are meant to be decreases to the Perception DC... the faster the invisible creature is moving the easier they are to detect. Unfortunately, that goes out the window with the -40 for NOT moving... a motionless invisible creature is EASIER to detect than one which is charging? Something is clearly askew.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
On page 183 note 4 indicates that Charge and Withdraw can be performed as two standard actions if the character's movement is restricted. However, on page 186 both are listed as types of actions which CAN'T be split up this way. This was copied over from v3.5, which introduced the contradiction when trying to simplify the 'partial action' system from version 3.
Avalanches and Cave-Ins have... problems
The final paragraph really would be MUCH more helpful if it was SPLIT and introduced parallel with the rules it's relevant to:
The speed should be mentioned during the first part detailing when you perceive the avalanche (the speed being relevant to how many chances you have to make a Perception check before the Avalanche reaches the "you are automatically aware at half original distance" point).
The part determining what area of the Avalanche you end up in should probably be used as the INTRODUCTION to the section detailing the EFFECTS of being in those different sections (bury zone/slide zone). (i.e. Roll XYZ to determine if you end up in Zone A or Zone B. Zone A does XYZ damage and you are buried. Zone B does XYZ damage and if you fail your Save you are buried. Buried characters suffer XYZ damage and may escape only by XYZ or if they are rescued by allies who XYZ.)
Cave Ins seems to contain all the rules that are missing from the Avalance section re: digging yourself/friends out, though the specific numbers on damage, time, and DCs seem plausible to be different in snow vs. rubble.
It's use of the term "slide zone" seems more applicable to Avalanches than Cave Ins themselves...
Either a neutral universal term or a more-Cave-In-specific term should be adopted.
If you want to save space, there NEEDS to be at least a section reference, if not page reference, to the necessary rules from the rules section (Avalanche/Cave-In) that DOESN'T contain all necessary rules. As is, I have to make a leap of faith that the Cave-In rules for digging out are really MEANT to apply to Avalanches (and many people might not even think of it, unless they're Environmental Rules Fanatics).
Monks: The phrase when detailing Unarmed Strike seems problematic, if well intended. If there is "no such thing" as an off-hand attack for Monks, how do they use their Class Ability (the virtual 2WF chain), which is PREDICATED on off-hand attacks?
The sentence seems un-necessary: Your intent is 100% conveyed by the part granting full STR bonus to off-hand attacks and allowing attacks with any body part. After all, the idea is not that Monks don't have what other people do (off-hand attacks), but that their "off-hand attacks" (which DO necessarily exist) aren't subject to the LIMITATIONS others are (half STR damage, limited to 2 hands).
Paladins:
It doesn't seem like a REQUIREMENT to pick INT 6+ Companions (it doesn't say they MUST have a 6 INT, and the examples of Horses/Ponies definitely don't have 6 INT), so it would seem to be a bonus of some kind - but what kind? And how much of a bonus? Is it a 'fixed' bonus, say +4 or +5? Or is it whatever is enough to bring their base INT up to 6? How does it interact with level-based stat bumps? INT-boosting magic? A basic bit detailing what kind of bonus it is (enough to adjudicate these types of details) is all that's needed here.
Aura of Justice: I mentioned this in the original "Smite is Overpowered" thread, but I'm not completely certain about the intent with this ability. As written, it doesn't have the same "only functions while Paladin is conscious" limitation as the other Paladin Auras, and in fact it works radically different than, say, Aura of Faith or Resolve.
Unlike those, which are basically AoE buffs, Aura of Justice as written is a one round duration effect. It's recipients (those who "use" Smite Evil in that 1 round - "use" being a Swift Action to activate Smite, by the RAW?) each have their OWN independent Smite effect, irrespective of whether they step further away from the Paladin, or even stay on the same PLANE as the Paladin, much less if the Paladin dies before 1 minute is over. Further, it would seem by the RAW that each "recipient" is free to choose a DIFFERENT Smite target, which I'm also not sure is the intent behind the ability.
In that thread, I mentioned how making Aura of Justice work like an AoE buff like the other Paladin Auras (with same "while Paladin is conscious" requirement), and also limit it to a shared/common Smite Target, would be a very reasonable clarification, while maintaining the heroic flavor and substance. (in other words, give the Aura itself a 1 minute duration and all allies within 10' radius apply the Paladins' active Smite Bonus to their attacks vs. the already designated Smite Target. Though if the Paladin subsequently Smites multiple Targets, it could easily be just as powerful, if it's not explicitly limited to 1 existing Smite Target when Aura of Justice is activated.)
Feats:
I think this would be clearer if EXAMPLES of which damage bonuses ARE multiplied were provided. (Weapon Spec?)
The example of flaming being EXCLUDED is somewhat ambiguous as to whether straight Weapon Enhancement bonuses would or wouldn't be multiplied - after all, they are not a Weapon ABILITY, but are just a bonus...???
Also, two of the "excluded" types are bonus damage DICE, which are otherwise distinct from bonus damage: I think you could change the wording to blanket exclude bonus damage DICE (covering both flaming and sneak attack) as well as precision damage, which then leaves more room to expound on examples of what bonuses ARE multiplied. Basically, I think some editing here would give players a clearer picture of the Feat's usage on first reading it, and not leave it to DMs to answer questions like these.
Elemental Channel:
Is Healing or Harming a CHOICE per usage, or linked to the user's Postive/Negative Energy affinity? It also seems reasonable that you could Turn Elementals if you have the Turning Feat, but that doesn't appear to be supported by the RAW...???
Extra Channel:
I don't think you should mention Paladins and certainly not "Channel POSITIVE Energy", since the ability is really open to anybody who can Channel Energy as a Class Feature (or Racial Ability).
I also think the way you explicitly "reverse derive" the bonus Channels to equal "4 Lay on Hands usages, but only usable for Channel Energy" is counter-productive in that it encourages players to think about the ability in the LEAST direct, MOST complicated way: Simply saying it grants "2 bonus Channel Energy uses" is all that's needed, and much simpler to write on a character sheet than "+4 Lay on Hands, but only for Channel Energy (+2 Channels)". As well, it's ONLY relevant to Paladins, when for all we know there could be some future Divine Barbarian PrC who can "power" Channel Energy or Lay on Hands thru Rage Rounds. Save some space here, and put it to use elsewhere where it'd be more beneficial.
Weapon Spec:
Do you do +2 damage on ALL Grapple attacks, or only the "damage" option?
Likewise, listing "Grapple" separately from "Unarmed" seems slightly wierd... Is Weapon Spec:Trip likewise available independent of the weapon used to Trip? IMHO, the "Grapple" should not be an option for Weapon Spec or Focus, only specific weapons (incl. natural/ unarmed strike).
Size Modifier Table:
Even though it has PLENTY of empty space, the Table for Size Modifier doesn't mention WHAT the modifier applies to (i.e. Attacks and AC). Likewise, Maneuver Size Modifier (which is just the reverse, obviously) doesn't show up on the table, and only is described in the prose of the Maneuver section several pages away.
If all these areas affected by Size were actually included in the Table, it would be more helpful as a "one stop shopping center" for applying adjustments for different-Sized characters, as well as being less easily overlooked (compared to the Maneuver Size Mod being buried in the Maneuver section). Encumbrance and Weight multipliers should probably be included on such a Table as well, though that might need more space.
Falling Rules:
The situation of a CREATURE (rather than an inanimate object) falling on another creature(s) seems common enough that it should be mentioned. I would GUESS the rules for Falling Objects would be applicable, except that the base damage (before Save, if unintentional fall) should be based off the rules for CHARACTERS falling rather than the object table (for consistency in damage for faller vs. target). Treating falling on top of a character as "soft terrain" to the character falling (reducing damage by 1 dice) seems a reasonable clarification to include. If a character is INTENTIONALLY "falling" on another character (making a Ranged Touch Attack) it seems reasonable that they should suffer less damage than they would if falling on the ground (and less than the target of their "attack"): Taking half damage, like "targets" of un-planned falls do with a successful Reflex Save seems a reasonable approach (maybe they should have to make the Save themselves if they want to reduce their damage?)
re: Vital Strike,
looking into it I'm getting a more confused picture,
because Jason's posts are saying "only base weapon damage" is multiplied, yet the Feat itself says that besides the excluded categories [STR, precision, additional abilities [bonus dice?]] which is a pretty big discrepancy...
anyway, I thought over this after my last post, and I thought the easiest/clearest way to treat it (based off current Feat definition, not 'only base wpn damage' post) is just say it works like Critical Hits and all other "damage multipliers" except it excludes STR & precision damage. That also opens the door to elegantly segue into a brief explanation of how Vital Strike interacts with a Confirmed Crit (since VS excludes STR & Precision Damage, it isn't as simple a combination as it would be otherwise)
also: is Precision Damage defined anywhere? I only see it mentioned in passing (re: Sneak Attack) ...???
I also though Ranger Favored Enemy is Precision Damage, but it isn't defined as such.
Is Weapon Spec precision? /?confuuusioonnn....?/
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
Precision damage is, alas, not defined as a term. It's more a descriptive element, which is probably not the best way to handle things in game. But basically, precision damage is limited to sneak attacks and the duelist's extra damage, as far as I can tell.
Yeah, phrases that are used like they are "game terms" (i.e. ) but actually AREN'T is pretty confusing in D&D's context.
The whole "(Standard) Attack Action" issue is similar, though from the reverse angle.
That said, if you have room, I could see throwing Precision in the Glossary with a minimum of fluff, mention it includes SA and Duelist bonus and describe how it isn't multiplied on Crits. Any further (non-Core) sources of Precision Damage would need to be explicitly defined as Precision Damage (not by automatically applying a generic criteria).
If you were trying to be funny, I think you missed the mark.
I'm pretty sure Grandfather was speaking tongue-in-cheek as well. If a weapon follows all the normal rules for weapons, why does there need to be any extra description? If you don't know what a sickle looks like, try Wikipedia. I'm not saying descriptions have no place in a rules document (I rather miss the pseudo-encyclopedic nature of a lot of 1st and 2nd edition books), but take a quick look at the page count. Fluff can be generated by the DM and players, so it's proper for it to be cut first.
He was sarcastic because more or less the SAME EXACT ISSUE has been brought up on multiple occasions.
You might take a look at your 3.5 books. The Falchion and Scimitar are not described there either:
Probably 15-20% of the weapons are not given descriptions, and likewise for many non-weapon items.
Pathfinder Core Rule is aiming to take the place of the PHB and DMG. If something wasn't felt to be problematic or need improvement in 3.5, it probably looks pretty much the same in Pathfinder.
This is basically one of those cases.
Paizo staff has already commented on this issue.
Suffice it to say this isn't an oversight, and such descriptions aren't likely to make it into the Core Rules in the forseeable future. Adding descriptions for every item would probably have taken AT LEAST 2-3 extra pages, which I think most people involved in the play-test (and staff at Paizo) would feel is space better used for rules clarifications. At least there's things like Wikipedia now for when you'd really like to know what the heck a Falchion is. :-)
One thing on Two Weapon Defense:
It isn't 100% clear to me if you can add a Shield Enhancement to the weapon now - Having a Shield Bonus seems the implicit requirement to be considered a Shield/ accept Shield Enhancements (Shields with Weapon Enhancents also count as weapons). Obviously only characters with the Feat would be able to take advantage of a Shield-Enhanced weapon (just like only creatures w/ Natural Weapons can take advantage of an Amulet of Magic Fang). I presume Shield Bashes wouldn't work.
It seems simple to either confirm/exclude this option.
In my eyes, the Feat isn't worthwhile to take UNLESS Shield Enhancements are allowed, and given the 2WF+Shield Feat tree is certainly effective, having a similar equivalent option that's viable for dual-weapon-wielders seems 100% reasonable.
Laughing Touch ability is not listed as mind affecting. I don't think zombie laugh so I will assume it was an error.
Valerette deserves the credit for this if it was an error.
I am not sure if this has been touched on before in this thread or another errata thread, I haven't seen it.
My question is concerning the Shadowdancer's HiPS ability vs. the Assassin's. The abilities used to read the same in 3.5 and now they don't. I am not sure if this is a mistake or intentional.
Assassin says it can use stealth as long as it is within 10' of some sort of shadow.
Shadowdancer says it can use stealth as long as it is within 10' of an area of dim light.
Are these intentionally different now? I know many of the HiPS(EX) versions were different but I thought all versions of the (SU) ability were the same in 3.5, at least I believe this is true for the Assassin and Shadowdancer.
So, which way is correct if there was in fact an error?
Or are they worded precisely the way they were meant to be?
Reposting this from another thread...
Basically the intent of Vital Strike IS decipherable,
but the wording could be cleared up alot to take out the stuff 'distracting' readers from the intended functioning (which itself is very simple).
Vital Strike
Benefit: When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage. . This bonus damage is not multiplied on a critical hit (although other damage bonuses are multiplied normally).
I think the problem is that after saying damage dice is multiplied, it then says DON'T multiply damage bonuses from specific areas. The last sentence is JUST talking about criticals working normally, but combined with the SPECIFIC prohibition of SPECIFIC bonuses, I got the impression it was still talking about Vital Strike's OWN damage multiplication.
The current wording's EXAMPLES of bonuses are not presented as "examples" as they are intended: "but do not multiply damage bonus from Strength, weapon abilities [such as], or Sneak Attack [such as]" appears to be an exhaustive list (i.e. don't multiply STR, Wpn Abilities, or Precision). Changing the phrase to read "but do not multiply ANY damage bonuses [or bonus damage dice], SUCH AS [the given examples]" removes the room for confusion by clearly saying ALL bonuses aren't multiplied and clearly indicating the examples are indeed examples (and not exhaustive). The crux is that starting that whole clause with "but" indicates the specific, limited list of excluded Bonuses ACTUALLY IS IMPORTANT, rather than just the example it is meant to be.
As-is, the "intended reading" (that Jason has explained) is valid because the Feat only positively directs you to multiply "the damage dice". That's great, but it means anyone relying on the follow-up text to understand it can be easily misled, since the follow-up text itself CAN'T be relied upon to convey the crucial part - When I'm given a more-in-depth explanation, I tend to expect that I'm actually able to rely upon that.
I would change it to something like: (changes bold)
Benefit: When you use the Standard Attack Action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage. Roll the weapon damage dice for the attack twice and add the results together, . This bonus damage from Vital Strike is not multiplied on a critical hit.
I also changed the final sentence to be simpler and more to the point - calling out damage bonuses (besides VS) being multiplied normally on Crits is again slightly confusing because Crits multiply damage bonuses AND weapon damage - This is shorter & 100% clear.
For the core phrase of the Feat, I changed it to reference WEAPON damage dice multiplication, which likewise seems 100% clearer - I've seen that this is the intended meaning (i.e. no Vital Striking Touch Spell Damage), and phrasing it this way is shorter and clearer than adding another clause to exclude Touch Spell damage from the multiplied "damage dice" that isn't a Weapon Ability or Precision.
Standard Attack Action seems to be the commonly used & less mis-interpretable phrase than Attack Action.
Wind Stance Table Summary
"if you move" should be "if you DOUBLE Move or Withdraw"
Necro School:
Is Command/Turn Undead INTENDED to be linked to Alignment, like it is for Clerics?
Per RAW it's not, and is a free choice... I could see this going either way, just wanted to confirm.
(i.e. EMPHASIZING difference between White/Black Necro, or allow identical abilities)
I couldn't find this in this thread, so I'm adding it.
Pg. 123 Endurance should apply to heavy armor, not just light and medium armor. The statements made make no sense, particularly when taken in light of the rule on pg. 151. Specifically, the statement in the feat is not consistent with itself. This same flaw existed in the previous revisions of the game, so perhaps I'm the only one that thinks it's an error.
You may sleep in light or medium armor without becoming fatigued.
Normal: A character without this feat who sleeps in medium or heavier armor is fatigued the next day.
Sleeping in Armor: A character who sleeps in medium or heavy armor is automatically fatigued the next day. He takes a –2 penalty on Strength and Dexterity and can’t charge or run. Sleeping in light armor does not cause fatigue.
Conversely, perhaps it is intentionally poorly written. By implying that those who take the feat are getting something that they would have gotten anyway, the ability to sleep in light armor without taking penalties.
That's actually not an error, as I understand the meaning. The intent is that sleeping in Heavy armor still causes the character to be Fatigued. Endurance adds only Medium armor to the category of "does not cause Fatigue" for the possessor. So, the possessor can sleep in Light armor (which he could before) or Medium armor(which he could NOT before) without being Fatigued.
Exactly, the feat is unchanged from his 3.5 version. Sleeping in Heavy Armor stil leaves you fatigued, but Medium Armor becomes available.
My point is, that I've always found this feat inconsistent. First, why mention in the feat that "You may sleep in light..." armor without becoming fatigued, when you wouldn't become fatigued anyway. If you normally wear light armor, then this feat does not change anything for you in that regard. I have always seen this as a problem, in all previous revisions of d20.
Just because that's the way it was in previous revisions, still doesn't mean it was right.
@blu: agreed. that's one I wanted to mention here, but somehow forgot.
phrasing it like "may sleep in medium as well as light armor without getting fatigued" would give just enough 'common English' cues to prevent any confusion on the part of the reader. Sure, the 3.5 wording was not technically false, but that doesn't mean it can't be improved.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the errata. |
Page 73
Abyssal Bloodline - Claws:
I suspect after the very last paragraph it should indicate that the rounds do not need to be consecutive.
Page 75
Draconic Bloodline - Claws:
I suspect after the very last paragraph it should indicate that the rounds do not need to be consecutive.
Spring Attack.
It doesn't specify the action you have to take to use the feat. I assume it is a full-round action, as in Shot on the Run, but some other think it is an Attack Action + a Move Action (it was this way in 3.5). This is important as you could apply Vital Strike in the second case.
Combat Maneuvers.
The text for the combat maneuvers does not specify which of these maneuvers can be performed using a weapon. This is important because you would add feats as Weapon Focus or the weapon's enhancement bonus to your CMB.
Though in some maneuvers it's obvious you don't use a weapon (Overrun), some others are not clear. Examples:
- Bull Rush with a shield or natural armor (kick). In the Shield Slam feat you are using your weapon focus etc. as a bonus to the Bull Rush.
- Trip. Can you trip with any weapon? The Trip ability in the Equipment (Weapons) section seems to point that you can only trip with those weapons, but it is not clear. What about an unarmed attack? Do you apply any bonuses you have to those attacks?
It has been argued by some people that you can use weapons for maneuvers that replace an attack, not for those that are a different action. This is not clear, as in Bull Rush you can replace the attack in a charge.
Sunder - It is written it replaces an attack only in the case of an standard attack. I don't know if this is an error or it is just this way.
Overrun -
"As a standard action, taken during your move or as part of a charge"
Does it replace the melee attack in the charge action, as in Bull Rush?
"When you attempt to overrun a target, it can choose to avoid you, allowing you to pass through its square without requiring an attack" This means that you don't need to take the overrun standard action, thus allowing an attack action later, or does it mean that you just don't have to roll the attack? If it is the former case, you could move through several spaces filled with enemies, provided all of them avoid you.
Is Overrun a different action than moving for Attacks of Opportunity (can your foe make two AoO for leaving your space next to him and for the maneuver).
Grappling - It is confusing the use of "grappled" and "grappling". The section "If you are grappled" should be changed to "If you are not the one who started the grapple", unless the one who started it is allowed to cast somatic spells (for ex. with a swift action). This is further confusing when we look at the Concentration section, where it talk about "grappling or pinned". I think a clearer wording is needed, where the use of the term "grappled" is consistant.
Page 73
This is more of a typo than an error...
Celestial Bloodline - Conviction:
The last 2 sentences describing the benefits both start with "Finally"
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Full-Attack
PRD: "Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks."
The text does not explain which action is the first attack if you chose to take the move action.
If it is still part of a full-attack, you could use Manyshot, as the feat does not require to take all your attacks.
If it is an Attack Action, you could apply Vital Strike. Notice that you could decide, if you fail your first attack, to continue with the rest of your attacks; and if you hit, to apply Vital Strike.