| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the errata. |
Bracers of Defenselessness are Arms slot but all other bracers are wrists slot. Is this intentional? If so won't that be sort of a give-away that they are cursed? "Oh what? They are in the arms slot? Crap don't put those on buddy!"
There is no "arms" slot, it should be "wrists":
A humanoid-shaped body can be decked out in magic gear consisting of one item from each of
the following groups, keyed to which slot on the body the item is worn.Armor: suits of armor.
Belts: belts and girdles.
Body: robes and vestments.
Chest: mantles, shirts, and vests.
Eyes: eyes, glasses, and goggles.
Feet: boots, shoes, and slippers.
Hands: gauntlets and gloves.
Head: circlets, crowns, hats, helms, and masks.
Headband: headbands and phylacteries.
Neck: amulets, brooches, medallions, necklaces, periapts, and scarabs.
Ring (up to two): rings.
Shield: shields.
Shoulders: capes and cloaks.
Wrist: bracelets and bracers.
Huh...are "head" and "headband" really different slots now? Go figure.
I guess I could see wearing a helm and a headband.
Spell like abilities don't have an assigned spell level.
PS: How long until the pdf is updated with errata?
Spell like abilities don't have an assigned spell level.
Spell-like abilities that are based on a specific spell use the spell's spell level as their own.
For example, a Magic Missile spell-like ability would be 1st level spell.For spell-like abilities that mimic spells which appear on different spell charts (Cleric, Druid, Bard, etc.), their spell level is based on a default priority order chart: Sorcerer/Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Bard, Paladin, Ranger
For example, a Hideous Laughter spell-like ability would be 2nd level (since the priority goes to Sorcerer/Wizard, not Bard); a Flame Strike spell-like ability would be 5th level (since Cleric has priority over Druid).
You can find such explanation on the Bestiary, on page 304:
"Some spell-like abilities duplicate spells that work differently when cast by characters of different classes. A monster’s spell-like abilities are presumed to be the sorcerer/wizard versions. If the spell in question is not a sorcerer/wizard spell, then default to cleric, druid, bard, paladin, and ranger, in that order."
For spell-like abilities that do not exactly mimic an existing spell, the spell level should be indicated by the spell-like ability itself (like the Summoning abilities of Devil and Demons).
It's true however that some spell-like abilities in the Core Rulebook (especially those mentioned in Domains, Bloodlines and Schools of Magic) have not an indicated spell-level; for those spell-like abilities, I would assign them a spell level equal to that of the maximum spell level they could cast at such a class level (if appliable). Otherwise, I would use the Paladin's Divine Bond-Steed spell level progression ("This ability is the equivalent of a spell of a level equal to one-third the paladin’s level.")
For example, a spell-like ability like the Air Domain power 'Arc of Lightning' should be a 1st-level spell, since it's gained at a class level (1st) where the Cleric could cast 1st level spells; while the Grasp of the Dead spell-like ability (an Undead Bloodline ability) should be 4th-level using my progression, since it's gained at 9th level - and a Sorcerer at 9th level can cast 4th level spells as thier highest spell level.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
It's true however that some spell-like abilities in the Core Rulebook (especially those mentioned in Domains, Bloodlines and Schools of Magic) have not an indicated spell-level; for those spell-like abilities, I would assign them a spell level equal to that of the maximum spell level they could cast at such a class level (if appliable).
I don't like that leap of faith. I think you would read RAW to have them be just like the others, namely based on the Sor/Wiz, Cleric, Druid, etc.
Spell like abilities don't have an assigned spell level.
Spell-like abilities that are based on a specific spell use the spell's spell level as their own.
For example, a Magic Missile spell-like ability would be 1st level spell.For spell-like abilities that mimic spells which appear on different spell charts (Cleric, Druid, Bard, etc.), their spell level is based on a default priority order chart: Sorcerer/Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Bard, Paladin, Ranger
For example, a Hideous Laughter spell-like ability would be 2nd level (since the priority goes to Sorcerer/Wizard, not Bard); a Flame Strike spell-like ability would be 5th level (since Cleric has priority over Druid).You can find such explanation on the Bestiary, on page 304:
"Some spell-like abilities duplicate spells that work differently when cast by characters of different classes. A monster’s spell-like abilities are presumed to be the sorcerer/wizard versions. If the spell in question is not a sorcerer/wizard spell, then default to cleric, druid, bard, paladin, and ranger, in that order."For spell-like abilities that do not exactly mimic an existing spell, the spell level should be indicated by the spell-like ability itself (like the Summoning abilities of Devil and Demons).
It's true however that some spell-like abilities in the Core Rulebook (especially those mentioned in Domains, Bloodlines and Schools of Magic) have not an indicated spell-level; for those spell-like abilities, I would assign them a spell level equal to that of the maximum spell level they could cast at such a class level (if appliable). Otherwise, I would use the Paladin's Divine Bond-Steed spell level progression ("This ability is the equivalent of a spell of a level equal to one-third the paladin’s level.")
For example, a spell-like ability like the Air Domain power 'Arc of Lightning' should be a 1st-level spell, since it's gained at a class level (1st) where the Cleric could cast 1st level spells; while the Grasp of the Dead...
I was talking about the ones listed for certain classes like the sorcerer that have a spell equivalent. Laughing Touch for the Fey bloodline is an example.
Creative Director
|
Command Plants spell school is listed as Transmutation in both the PRD and in the hardcopy. This should likely be Enchantment.
Actually, it SHOULD be transmutation. Plants are immune to mind-affecting attacks, and it's not very graceful to make a new spell that breaks that rule. Transmutation works fine for the spell's school, since command plants isn't really taking over the plant's mind (which in most cases isn't there to be taken over in the first place) but transforming the plants' activity into something else.
Honestly, you could build flavor for any number of schools for this... but 3rd edition has it as transmutation and we decided to keep it transmutation.
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the errata. |
I also would like an answer to this question.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?
Unless otherwise specified, a bite attack is always a primary attack. A dragon disciple's bite attack is thus a primary attack. Of course, if the dragon disciple makes an attack with a manufactured weapon, THEN his bite is treated as a secondary attack.
The bite, in any event and as far as I understand things, should inflict standard bite damage for a creature of the disciple's size, as detailed on page 302 of the Bestiary. 1d6 for Medium creatures, 1d4 for Small, 1d8 for Large.
Page 382 of the core rules:
"Dragon Bite (Ex): ... made at the dragon disciple’s full base attack bonus... adds 1–1/2 times his Strength modifier on damage
rolls made with his bite.
...
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?
The Power Attack feat states that primary natural weapons that add 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls get the +50% damage bonus.
The Bestiary lists Bite and Claw as attacks that default to Primary attacks (so yes, all 3, not at -5), and the Power Attack language applies. {Just had to look this up for a couple dragons}Spiffy.
Tagged for goodie reference
:)
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the errata. |
Summon Monster II has drone ants while summon monster III has soldier ants Drone ants are the CR3 version on soldier ants
Wow, didn't notice that. Yep, I think they are reversed.
p. 266 Core Rulebook in the Detect Chaos/Evil/Good/Law table
Aligned creature (HD)
5 or lower: No aura
5-10 : Faint aura
So it seems that a 5 HD creature without cleric or paladin levels, and that is not an undead or outsider, has no detectable aligned aura, but also a faint one??
|
Page 63 Divine Bond: Somewhere under the first bond it should state how to change weapons, for example if you find a new weapon that is better you do/don't have to wait 30 days or suffer a -1 to attack rolls and damage rolls.
Page 136 Vital Strike: should state whether your target actually needs vitals to use this on them, also it should say something about bonuses, for example, does this also multiply the strength bonus and damage bonuses from other sources? Like having a +1 weapon, or having the Weapon Specialization feat.
|
|
Page 63 Divine Bond: Somewhere under the first bond it should state how to change weapons, for example if you find a new weapon that is better you do/don't have to wait 30 days or suffer a -1 to attack rolls and damage rolls.
Page 136 Vital Strike: should state whether your target actually needs vitals to use this on them, also it should say something about bonuses, for example, does this also multiply the strength bonus and damage bonuses from other sources? Like having a +1 weapon, or having the Weapon Specialization feat.
Err..... Core rulebook, both of them.
Will the errata be incorporated into the next printing of the Pathfinder Core book? If so, when would it be available?
Most GM want you to declare what you are going to do. A standard action or a full attack action /full round action. It would be a bit odd if GM ask player:
- What are you going to do this round?
Answer from player:
- I tell you when I know if I was successful.
I go with James Risner and tejón on this one.As for manyshot. I would say if you use Manyshot you must make a "full-attack action with a bow", but I admit I'm not sure I'm right.
My take on this is also that you should declare first:
- You declare a full-attack action. You must declare an action that allows you to make an attack before you declare the type of attack.- After first attack (wether it hits or not) you decide to take a move. You are still taking a full-attack action, not a standard a attack + move action.
- So Vital Strike should not apply
Then, the Manyshot feat should include a reference to this. Instead
"When making a full-attack action with a bow, your first attack fires two arrows." it should read:
"When making a full-attack action with a bow, your first attack fires two arrows, but you can't decide to take a move instead the rest of your attacks".
Better than that, the Full-Attack Action rules should state that any feat, spell or ability that requires a full-attack action are incompatible with taking the move instead of the remaining attacks.
p. 266 Core Rulebook in the Detect Chaos/Evil/Good/Law table
Aligned creature (HD)
5 or lower: No aura
5-10 : Faint auraSo it seems that a 5 HD creature without cleric or paladin levels, and that is not an undead or outsider, has no detectable aligned aura, but also a faint one??
Heh. Oops.
Are all these rules clarifications for the core book and the bestiary all being catalogued somewhere, like a FAQ or an errata list, and is the on-line version of the Pathfinder rules being updated?
We (not Paizo, we as in fans) maintain a FAQ at http://www.d20pfsrd.com/extras/pathfinder-faq. It's not official but it's something. I'm under the impression that the official method of tracking these things is Jason et al reading these boards. Don't quote me on that though.
Should Giant Scorpions really be in the Summon Nature's Ally 6 list?
They are CR 3, all the other stuff is CR 7-8
RE: Potions
Potions - pg 477
It indicates that it can duplicate the effects of a spell where the spell targets 1 or more creatures.
There is no mention of objects here, and perhaps there should be.
Further in the text it does indicate that "The person applying the oil is the effective caster, but the object is the target." I'm guessing that "the object is the target" is meant to infer that the above reference to creatures could also apply to an object, but I think a clarification is in order.
It would also be nice, if similar to the potion creation rules, that it also indicated here that it does not duplicate a spell effects if the spell target is personal. Similarly, in the potion creature rules, it should indicate that you can duplicate the effects of a spell where the spell targets 1 or more creatures (or an object).
(This saves having to look at 3 different areas of the book, when you want to use your Brew Potion feat :)
Lastly, a request concerning potion prices as indicated on page 478. I think the class-based price chart adds in a level of needless complication. The reason for the chart is rational, but for game mechanics it is not. Does this mean that all potions found should have the class descriptor too? Potion of Cure Moderate Wounds (Bard)? This could affect the sale value from the PC's to shopkeepers. When the PC's are trying to buy the potions from shopkeepers I guess I should be rolling a die to see what class made it so I know how much to charge the PC? I really don't think this extra complication is needed -- just give potions a flat price based on their lowest spell level available (plus material costs).
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
Oldy but a goody: What effect does Cloudkill have on a 6HD creature?
All polymorph subschool spells change the caster's natural armor bonus except for Alter Self. So if an ancient gold dragon turns into a gorilla, she gets a +4 natural armor bonus, but if she turns into a goblin, she keeps her +34 natural armor bonus. That seems a bit odd.
In the feat section of the rules, "Point Blank Shot" is spelled "Point-Blank Shot", but everywhere else in the Core rulebook it is spelled without the hyphen.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
In 3.5, the spell "Light" used to say: "This spell causes an object to glow like a torch, shedding bright light in a 20-foot radius (and dim light for an additional 20 feet) from the point you touch."
Pathfinder reworded the spell somewhat. Unfortunately, they removed the words "from the point you touch". So now it looks like you could make an entire castle/mountain/planet glow by casting "Light" on it.
Page 153.
2 The wearer must have help to don this armor. Without help, it can be donned only hastily
This doesn't even pretend to make sense.
Page 153.
This doesn't even pretend to make sense.
2 The wearer must have help to don this armor. Without help, it can be donned only hastily
Actually, it does (it's exactly like in the 3.5 rules, btw).
Armors can be donned (more time needed, full AC granted), or donned hastily (less time needed, less AC granted, more Armor Check penalties on the character - bottom of page 153, 'Getting Into and Out of Armor'). An Armor with the 2) note (Full Plate or Half Plate) always need somebody to help the character to don it; otherwise, no matter how much time you spend, the result is always a 'donned hastily' armor (less AC, more Armor Chek penalty) - as you can see, the time to don it 'regularly' and 'hastily' is even the same. Only thing is, I am not completely sure if that time has to be halved (probabily) if somebody helps you don the armor.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the errata. |
Combat Maneuver Defense, page 199:
"A creature can also add any circumstance, deflection, dodge, insight, morale, profane, and sacred bonuses to AC to its CMD."
It doesn't list luck bonus to AC (like that of a Staff of Power); is this an oversight, or is it intentional?
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
This could be an errata, or at least needs some clarification:
Fly spell, page 284:
"The subject can fly at a speed of 60 feet (or 40 feet if it wears medium or heavy armor, or if it carries a medium or heavy load). It can ascend at half speed and descend at double speed, and its maneuverability is good.
(...)
The subject gains a bonus on Fly skill checks equal to 1/2 your caster level."
It's not clear if the text regarding maneuverability is an oversight (a legacy from the 3.5 SRD) or intentional, since a Good Maneuverability in Pathfinder now gives only a +4 to Fly checks (in 3.x, it lead to a personal subsystem of actions allowable during flight).
Basically, what is the bonus to a Fly skill of a character who drinks a Potion of Fly (caster level 5)? +2 (from the spell), or +6 (spell + Good Maneuverability) ?
What about Overland Flight ? In 3.5 it stated that it gave Average Maneuverability, now it says:
Overland Flight, page 317:
"This spell functions like a fly spell, except you can fly at a speed of 40 feet (30 feet if wearing medium or heavy armor, or if carrying a medium or heavy load) with a bonus on Fly skill checks equal to half your caster level."
So it's not completely clear if it gives Good maneuverability or not - again, this doesn't matter if a character only gains a bonus equal to 1/2 caster level, but see my question above.
My gut intincts tell me that the 'Good Maneuverability' from the Fly spell is the only error, but it could be better having a clarification, IMHO...
The Antimagic rules described on d20srd.org are completely missing it appears. I have added them to the magic page on d20pfsrd.com but wanted to let the Paizo folks know.
The spell Clenched Fist has a DF (Divine Focus) in the components, and mentions "Cleric" as a class that can cast the spell in the spell text, but does not list Cleric as a class that can cast the spell in the spell header.
It's a domain spell, and (for better or for worse) the various spell domains aren't listed in the spell header.
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
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."
|
This is a great example of false errata, actually. 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. As a result, we'll be downplaying this facet of elves in Pathfinder RPG products. Elves not sleeping is more on the side of a campaign specific bit of flavor, in any event, so we didn't mention it in the Core Rules. Note that we also don't mention that they DO sleep—that bit of flavor is up to the GM, basically.
ON (NON-)SLEEPING ELVES
Actually, James, you did mention it in the Core Rulebook, although not in a very handy location: look at the description of the 5th level nightmare spell:
Creatures who don't sleep (such as elves, but not half-elves) or dream are immune to this spell.
You did not cut-and-paste that from the 3.5 SRD, didn't you? :)
|
Creative Director
|
This is a great example of false errata, actually. 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. As a result, we'll be downplaying this facet of elves in Pathfinder RPG products. Elves not sleeping is more on the side of a campaign specific bit of flavor, in any event, so we didn't mention it in the Core Rules. Note that we also don't mention that they DO sleep—that bit of flavor is up to the GM, basically.ON (NON-)SLEEPING ELVES
Actually, James, you did mention it in the Core Rulebook, although not in a very easy-to-spot location: look at the description of the 5th level nightmare spell:
Creatures who don't sleep (such as elves, but not half-elves) or dream are immune to this spell.
You did not cut-and-paste that from the 3.5 SRD, didn't you? :)
Well... I didn't write that section. It crept in there somehow though. By mistake or by cut and paste.
|
|
Well... I didn't write that section. It crept in there somehow though. By mistake or by cut and paste.
You was plural, I was not ascribing it to you specifically!
But then it is not a false errata, after all! ;) :P
Edit: But in the end, do Pathfinder elves sleep or not?!
I asked this on the rules question forum a few weeks ago but I did not get any really definitive answer...
Edit II: talking about rules forum, could you please answer my thread about "specific question on the Wall of Thorns spell"? Thank you.
Please click on me!
Edit: But in the end, do Pathfinder elves sleep or not?!
I asked this on the rules question forum a few weeks ago but I did not get any really definitive answer...
That's being left open deliberately, IIRC. Up to your GM.