I don't know/remember if this was already mentioned, however in this thread it was noticed that there is a discrepancy between two sentences that both refer to Double Weapons.
Page 141:
"Double Weapons: Dire flails, dwarven urgroshes, gnome hooked hammers, orc double axes, quarterstaves, and two-bladed swords are double weapons. A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon (see page 202).
The character can also choose to use a double weapon two-handed, attacking with only one end of it. A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can’t use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.
Page 144:
"Double: You can use a double weapon to fight as if fighting with two weapons, but if you do, you incur all the normal attack penalties associated with fighting with two weapons, just as if you were using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. A double weapon can be wielded as a one-handed weapon, but it cannot be used as a double weapon when wielded in this way—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round."
Now, since all Double Weapons are listed as Two-Handed weapons under their respective tables, I am strongly convinced (let's even say, completely sure) that the second sentence is wrong and the first is right; however, one of the two sentences obviously contain an error...
2) A Darkwood Buckler is not a Buckler. Yup, that's right, it's a Light Wooden Shield.
Doh! Well there goes another perfectly good theory out the window. I also believed that the buckler (a small metal shield) should be a step down from a light steel shield. But I guess the extra cost is for its strapping system and construction, freeing up a hand.
As a side note however, the price of the Darkwood Buckler is indeed wrong, since (being based on the Light Wooden Shield) it should be 203 gp, not 205 (the error was still present on the 3.5 DMG and the SRD, though).
Ah ha! I knew I saw an error there somewhere :)
Is this all for the first printing? And has anyone compiled this stuff?
Is this all for the first printing? And has anyone compiled this stuff?
I have a second printing, and I believe the third is in the works.
Is this all for the first printing? And has anyone compiled this stuff?
There was little change from 1st to 2nd. Pretty much all of this applies to the current (2nd) print run as well as current PRD.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the errata. |
Entry mentioned on Page 221 of the Core Rulebook.
Spellike Abilities
Usually a spellike ability works just like the spell of that name. A spelllike ability has no verbal, somantic or material components, nor does it require a focus. The user activates it mentally. Armor never affects a spellike ability's use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somantic component
A spellike ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless otherwise noted in the ability or the spells description. In all other ways, the spellike ability functions just like a spell.
Spellike abilities are subject to spell resistance and dispel magic. They do no function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated. Spellike abilities cannot be used to counterspell or can they be counterspelled.
Some creatures actually cast arcane spells as sorcerors do, using components when required. Some creatures have both spellike abilities and actual spellcasting power.
Entry found for Spellike Abilities (Sp) on Page 554 of the Core Rulebook.
Spell-Like Abilities (Sp): Spell-like abilities, as the name implies, are magical abilities that are very much like spells. Spell-like abilities are subject to spell resistance and dispel magic. They do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated (such as an antimagic field). Spell-like abilities can be dispelled and counterspelled as normal.
|
In the description of the unhallow spell:
Second, the DC to resist negative channeled energy within the spell's area of effect gains a +4 sacred bonus and the DC to resist positive energy is reduced by 4. Spell resistance does not apply to this effect. This provision does not apply to the druid version of the spell.
Shouldn't that bonus be profane instead?
T.
Divine Spells, Preparing Divine Spells (page 220):
"Spell Selection and Preparation: A divine spellcaster selects and prepares spells ahead of time through prayer and meditation at a particular time of day. The time required to prepare spells is the same as it is for a wizard (1 hour), as is the requirement for a relatively peaceful environment. When preparing spells for the day, a cleric can leave some of her spell slots open. Later during that day..."
I believe that the text should say 'a divine caster', since I don't think the rule wants to exclude Paladins, Rangers, and Druids, from the 'open slots' rule...
In the description of the unhallow spell:
Second, the DC to resist negative channeled energy within the spell's area of effect gains a +4 sacred bonus and the DC to resist positive energy is reduced by 4. Spell resistance does not apply to this effect. This provision does not apply to the druid version of the spell.
Shouldn't that bonus be profane instead?
T.
You are quite right, but perhaps we should be asking why negative channeling receives a profane "bonus" to the DC, especially when positive's DC is "reduced". This application of bonuses and penalties is not consistent with how such things work.
Exactly, bonuses apply to rolls, not to DCs.
Exactly, bonuses apply to rolls, not to DCs.
Well, aside from things like Ability Focus, Spell Focus, and various Bloodline Arcana abilities (e.g.).
And AC, CMD... :-)
I can see why it was written this way (bonus + 'reduce' rather than penalty) because of course penalties always stack, thus it doesn't matter what they are classed as, thus why bother classifying it's penalty type to begin with.
And AC, CMD... :-)
I can see why it was written this way (bonus + 'reduce' rather than penalty) because of course penalties always stack, thus it doesn't matter what they are classed as, thus why bother classifying it's penalty type to begin with.
Well that's all fine and good but, aside from sloppy wording, what this means is misunderstandings over magical items that 'grant sacred bonuses' to DC. Of course a GM can and should disallow such a thing (or charge a lot and limit to +1), but there are no guides to pricing such a thing, and this is unnecessary confusion.
This is from the SRD Hallow spell:
"Second, all Charisma checks made to turn undead gain a +4 sacred bonus, and Charisma checks to command undead take a –4 penalty."
So the problem is the change to the Turn Undead mechanic. This should probably be cleaned up.
Elves who need to use beds for that are doing it wrong.
mr. jacobs, you win this thread, the internet, and life.
You can cast a spell normally if your mount moves up to a normal move (its speed) either before or after you cast. If you have your mount move both before and after you cast a spell, then you're casting the spell while the mount is moving, and you have to make a concentration check due to the vigorous motion (DC 10 + spell level) or lose the spell. If the mount is running (quadruple speed), you can cast a spell when your mount has moved up to twice its speed, but your concentration check is more difficult due to the violent motion (DC 15 + spell level).
You can use ranged weapons while your mount is taking a double move, but at a –4 penalty on the attack roll. You can use ranged weapons while your mount is running (quadruple speed) at a –8 penalty. In either case, you make the attack roll when your mount has completed half its movement. You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is moving. Likewise, you can take move actions normally.
The bolded text in 'Casting Spells While Mounted' section isn't present in the ranged section of 'Combat While Mounted'. Which would seem to leave open the optin of your Mount moving, you Attacking without penalty, then your Mount taking a second Move Action. Perhaps better for both Ranged & Casting is to phrase it as "IF your mount moves before and after your attacks/spellcasting" (you suffer penalties/ Concentration check), bypassing the issue of whether the attacks/spells happen DURING the actual movement and just making it a matter of how the horse moves on the same turn.
Also, the "In either case, you make the attack roll" bit uses the singular 'the attack', but then is followed by the 'You can make a full attack...' sentence. The order of those sentences seems a bit odd, for the flat 'you can make a full attack' assertion to be tacked on at the end like that - better to make that clear up front, and have the rest of the rules clearly applicable to both singular/plural attacks. Most archers are realistically going to making multiple attacks the vast majority of the time, so using the plural like "your attacks are made when your mount has completed half its movement" would eliminate the confusion that the singular "the attack" could bring.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the errata. |
Then entangle spell uses the word "foes" in the first sentence and then the generic "creatures" through out the rest of the spell. This could read to a valid interpretation of the spell as not affecting the druid and his or her allies. If this was intended it should probably be made clearer in the remaining text of the spell, and if it was not intended the first sentence should probably be changed to 'creatures' to match the rest of the spell text.
The avalanche rules need to be cleared up anyways if there is to be any way to dig somebody out of an avalanche (as hinted at by the words "until freed"), as there is for cave-ins whose rules are otherwise practically the same. (Though in the case of Earthquake fissures, I don't see how even a DC25 STR Check would let a person get out of a collapsed 40' deep fissure... maybe per 5' of upward movement?)
Sorceror Bloodlines
Elemental and Dragon Bloodlines both refer to selecting one type of Elemental/Dragon which you have a personal connecion to, and which certain abilities are 'fixed' in relation to (resistances, breath weapons, special powers). Specific Elemental BL Bonus Spells Known (burning hands, scorching ray) are 'fixed' to your personal Elemental/Energy Type affinity.
But both the Elemental Body and Form of Dragon bonus Spells Known have no such restriction. I can't say 100% this is an error, but it seems in the spirit of the Bloodlines that these would correspond to your 'personal' dragon/elemental type, rather than a Red Dragon Sorceror morphing into Gold Dragons, or Fire Elemental Sorcerors morphing into Water Elemental Form. Obviously, like the burning hands and scorching ray spells, anybody could learn the 'full' version of those spells if they wanted.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
Mr. Fishy has a question about the Summon Monster 1; one of the monsters is the riding dog. Mr. Fishy look at the stats of the other monsters on the list and the riding dog is heads above HD, attacks and damage. The riding dog is listed on Summon Monster one but the wolf is a Summon Monster two? WTF? Is it suppose to be a "Dog"?
The riding dog is on par with creatures on the second level list. Looking at the book and the Paizo SRD the Riding dog is SM1. Some of the other monsters where moved up or down the list. Was the Riding dog a miss?
|
Mr. Fishy has a question about the Summon Monster 1; one of the monsters is the riding dog. Mr. Fishy look at the stats of the other monsters on the list and the riding dog is heads above HD, attacks and damage. The riding dog is listed on Summon Monster one but the wolf is a Summon Monster two? WTF? Is it suppose to be a "Dog"?
The riding dog is on par with creatures on the second level list. Looking at the book and the Paizo SRD the Riding dog is SM1. Some of the other monsters where moved up or down the list. Was the Riding dog a miss?
That is errata. We have it in the unofficial FAQ here.
The spells Giant Form I and Giant Form II both have the following line:
When you cast this spell you can assume the form of any Large to Huge creature of the giant type in addition to humanoid creatures of the giant subtype.In Pathfinder RPG there is no Giant Type, only the Giant Subtype.
Of course, to add further confusion to the matter, under subtypes is the following heading:
All other subtypes are called subtypes.
Giant Type: A giant is a humanoid creature of great strength, usually of at least Large size. Giants have a number of racial Hit Dice and never substitute such Hit Dice for class levels like some humanoids. Giants have low-light vision, and treat Intimidate and Perception as class skills.
Fixed in the PDF for Giant Form I (but not II (lol)).
-- david
Papa.DRb
The hand series of spells run into a number of problems.
For example, only Clenched Fist has a movement speed as written (60 ft). This leaves Grasping Hand, Forceful Hand, Crushing Hand, Interposing Hand to always be stuck between the caster and the target as written. This makes using the bull rush or grapple attacks allowed by these spells difficult to use, since the hand as written relies on the caster's movement to maneuver it into a position where it can affect a target.
My interpretation is that those hands can move anywhere within (Medium) range, as required, so a movement limit isn't necessary. In that case, I'm not sure what the problem is.
Interposing Hand, Forceful Hand, and Clenched Fist do not have CMD as written.
I'm not sure why they would need a CMD score; they can't be grappled, disarmed or tripped, as far as I know, and they have a special mechanism to handle overrun/bull rush attempts (by reducing the opponent's speed).
I noticed this in a distinction between Weapon Finesse/ Agile Maneuvers,
whereby Weapon Finesse's DEX bonus is held to be applicable to Maneuvers which work "in place of an attack".
The wording for Bullrush states
You can make a bull rush as a standard action or as part of a charge, in place of the melee attack.
Is the intent that if making a Charge Bullrush you can benefit from all attack bonuses relevant to your weapon? (but not if you can't Charge) I'm guessing this ISN'T the intent to allow weapon bonuses sometimes, so if that's the case, the wording should probably be more along the lines of Over-Run's: .
Honestly, the way the Maneuver section presents whether or not each Maneuver can use weapon bonuses or not is VERY opaque, certainly to non-rules experts. In the thread that brought this to my attention, there are posters who are surprised when informed that Weapon Finesse DOES apply to their Whip Trip attacks.
It is impossible to quickly pick up that info other than reading the entire descriptive texts themselves. There should be a mini-table summarizing which are weapon-attack substitutable, which are standard actions, along with special requirements (i.e. movement for Over-Run). Shorten some un-necessarily long sentences else-where, and there's the room for such a table. At minimum, there should be a line in the introductory text for maneuvers clarifing that 'in place of a melee attack' maneuvers gain bonuses applicable to their 'vector' weapon. This is really just a logical extension of the text that is already there, and consolidating the order subjects are discussed in could probably make it a zero word-count-change:
Performing a Combat Maneuver: When performing a combat maneuver, you must use an action appropriate to the maneuver you are attempting to perform. While many combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity (in place of a melee attack) , others require a specific action. Unless otherwise noted, performing a combat maneuver provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of the maneuver. If you are hit by the target, you take the damage normally and apply that amount as a penalty to the attack roll to perform the maneuver. If your target is immobilized, unconscious, or otherwise incapacitated, your maneuver automatically succeeds (treat as if you rolled a natural 20 on the attack roll). If your target is stunned, you receive a +4 bonus on your attack roll to perform a combat maneuver against it.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
Grasping hand, and Clenched Fist both have CMD values. I also can't see anything in the spell descriptions that say that combat maneuvers cannot be used against the the hands. They do have hit points, AC, and take damage (but are immune to most non-damaging magical effects).
Interposing Hand, Forceful Hand, and Clenched Fist do not have CMD as written.I'm not sure why they would need a CMD score; they can't be grappled, disarmed or tripped, as far as I know, and they have a special mechanism to handle overrun/bull rush attempts (by reducing the opponent's speed).
Certainly Grasping Hand and Crushing Hand need CMD values because they grapple and one needs to know the DC to escape from the grapple.
To me this is more FAQ material than errata (I agree the spells are vague), but then again nobody asked me, so I'll just shut my big fat mouth now. :-)
I noticed this in a distinction between Weapon Finesse/ Agile Maneuvers,
whereby Weapon Finesse's DEX bonus is held to be applicable to Maneuvers which work "in place of an attack".The wording for Bullrush states
You can make a bull rush as a standard action or as part of a charge, in place of the melee attack.I don't see anything confusing here at all; the Bull Rush attempt (following all the rules for Bull Rush and not involving a weapon) replaces the melee attack of the Charge.
...this post looks funny because there are gremlins in the quote mechanics...
The spell text for Heal Mount (Pal3) is somewhat unclear.
Target: your mount touchedImplies that the spell may only be cast on a mount possessed by the caster, and may not be used on party member or other mounts.
Heal mount enables you to channel positive energy into the paladin’s special mount to wipe away injury and afflictions.Implies that the spell may only be used on a Paladin's special mount, and not any mount. This is more restrictive than what is implied by the Target information mentioned above, but still makes sense given that only Paladins can cast the spell. It would however, prevent multi-class Paladins from using heal mount on their Eidolon, familiar, or possibly animal companion. It would also prevent a Paladin from using Heal Mount on a trained mount (non-paladin special mount).
If used against an undead creature, heal mount instead acts like harm.A strict reading of the text would limit this usage to only work on a mount owned by the paladin who is casting the spell that has been turned into an undead creature. A broad reading would allow the spell to be used on any undead creature, which contradicts the Target information.
This has been fixed in second printing:
"This spell functions like heal, but it affects only the paladin's special mount (typically a horse)."
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
Don't know if this has been mentioned before, but here goes. From the second printing:
Under Ready at the end of the Combat chapter The Distracting Spellcasters subsection, "If you damage the spellcaster, she may lose the spell she was trying to cast (as determined by her Spellcraft check result)."
This should be 'concentration'.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the errata. |
In the "Using Skills" section (general rules for skill checks)
it explains Take 10 and 20 and how that applies to ability checks but not caster level or concentration checks. It seems useful to mention that UMD is an exception to Take 10 here as well as within the Skill description itself.
Not so much errata, as suggested rewordings for greater precision and clarity of meaning.
From the spell Holy Aura
First, each warded creature gains a +4 deflection bonus to AC and a +4 resistance bonus on saves. Unlike protection from evil, this benefit applies against all attacks, not just against attacks by evil creatures.First, each warded creature gains a +4 deflection bonus to AC and a +4 resistance bonus on saves. This benefit applies against all attacks, not just against attacks by evil creatures.The reference to protection from evil does not add anything and may cause confusion.
Finally, if an evil creature succeeds on a melee attack against a creature warded by a holy aura, the offending attacker is blinded (Fortitude save negates, as blindness/deafness, but against holy aura's save DC).Finally, if an evil creature succeeds on a melee attack against a creature warded by a holy aura, the offending attacker is blinded (Fortitude save negates).The blindness/deafness spell does not add any further information or rule interactions, and is thus superfluous.
Well, it would mean that you would use the blindness/deafness SR entry of 'yes' for the blindness effect, and also the blindness would be permanent(D).
And I would point out that I think the language in this spell avoids confusion. I know it does. Because I have had to look up this spell to get clarification for someone that it isn't the same as protection from evil.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
James Jacobs has confirmed in this thread that a double weapon can in Pathfinder be wielded one handed. (...) RAW specifically states that two handed weapons with the Special Quality Double can be wielded with one hand.Page 141:
"Double Weapons: Dire flails, dwarven urgroshes, gnome hooked hammers, orc double axes, quarterstaves, and two-bladed swords are double weapons. A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon (see page 202).
The character can also choose to use a double weapon two-handed, attacking with only one end of it. A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can’t use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.Page 144:
"Double: You can use a double weapon to fight as if fighting with two weapons, but if you do, you incur all the normal attack penalties associated with fighting with two weapons, just as if you were using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. A double weapon can be wielded as a one-handed weapon, but it cannot be used as a double weapon when wielded in this way—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round."
This does sort of beg the question, why are Double Weapons classed as Two Handed Weapons in the first place?
And separate from that issue, why is pretty much the exact same information being replicated in close proximity to itself, for Double Weapons (that have the Double property) and for the Double property itself. Couldn't this word-count be better used for a short poem or something?
James Jacobs has confirmed in this thread that a double weapon can in Pathfinder be wielded one handed. As the person who posted in...I don't know/remember if this was already mentioned, however in this thread it was noticed that there is a discrepancy between two sentences that both refer to Double Weapons.
Page 141:
"Double Weapons: Dire flails, dwarven urgroshes, gnome hooked hammers, orc double axes, quarterstaves, and two-bladed swords are double weapons. A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon (see page 202).
The character can also choose to use a double weapon two-handed, attacking with only one end of it. A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can’t use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.Page 144:
"Double: You can use a double weapon to fight as if fighting with two weapons, but if you do, you incur all the normal attack penalties associated with fighting with two weapons, just as if you were using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. A double weapon can be wielded as a one-handed weapon, but it cannot be used as a double weapon when wielded in this way—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round."Now, since all Double Weapons are listed as Two-Handed weapons under their respective tables, I am strongly convinced (let's even say, completely sure) that the second sentence is wrong and the first is right; however, one of the two sentences obviously contain an error...
Yeah....no.
This is all a horrible mistake. From the PH 3.5: "A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand (such as a human wielding a small two-bladed sword) can't use it as a double weapon..."
This is omitted from the SRD, and like too many other rules, the clarifications that WotC did put in the game and then didn't make into the SRD have apparently not been properly researched and repeated or expanded on.
And as far as a wizard with a bonded weapon needing to 'wield it not just hold it', that is BS. You can bond a friggin amulet, why the hell would you have to be combat ready with your staff in order to cast spells.
This is all a horrible mistake. From the PH 3.5: "A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand (such as a human wielding a small two-bladed sword) can't use it as a double weapon..."
This is omitted from the SRD, and like too many other rules, the clarifications that WotC did put in the game and then didn't make into the SRD have apparently not been properly researched and repeated or expanded on.
PH 3.5 and WotC rulings are irrelevant with regard to RAW in this case. Pathfinder Core Rules specifically allow it.
With regard to bonded weapons, I agree that in hand should be good enough and James said that DMs who disagree with his ruling can run as they see fit.
How can they possibly be irrelevant? Pathfinder is over 90% verbatim 3.5 SRD, including the sentences you are obsessing over. The "weapon spacial quality" on pg.144 was written by Paizo, but it was obviously copy/pasted from the SRD double weapon description. That description is missing the example from the PH. WotC screwed up the SRD. But they did write it. Their rulings and their FAQ are perfectly appropriate.
You are asking Paizo with its small, busy, hard working staff, to re-examine every rule in the huge 3.5 ruleset to clarify things that they didn't create. WotC already did that, but a lot of it never got integrated into the SRD.