In the Force Athame description for the Spellblade Magus Archetype it says you create the Dagger for 1minute.Should this not be 1minute/per Level?
I see that but it kinda destroys the action economy for this archetype.
You only have one swift action per round ,and the spellblade really needs those arcane pool enchantments to keep up with its spellstriking colleagues so you need two rounds before you are even ready to go, and don´t even think about using hasted assault or anything like that!
As I see it the athame creation either needs to be a free action or needs a serious increase in duration,otherwise this archetype is just to clumsy to use.(I know this is starting to turn more and more into a suggestion but I just didn´t understand where paizo wanted to go with this although I really like the idea behind this archetype)
|
Page 242 - Symbol of sealing
This is the only symbol spell in this book, and actually in the game if you include the core rulebook, that doesn't mention being able to make this spell permanent with a permanency spell. I'm fairly confident in saying I think this was an oversight.
Wait, crap, I'm dumb, this spell already has a duration of permanent.
The black blade's unbreakable ability needs to say that it makes the blade immune to the destroyed condition in addition to the broken condition because as it's written now it can be destroyed if enough damage is made to it and reach 0 hit points even if it still has arcane pool points in it. Or just say that it's immune to damage as long as there is one point left in it.
The above is for the case the black blade was meant to be indestructable as long as it has one arcane pool in it.
The black blade's unbreakable ability needs to say that it makes the blade immune to the destroyed condition in addition to the broken condition because as it's written now it can be destroyed if enough damage is made to it and reach 0 hit points even if it still has arcane pool points in it. Or just say that it's immune to damage as long as there is one point left in it.
The above is for the case the black blade was meant to be indestructable as long as it has one arcane pool in it.
It's not immune to the destroyed condition, though; if it was, there wouldn't be a little section that says, "If the black blade is destroyed, it can be reforged a week later at the cost of 200gp per magus level." "Immune to the broken condition" simply means that when the black blade's HP has hit the "broken" threshold, it doesn't accrue the -2 penalty to attack and damage, and so forth; it merely becomes unconscious and loses its powers until fixed. It can still be destroyed in the same fashion as any other magical weapon that goes down to 0 HP.
It's not immune to the destroyed condition, though; if it was, there wouldn't be a little section that says, "If the black blade is destroyed, it can be reforged a week later at the cost of 200gp per magus level." "Immune to the broken condition" simply means that when the black blade's HP has hit the "broken" threshold, it doesn't accrue the -2 penalty to attack and damage, and so forth; it merely becomes unconscious and loses its powers until fixed. It can still be destroyed in the same fashion as any other magical weapon that goes down to 0 HP.The black blade's unbreakable ability needs to say that it makes the blade immune to the destroyed condition in addition to the broken condition because as it's written now it can be destroyed if enough damage is made to it and reach 0 hit points even if it still has arcane pool points in it. Or just say that it's immune to damage as long as there is one point left in it.
The above is for the case the black blade was meant to be indestructable as long as it has one arcane pool in it.
The sentence "If the black blade is destroyed, it can be reforged a week later at the cost of 200gp per magus level." is there because the black can be destroyed if it doesn't have any arcane pool points left.
Bestow Grace of the Champion, p. 208.
Stat Block Order: Casting Time goes before Components, this spell has Components then Casting Time
Also, that spell does not specify the type of saving throw; it seems it was copied from Spell Resistance... (highlight mine)
Saving Throw yes (harmless);
Spell Resistance yes (harmless)
|
|
Bestow Grace of the Champion, p. 208.
Stat Block Order: Casting Time goes before Components, this spell has Components then Casting Time
Also, that spell does not specify the type of saving throw; it seems it was copied from Spell Resistance... (highlight mine)
http://TheOnlySheet.comSaving Throw yes (harmless);
Spell Resistance yes (harmless)
Wow, good catch. I'm guessing it should be Will negates (harmless)
IDK if this was reported of not ...
The defensive-shock spell (page 216) does not list any Saving Throw nor Spell Resistance entry...
IDK if this was reported of not ...
The defensive-shock spell (page 216) does not list any Saving Throw nor Spell Resistance entry...
That's because its range is Personal and its Target is you. The caster don't get saves or SR against those spells, and the spells don't even have a save or SR entry, even though the secondary effects of the spell affect other creatures.
Compare to fire shield, which is set up the same way.
That's because its range is Personal and its Target is you. The caster don't get saves or SR against those spells, and the spells don't even have a save or SR entry, even though the secondary effects of the spell affect other creatures.
Compare to fire shield, which is set up the same way.
Oh, I was thinking about the damage that the enemy receives - I never realized that fire-shield (and defensive-shock) completely bypasses the Spell Resistance of the attacker!! Cool :)
On another note, the Ear-Piercing Scream spell, as written would deal no damage from a 1st level caster:
You unleash a powerful scream, inaudible to all but a single target. The target is dazed for 1 round and takes 1d6 points of sonic damage per two caster levels (maximum 5d6). A successful save negates the daze effect and halves the damage.
I suspect this is incorrect?
Perhaps a minimum of 1d6 is missing?Also, I am wondering if the Duration entry for that spell is correct...:
Duration 1 round/level; see text
With this duration, this spell would do a LOT of damage for a 1st level spell, if used by a high level caster!!
The Eldritch Fever spell is missing the word "action" in the casting time:
Casting Time 1 standard
It was determined earlier in this thread that it should be changed to 1 round.
Also, I am wondering if the Duration entry for that spell is correct...:
Duration 1 round/level; see textWith this duration, this spell would do a LOT of damage for a 1st level spell, if used by a high level caster!!
Really?
I would have said Instantaneous if I had to guess... !!
It was determined earlier in this thread that it should be changed to 1 round.
Also, I am wondering if the Duration entry for that spell is correct...:
Duration 1 round/level; see textWith this duration, this spell would do a LOT of damage for a 1st level spell, if used by a high level caster!!
Really?
I would have said Instantaneous if I had to guess... !!
Or something like "Instantaneous and 1 round; see text".
Shouldn't the Fickle Winds spell list a RANGE ?!
Search didn't turn up anything :(
Was this discussed already?
|
|
It was determined earlier in this thread that it should be changed to 1 round.
Also, I am wondering if the Duration entry for that spell is correct...:
Duration 1 round/level; see textWith this duration, this spell would do a LOT of damage for a 1st level spell, if used by a high level caster!!
Really?
I would have said Instantaneous if I had to guess... !!
Right, the 1 round thing is with regards to the daze effect. So hogarth probably has the right of it.
|
|
Shouldn't the Fickle Winds spell list a RANGE ?!
Search didn't turn up anything :(
Was this discussed already?
It should ABSOLUTELY have a range. The fickle winds spell (page 219) mentions it protects things like wind wall, but it doesn't mention the usual phrase "this spell functions like this spell except as noted above." Because of the mention of wind wall, though, I'm going to have to house rule that it has the same range as that spell, which is medium range.
Also don't forget this spell is missing its Components line, which was stated by SKR to be V, S.
In case this was not already reported...
The Youthful Appearance spells does not list any Saving Throw.
|
|
Was it intentional to not give the adept and antipaladin access to the animate dead, lesser spell (page 204)? They get the normal versions of it, and I find it odd that they wouldn't also gain earlier versions of it. I'm not beyond believing they wouldn't, because I think some other spell-casting classes have situations like this, but I thought I'd mention it.
|
|
Similar to the one above, was it intentional for the witch to not get access to astral projection, lesser?
Also while we're on this spell, I understand if this isn't a mistake, but I thought I'd just mention that this spell says it functions like astral projection, except blah blah blah. So, does that mean it was intentional for it to also have a 1,000 gp material component? We're talking the difference of a 5th level spell compared to a 9th level spell.
|
|
Page 215 - Cushioning bands spell
Not sure if it's simply not supposed to be there or if a formatting error caused it to be lost, but in the components line for this spell, the final component, S, is followed by a comma, signaling that there may be a material or focus component used with this spell.
|
|
Page 219 - Fickle winds spell
Aside from missing components line (which has been mentioned and remedied by SKR), and the missing range line (which has been mentioned and not yet fixed), the Targets line is a little wonky.
"Targets one or more Medium creatures/level..."
Should probably just be one Medium creature/level, as its hard to calculate more/level. :)
|
|
Page 219 - Fickle winds spell
Aside from missing components line (which has been mentioned and remedied by SKR), and the missing range line (which has been mentioned and not yet fixed), the Targets line is a little wonky.
"Targets one or more Medium creatures/level..."
Should probably just be one Medium creature/level, as its hard to calculate more/level. :)
Actually, what happens with Small characters and this spell? It fails to mention.
|
|
Page 225 - Ki arrow spell
Several things here:
1) Why is this spell conjuration? You aren't creating the arrow out of nothingness, you're altering a preexisting, physical arrow. Sounds like transmutation to me. (there's more than a surplus of transmutation spells, however, so I wouldn't be heartbroken if this wasn't an error)
2) Saving throw says "Fortitude (object)". Fortitude what? Probably negates.
3) Was this spell intended to work with other ammunition, such as crossbow bolts and sling bullets? That is, was arrow used as a catch-all or was it specific?
4) Even though an arrow deals lethal piercing damage, would this spell deal nonlethal bludgeoning damage from the average* caster?
*Average meaning no levels in monk, no Improved Unarmed Strike feat, and no feats that alter unarmed strike damage to something other than bludgeoning. I imagine a caster with these things would change the nature of this spell, though, since it says "as if you had hit it with a single unarmed strike."
|
|
Page 229 - Monstrous physique I spell
Last sentence of the first paragraph says:
"If the form you assume has the aquatic subtype, you gain the aquatic and amphibious subtypes."
Amphibious is not a subtype, it is a special quality. It should probably say "...you gain the aquatic subtype and the amphibious special quality."
|
|
Page 229 - The monstrous physique line of spells
I have a feeling I'm not the first person that will have ever brought this up, but I wanted to point out that using the first 2 Bestiaries, there doesn't seem to be enough creatures one could transform into.
- Monstrous physique I: The only Small monstrous humanoid in those first 2 books is the Charda on page 55 of Bestiary 2.
- Monstrous physique II: There are no Tiny monstrous humanoids.
- Monstrous physique III: There are no Diminutive OR Huge monstrous humanoids.
I don't own Bestiary III yet, but I get the feeling that since that book came after this one some Diminutive, Tiny, and Huge monstrous humanoids were added, I hope. Just like when they added Ice cleric/oracle spells to Ultimate Magic so that the ice themed domain/mystery/whatever from the APG was viable. If anybody with Bestiary 3 can confirm this for me, I'd be very grateful.
|
|
Page 229 - The monstrous physique line of spells
I have a feeling I'm not the first person that will have ever brought this up, but I wanted to point out that using the first 2 Bestiaries, there doesn't seem to be enough creatures one could transform into.
- Monstrous physique I: The only Small monstrous humanoid in those first 2 books is the Charda on page 55 of Bestiary 2.
- Monstrous physique II: There are no Tiny monstrous humanoids.
- Monstrous physique III: There are no Diminutive OR Huge monstrous humanoids.
I don't own Bestiary III yet, but I get the feeling that since that book came after this one some Diminutive, Tiny, and Huge monstrous humanoids were added, I hope. Just like when they added Ice cleric/oracle spells to Ultimate Magic so that the ice themed domain/mystery/whatever from the APG was viable. If anybody with Bestiary 3 can confirm this for me, I'd be very grateful.
I'm not sure if this is allowed or not, but one could achieve more Small sized monstrous humanoids with the Young template on a Medium creature, and even a Tiny charda the same way.
Also Huge monstrous humanoids could be achieved via the Giant template. Diminutive still impossible, though.
|
|
Page 233 - Raise animal companion spell
This spell's description says it functions like raise dead but only affects animal companions, familiars, or bonded mounts. The only classes that have access to it, however, are those with animal companions or bonded mounts, NOT familiars.
Also, this part isn't really errata because no error has been made, but what are the chances of oracle's with the Nature mystery getting access to this spell?
I don't own Bestiary III yet, but I get the feeling that since that book came after this one some Diminutive, Tiny, and Huge monstrous humanoids were added, I hope. Just like when they added Ice cleric/oracle spells to Ultimate Magic so that the ice themed domain/mystery/whatever from the APG was viable. If anybody with Bestiary 3 can confirm this for me, I'd be very grateful.
I did a quick search: there are two Small (kappa and pukwudgie), one Huge (thriae queen), and one Colossal (humbaba!) monstrous humanoid, but the rest are Medium or Large.
|
|
I don't own Bestiary III yet, but I get the feeling that since that book came after this one some Diminutive, Tiny, and Huge monstrous humanoids were added, I hope. Just like when they added Ice cleric/oracle spells to Ultimate Magic so that the ice themed domain/mystery/whatever from the APG was viable. If anybody with Bestiary 3 can confirm this for me, I'd be very grateful.I did a quick search: there are two Small (kappa and pukwudgie), one Huge (thriae queen), and one Colossal (humbaba!) monstrous humanoid, but the rest are Medium or Large.
Thank you DS, appreciate it. That's good news, though Diminutive is still a mystery.
Also, B3 has Humbaba?! Awesome!
P. 40, Wildblooded Archetype, "Arial" variant of Stormborn bloodline -- Should be "Aerial"?
Perhaps it's a reference to the character from The Tempest?? ;)
That, or it's a font-related metamagic ability!
Cheers, JohnH / Wanda
|
Not sure if this is a erratta or not but why is there no Vermin Shape III giving access to Huge and/or Diminutive vermin. All of the other form/shape spell series give access to huge creatrues (beasts, giants, dragons, plants, undead, elementals, etc.)
If it was intentionally left out, can we get some developer insight as to why?
|
|
Page 196 - Summon minor monster spell, as it appears on the antipaladin's spell list
This spell appears on the antipaladin's spell list on page 196. Its description on page 241 says it functions like summon monster I. In the Advanced Player's Guide where the antipaladin was introduced, on his spell list in that book, he's listed as gaining the first 4 iterations of the summon monster spell and each time it's listed it's followed by "(Evil creatures only)". It's likely this was supposed to as well.
|
|
Page 242 - Symbol of sealing spell
This one isn't an error, but more of a suggestion. Symbol of sealing has all of its information displayed, while all the other symbol spells in this book omit many lines and simply say "This spell functions as symbol of death, except..." to fill in the gaps. This one shares the same Casting Time, Range, and Effect and thus could be omitted if you guys are looking to make room for future changes and still want things to remain on the page they currently are on. Obviously if you did this you'd have to add a line to the spell that says "This spell functions as symbol of death, except..."
|
|
Page 243 - Temporary resurrection spell
Two things:
1) This spell is missing its Saving Throw and Spell Resistance lines. If it's anything like the other resurrection type spells then it would be "none; see text" and "yes (harmless)" respectively, where the "see text" section of Saving Throw refers to a line about the spell automatically failing if the target is unwilling, which this spell doesn't mention either.
2) This spell fails to mention what sort of condition the body needs to be in in order for this to be cast on it. Logically it seems a relatively intact corpse is required, but it should say so just like raise dead, resurrection, and true resurrection do. Also what sort of appearance does a person temporarily revived in this way have? Do they appear alive, healthy, and unblemished or is it more of a Pushing Daisies scenario where they still bare the wounds of their demise (if any)?