AbsolutGrndZer0 |
Hint: Bestiary 1 has a typo in attack values of the Goblin. That's far more an exposed error than some obscure ability in Ultimate Magic.
Depends on if one is using goblins and if one is using the ability in UM. Having never used Goblins in a PF game, I'd say goblins are "obscure" to me. If a GM/Player is using the ability, it's not obscure.
Point is, this thread is to talk about errata and mistakes. Some of these mistakes are pretty bad. Is a miscalculation in the goblin entry BAD? It's math, it happens. But, saying you get an ability at level 8 then tying it to a 5 level progression that starts at level 5 is not a math error, it's a copy and paste without correcting all the changes error. Very different in my opinion. Again, one is a math error, the other is using copy and paste too much.
JoelF847 RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16 |
p. 98, optional benefits for harmful conditions: bleed. "This only applies when using an inflict wounds spell, not when using those spells to heal undead." Since the previous sentence already says it inflicts an additional point of damage per die for inflict wounds spells, the 2nd sentence should probably read "This only applies when using an inflict wounds spell to cause damage, not when using those spells to heal undead."
JoelF847 RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16 |
JoelF847 RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16 |
JoelF847 RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16 |
Ravingdork |
p. 118-120, vermin familiars. The sidebar indicates that vermin familiars lose the mindless trait, but the stat blocks for the greensting scorpion, house centipede, and scarlet spider all list immune mind-affecting effects still.
This is correct actually. All familiar entries show creatures WITHOUT any familiar benefits be default.
JoelF847 RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16 |
MythicFox |
I dunno if this has been answered elsewhere, but...
The Dirge Bard, page 26.
Dance of the Dead (Su): At 10th level,
Either this ability is out of order (it's listed first, before 2nd level abilities) or it should say At 1st level. It is replacing Jack-Of-All-Trades, which is 10th level. However, the 2nd level ability replaces Versatile Performance, which is also a 10th level power.
So I'm not sure if the ability is a 1st level ability replacing a 10th level ability, or if it's a 10th level ability placed out of order in the list of abilities.
Dance of the Dead is a bardic performance, and those go first. It's listed at the start of the archetype features for the same reason that inspire greatness comes before versatile performance in the write-up. It's replacing a regular class feature, but is placed where it is supposed to be -- the bardic performances.
JoelF847 RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16 |
Laithoron |
I've noticed a couple spells now where the Components appear to be incorrect:
Blood Transcription (pg 209): List only Verbal, yet the spell description clearly states you must drink a pint of blood. The act of drinking something is a physical movement — that should be Somatic (i.e. this is NOT a spell you'll be capable of casting if bound or grappled).
Dance of 1000 Cuts (pg 215): Once again, a spell described as having physical movement has a Verbal component only instead of a Somatic component.
Ear-Splitting Scream (pg 218): Lists both Verbal and Somatic. The precedent for such spells (Shout, Echolocation, Piercing Scream, Primal Scream, Resonating Word) is that spells like this should have only a verbal component.
leo1925 |
Ok this is a minor one but still:
The unnamed journal spellbook has it's price a little off, it's listed having a value of 265gp, ok since the jolt doesn't exist anymore in this book and i suspect it would be deleted, then the value becomes 260gp, but that value doesn't include the cost of the actual book, and since it says that this is a "simple, unadorned spellbook" i assume that the price for that is 15gp, so that makes the final value of the spellbook 275gp.
hogarth |
p. 152, Greater Wild Empathy feat. Vermin is one of the creature types that you can select, but the feat only works on creatures of that type with an Int of 1 or 2. Since vermin are mindless and have an Int of "-", the feat should be fixed so it works on creatures with an Int of "-", 1, or 2.
Also, "elemental" and "lycanthrope" are in the list of creature types; technically, elemental is a creature subtype and lycanthrope is neither a type nor a subtype. (That's nitpicking a bit, I realise.)
caribet |
There's been some discussion, here and elsewhere, about the cost of the included spellbooks.
No-one seems to have mentioned that in all of these books with Preparation Rituals, there is an extra cost, but no formula for the cost, nor any rules for how to prepare a spellbook to include a Preparation Ritual.
Zen79 |
p.34 Frog Domain and Jungle Domain (for Druid) both list 5th level spell "Blessing of the Salamander", but spell is missing
The spell is in the APG (page 206).
But there is a missing asterisk in the frog domain description ("*" -> in the UM), although it's correct in the jungle domain description ("**" -> in the APG).
xidoraven |
Page 68, Rakshasa Bonus Feats lists "Mystic Motif*", but that feat is not in the book.
This is a concern of mine as well.
Page 68, Rakshasa Bonus Feats lists "Deceptive", but that feat is not in the Core Rulebook -- should it be "Deceitful"?
Luckily, I did not make that same mistake in the Rakshasa bloodline we included in TNB Playtest Guide - even though I think I made that exact same mistake at one or a few points in the past.... It's probably only correct in our own material because I have a few guys who edit and revise my writing. :D
BTW, this is a LOT of errata for such a highly-anticipated publication. :/
Auspician |
1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The section on Monk vows is either self-contradictary or extremely unclear. First it says:
This section introduces monk vows, which *any user of ki* can take to increase his ki pool.
Later on,
A monk who takes a vow never gains the still mind class feature, even if he abandons all his vows.
Does this mean that non-monks taking vows suffer no such penalty? Or that non-monks (or monk archetypes who will never gain still mind) simply cannot take or benefit from vows?
For a more in-depth look at this concern, please see this thread.
Quandary |
INQUISITIONS:
First off, the section as a whole is some-what hard to read:
It starts off with a fluff intro
Almost everyone has a vision of the inquisitor—garbed in a mix of regalia... The inquisitor’s path has many branches...Then switches into a meta-analysis of why this new crunch is being introduced
An inquisitor has a class ability ... However, because an inquisitor only gets the granted powers of a domain and not its spells, some domains are poor choices... To remedy that problem...Then switches back to fluff, if more specifically focused on the new crunch
While inquisitors often take on the domains permitted to the clerics of the faith, they are privy to special lore not open to priests and other agents of their religion. These divine pursuits, called inquisitions, grant inquisitors the tools necessary for the fight against enemies of the faith. An inquisitor may select an inquisition in place of a domain.
...Before getting into the meat of the crunch itself. If the meta-analysis needs to be included, it seems like it should be apart from the other stuff, not wedged in between... Perhaps it should have come first, before the actual class ability description begins?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------
OK, now what´s actually misleading in the rules themselves...
Basically, it´s how these Inquisitions are open to other classes.
As quoted, in the fluff text, it stated ¨they are privy to special lore not open to priests and other agents of their religion¨, which seems pretty clear this is Inquisitor-only, and that is re-inforced by the line ¨Inquisitions are intended for inquisitors, not for other classes that give access to domains¨.
But then that is followed up by: ¨While a cleric or other domain-using class can select an inquisition in place of a domain (if appropriate to the character’s deity), inquisitions do not grant domain spell slots or domain spells, and therefore are much weaker choices for those classes. These other classes use the appropriate class level as their inquisitor level¨
This is just baffling, I´m not aware of any other rules that are written like this...
If it´s open to other classes, don´t repeat over and over again that other classes can´t take them,
before mentioning that they CAN actually take them (it´s just slightly sub-optimal).
Since Clerics gain TWO Domains, if they select an Inquisition and another Domain, they still can fill their Domain Spell Slots, they just have less CHOICE when doing so. Only Clerics who choose TWO Inquisitions would not have any Domain Spells to fill their Domain Spell Slots with.
Further, there isn´t really any clear relationship between Inquisitions and Domains, other that you can select an Inquisition INSTEAD OF a Domain (if it matches your god). What I´m saying is, even though some Inquisitions are clearly directly related to some Domains/Sub-Domains, there is no such formal relationship, so there is no restrictions for combinations, like there are for Sub-Domains (e.g. no Sub-Domain and it´s ´normal´ Domain). A Cleric can seemingly take the Anger Inquisition and the Destruction Domain OR the Rage Sub-Domain, for example.
Some Inquisitions AREN´T obviously related to any Domain, such as Conversion and Heresy, but many are.
IMHO, Inquisitions should be more clearly defined as alternate Sub-Domains, indicating their affiliation as appropriate. Inquisitions like Conversion and Heresy could be Sub-Domains available to all (or almost all), i.e. independent of whether you have access to any specific Domain, but that could be a specially noted case.
Quandary |
Druid: Eagle Domain
Hawkeye (Su): As a swift action, you may add a bonus equal to half your druid level (minimum +1) on one ranged attack or on one Perception check. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Wisdom modifier.
It should read ´add a bonus equal to half your druid level (minimum +1) on one ranged attack roll.
Not specifiying attack roll (as normal) leaves it open to interpreation what part of the ´ranged attack´ the bonus applies to, e.g. the damage roll is part of the ranged attack.
----------------------------------------------
Spell: Arboreal Hammer
It isn´t clear to me one way or the other if the animated tree can take AoO´s.
doubleplusgood |
They owe us all a refund. Many of the missing spells and feats were referred to in materials they released before the actual book came out. If they are going to say that certain things will be in the book and then they are not that's false advertising. They either need to send out a free errata pdf or offer a full refund.
Gorbacz |
They owe us all a refund. Many of the missing spells and feats were referred to in materials they released before the actual book came out. If they are going to say that certain things will be in the book and then they are not that's false advertising. They either need to send out a free errata pdf or offer a full refund.
I'd say we flog them and burn them at the stake while at it, too!
AbsolutGrndZer0 |
They owe us all a refund. Many of the missing spells and feats were referred to in materials they released before the actual book came out. If they are going to say that certain things will be in the book and then they are not that's false advertising. They either need to send out a free errata pdf or offer a full refund.
Well, any errata will be free more than likely, however what exactly was referred to in a previous book that is missing? I don't doubt you, but if you can give examples, maybe they can know for sure what needs to be in an errata or else at least an explanation why it was changed/removed.
The mistakes/omissions annoy me very much too, however I do understand nobody is perfect and so mistakes will happen. Overall, I like Ultimate Magic very much. It just needs errata.
Mynameisjake |
They owe us all a refund. Many of the missing spells and feats were referred to in materials they released before the actual book came out. If they are going to say that certain things will be in the book and then they are not that's false advertising. They either need to send out a free errata pdf or offer a full refund.
I hope that was sarcasm....
leo1925 |
doubleplusgood wrote:They owe us all a refund. Many of the missing spells and feats were referred to in materials they released before the actual book came out. If they are going to say that certain things will be in the book and then they are not that's false advertising. They either need to send out a free errata pdf or offer a full refund.I hope that was sarcasm....
Same here.
And we really need an emoticon for sarcasm.Sean K Reynolds Contributor |
leo1925 |
FYI I'm aware this thread exists and will be making notes in my master copy of UM for future errata, but right now we're getting the Beginner Box out the door so I haven't had time to reply to any of this.
We are aware of the time pressure, don't worry Sean we understand how essential the beginner box is (bringing new players to the game).
Anyway as long as you are aware of this thread (so that you will be able to use it when you get to errating UM in order to make your work easier) we are good.gbonehead Owner - House of Books and Games LLC |
FYI I'm aware this thread exists and will be making notes in my master copy of UM for future errata, but right now we're getting the Beginner Box out the door so I haven't had time to reply to any of this.
Woot!
(although I am looking forward to a number of clarifications/comments at some point, it's certainly not uber-urgent)
doubleplusgood |
doubleplusgood wrote:They owe us all a refund. Many of the missing spells and feats were referred to in materials they released before the actual book came out. If they are going to say that certain things will be in the book and then they are not that's false advertising. They either need to send out a free errata pdf or offer a full refund.Well, any errata will be free more than likely, however what exactly was referred to in a previous book that is missing? I don't doubt you, but if you can give examples, maybe they can know for sure what needs to be in an errata or else at least an explanation why it was changed/removed.
The mistakes/omissions annoy me very much too, however I do understand nobody is perfect and so mistakes will happen. Overall, I like Ultimate Magic very much. It just needs errata.
I wasn't referring to any previous books. Paizo made available several sneak peeks of material that was supposed to be in UM. For example they made witch patron spell lists available with spells that are still on the lists but not in the book. I think you can find the same thing in other character classes. New feats referred to in new sorcerer bloodlines do not appear in the book.
I have seen at least one comprehensive list of missing spells and feats in this thread already.
doubleplusgood |
doubleplusgood wrote:They owe us all a refund. Many of the missing spells and feats were referred to in materials they released before the actual book came out. If they are going to say that certain things will be in the book and then they are not that's false advertising. They either need to send out a free errata pdf or offer a full refund.I hope that was sarcasm....
No. It wasn't.
This stuff isn't cheap and I have already bought several books. If they want to keep putting out new material that's great but I expect a higher lever of accountability and quality. Otherwise we're just going to get hard bound books with pretty pictures and lots of filler.
Benchak the Nightstalker Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8 |
I wasn't referring to any previous books. Paizo made available several sneak peeks of material that was supposed to be in UM. For example they made witch patron spell lists available with spells that are still on the lists but not in the book. I think you can find the same thing in other character classes. New feats referred to in new sorcerer bloodlines do not appear in the book.
I have seen at least one comprehensive list of missing spells and feats in this thread already.
The only two Witch Patrons they previewed that I'm aware of were the Healing and Winter Patrons, and none of their spells are missing from the book.
Am I missing something?
AbsolutGrndZer0 |
doubleplusgood wrote:I wasn't referring to any previous books. Paizo made available several sneak peeks of material that was supposed to be in UM. For example they made witch patron spell lists available with spells that are still on the lists but not in the book. I think you can find the same thing in other character classes. New feats referred to in new sorcerer bloodlines do not appear in the book.
I have seen at least one comprehensive list of missing spells and feats in this thread already.
The only two Witch Patrons they previewed that I'm aware of were the Healing and Winter Patrons, and none of their spells are missing from the book.
Am I missing something?
Well, one spell (other than the cantrips) that seems to be missing is Lightning Rod.
Mynameisjake |
Mynameisjake wrote:No. It wasn't.doubleplusgood wrote:They owe us all a refund. Many of the missing spells and feats were referred to in materials they released before the actual book came out. If they are going to say that certain things will be in the book and then they are not that's false advertising. They either need to send out a free errata pdf or offer a full refund.I hope that was sarcasm....
Well, that's...sad...then.
This stuff isn't cheap and I have already bought several books. If they want to keep putting out new material that's great but I expect a higher lever of accountability and quality. Otherwise we're just going to get hard bound books with pretty pictures and lots of filler.
You do understand that things change in development, right?
Beckett |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is that sad? If they are that disappointed with the book, especially because they feel like it was mispresented or advertised falsly, wanting either a fix or a refund isn't that out of left field. I'm not saying I agree, but I have seen a lot of complaints on the book. If you like it, good. I'm happy you and others do. But that is one of ways you "vote with your pocketbook".
I personally do think it was overpriced for what it has, and really shouldn't be titled Ultimate Magic. I don't hate the book, but it certainly isn't amongst my favorates for fluff or mechanics. That's just my opinion, though.
JoelF847 RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16 |
JoelF847 RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16 |
JoelF847 RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16 |
FiddlersGreen |
FiddlersGreen wrote:Ævux wrote:Actually, it's MOTIF. No 'e' anywhere.Mystic Motife!
*Yells angerly towards the sky*
MOTIEEEEF!
Okay...
MMMOTIFFFFFFFFFFF!!
I for one sincerely hope that this feat gives the sorcerer a much-needed versatility boost. Not necessarily power, but something that gives options for existing sorcerers. If nothing else, it'd keep Ogre and other sorc fans in that other thread happy. XD
Benchak the Nightstalker Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8 |
Well, one spell (other than the cantrips) that seems to be missing is Lightning Rod.
I know there are missing spells, but I was asking about missing spells that got included in preview materials. The only one I can think of was the cantrip penumbra, whereas doubleplusgood made it sound like there were a lot more than that.
leo1925 |
Why is that sad? If they are that disappointed with the book, especially because they feel like it was mispresented or advertised falsly, wanting either a fix or a refund isn't that out of left field. I'm not saying I agree, but I have seen a lot of complaints on the book. If you like it, good. I'm happy you and others do. But that is one of ways you "vote with your pocketbook".
I personally do think it was overpriced for what it has, and really shouldn't be titled Ultimate Magic. I don't hate the book, but it certainly isn't amongst my favorates for fluff or mechanics. That's just my opinion, though.
Why shouldn't it be titled ultimate magic?
AbsolutGrndZer0 |
I know there are missing spells, but I was asking about missing spells that got included in preview materials. The only one I can think of was the cantrip penumbra, whereas doubleplusgood made it sound like there were a lot more than that.
Earlier in this thread (I think it was this thread) one of the devs linked to a page that has the missing cantrips (and penumbra is there). They were removed by decision and won't be returning (errata will remove them from the spellbooks), but for those that really want them, they are on the site.
EDIT: Ok wasn't this thread, but I found the link here it is.
As for them being in preview material but not in the final book, preview material is always subject to change, it's ideas they have to give you a taste of what they are thinking, but the final book is never guaranteed to include ALL things in preview materials.