RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
This is another "not quite errata", but wasn't sure where else to post about it. I noticed that the spell Volcanic Storm is essentially the same thing as the noble efreeti ability Pyroclastic Storm, mentioned in the Bestiary, p. 140. Is there a reason the spell wasn't called Pyroclastic Storm for consistency?
The noble efreet's ability slipped my mind when I was developing the book. Looking back, they should have the same name.
(Though I would have named the efreet ability "volcanic storm" because the idea of what that ability does would be easily understandable to more people than the more high-falootin word "pyroclastic". And volcanic is an older word than pyroclastic, and I dislike using relatively modern terms in spell and monster names because I feel it breaks the suspension of disbelief when playing.)
Spear of purity lists "Spear-shaped projectile of chaotic energy" as effect in its stat block, this should most probably read "good energy".
Dragonbane Aura and Fearless Aura have problems working together. Nuff said.
The Magus Bladebound Archetype says that the Magus's Arcane Pool = 1/3 of his class levels plus his intelligence bonus which is listed under his BlackBlade which he gets at 3rd level. If this is a modification to the Magus's Arcane Pool which a Magus gets at 2nd level and is equal to 1/2 his level plus his intelligence bonus then some clarification is neccessary as I have already run into at least one person who thought they got 1/2 they're class levels + intelligence bonus and 1/3 their class levels + intelligence bonus which would mean that they would have a huge arcane pool.
The Magus Bladebound Archetype says that the Magus's Arcane Pool = 1/3 of his class levels plus his intelligence bonus which is listed under his BlackBlade which he gets at 3rd level. If this is a modification to the Magus's Arcane Pool which a Magus gets at 2nd level and is equal to 1/2 his level plus his intelligence bonus then some clarification is neccessary as I have already run into at least one person who thought they got 1/2 they're class levels + intelligence bonus and 1/3 their class levels + intelligence bonus which would mean that they would have a huge arcane pool.
First of all the difference between 1/2 and 1/3 shows itself in the 4th level not before.
I agree that a sentence saying "instead of 1/2" would help but i can't see how anyone would thing that a bladebound magus gets 1/2 class levels +1/3 class levels.
Is it explicitly removing the Arcane Pool gained at 2nd level?
And granting another at 3rd level? That could be another difference, 1 level later.
Is it explicitly removing the Arcane Pool gained at 2nd level?
And granting another at 3rd level? That could be another difference, 1 level later.
What?
A vanilla magus doesn't gain any more arcane pool points at 2nd or 3rd level, it gains one extra point at 4th.
|
Is it explicitly removing the Arcane Pool gained at 2nd level?
And granting another at 3rd level? That could be another difference, 1 level later.What?
A vanilla magus doesn't gain any more arcane pool points at 2nd or 3rd level, it gains one extra point at 4th.
Quandary is most likely referring to this post.
The Magus Bladebound Archetype says that the Magus's Arcane Pool = 1/3 of his class levels plus his intelligence bonus which is listed under his BlackBlade which he gets at 3rd level. If this is a modification to the Magus's Arcane Pool which a Magus gets at 2nd level and is equal to 1/2 his level plus his intelligence bonus then some clarification is neccessary as I have already run into at least one person who thought they got 1/2 they're class levels + intelligence bonus and 1/3 their class levels + intelligence bonus which would mean that they would have a huge arcane pool.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
It's fairly simple, just not explained adequately within the rule text.
The Black Blade archetype replaces the 3rd level Arcana you would normally gain at that level. It also modifies the Arcana Pool that you got at first level. Instead of gaining a point every other level, you gain one every third level.
So, it's replacing the 3rd level Arcana you get normally, and modifying a second class ability (arcana pool). At 1st and 2nd level, it's INT MOD + 1. Normally at 4th level it would go up to INT MOD + 2, but Black Blade modifies the Arcana Pool progression, so that you don't actually go up to INT MOD + 2 until 6th level. So, Arcane Pool progression for a normal Magus is 1st/+1, 4th/+2, 6th/+3, 8th/+4...20th/+10. The Black Blade Magus instead has the following progression : 1st/+1, 6th/+2, 9th/+3...18th/+6. So he's losing out on 4 pool points over 20 levels as part of the cost of his black blade special ability.
Yeah, I think basically the Arcane Pool point modification doesn`t really belong under the Black Blade ability in the first place.
It should really be ABOVE the Black Blade ability, listed separately as `Arcane Pool (Su)` in bold, and just be a straight-up modification of the Pool Points... starting from Level 1 just for clarity because there is no difference in progression whether you start from level 1 or substitute Point progression starting from Level 3, since they use `half or one-third level (min 1) + INT`. It wouldn`t be necessary to STATE it starts at Level 1, the standard wording is just `as standard Arcane Pool, except you only gain `1/3 level (min 1) + INT`.
I can understand Hibiko`s player`s confusion, because the STANDARD wording you expect when abilities are modified or replaced ISN`T USED, and it is presented as an additional ability tacked onto a replacement of the 3rd level Magus Arcana, i.e. by RAW you still have the normal Arcane Pool. Technically per RAW I don`t think it`s worded as ADDITIONAL points above the normal Arcane Pool, but per RAW you should still get the normal (1/2 lewel +` points, because they haven`t been replaced or modified... The `you have 1/3+...` wording is still technically met, since a larger amount includes smaller amounts.
|
But the way it's written now, you don't have to choose to be a Bladebound Magus until you hit level 3, because it doesn't modify any class features until then. Changing the Arcane Pool at level 1 would lock you into being the archetype or not from the start, which seems needlessly restrictive, IMHO.
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.
Please add to notes, "Antagonize feat". Thank you!
I personally do think it was overpriced for what it has, and really shouldn't be titled Ultimate Magic.
I too think Ultimate Magic was a bad title for the contents. I also think over-all quality level/polish was less than the usual high standard from Paizo. That being said, I wouldn't say it was overpriced... just a bit disappointing.
Hopefully some official errata will make it a bit less so.
|
|
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.Please add to notes, "Antagonize feat". Thank you!
He knows, I harassed him about it in the UM Product thread. Here was his reply.
Is Gift of Madness (Dark Tapestry Revelation, pg. 54) supposed to require a fortitude save to negate the effect? It clearly says that it's a mind-affecting effect, why would it require a fortitude? Was that intentional?
|
SO. MUCH. ERRATA in this book.
I love it to death; don't get me wrong.
With the amount of missing spells that got me so excited.. are we who bought the product being offered anything for free? A pdf of all the missing spells even?
I understand when things go missing. There is always errata, & I would expect it. To a certain amount. But when this much content is missing.. & it is so confusing trying to actually USE the book (Spells that say Oracle & no other class aren't listed in the Oracle spell list, etc etc)... I feel I spent way too much money for this.
|
SO. MUCH. ERRATA in this book.
I love it to death; don't get me wrong.
With the amount of missing spells that got me so excited.. are we who bought the product being offered anything for free? A pdf of all the missing spells even?
I understand when things go missing. There is always errata, & I would expect it. To a certain amount. But when this much content is missing.. & it is so confusing trying to actually USE the book (Spells that say Oracle & no other class aren't listed in the Oracle spell list, etc etc)... I feel I spent way too much money for this.
There's a difference between "this thing was supposed to be in, but it got somewhat left out" and "it wasn't supposed to be in, but some reference got left". The spellbook problem is of the later variety, so I would expect an errata that simply removes any reference to those spells.
The Cleric Archetypes do not follow the normal style used for other Archetypes. Rather than the normal: "This ability replaces XCLASSABILITY." for each replacement ability, the Cleric archetypes in UM tend to bury that information elsewhere in the text. For consistency sake, it might be nice to have the Cleric follow the style used for all the other classes. Right now it reads as though written by a different person.
As a writer of a roleplaying book, I can attest to the fact that gaming books are often written by groups of people with chapters (or even sections of chapters) being assigned to different people.
What roleplaying book did you write, RD?
Currently, I am writing the science fiction chapter of Gary Sarli's e20 System Evolved. I will also be helping edit the book as a whole before long. Sorry, aside from the web site, I can't provide any sneak peeks.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've added a bunch of FAQ items about many of the significant issues from this thread. I've noted this sort of issues in my master copy of UM for the eventual reprint.
These new FAQS don't address things that don't affect rules, such as transposed Components/Casting Time lines, missing punctuation after the Saving Throw line, a word not being bolded, and so on. It also doesn't address things that are obvious and don't affect gameplay (like how the <i>overwhelming grief</i> spell's Duration line should say "(see text)" because the description says you can try to save again to break the spell). I've noted this sort of issues in my master copy of UM as well, I'm just not going to make separate FAQ entries for little issues like this. I'll probably also do a compiled "these are the 'lost' spell references in the book, here are their replacements" post.
Significant issues remaining include:
* What to do with the witch's scar hex
* Animal speaker bard loses fascinate but keeps other performances that require fascinate
* Oath against the wyrm weaknesses
* Bioconstruct modification: heart and magical healing
* Synthesist healing and eidolon evolutions
* sample spellbooks not including cost of blank spellbook
I've added a bunch of FAQ items about many of the significant issues from this thread. I've noted this sort of issues in my master copy of UM for the eventual reprint.
These new FAQS don't address things that don't affect rules, such as transposed Components/Casting Time lines, missing punctuation after the Saving Throw line, a word not being bolded, and so on. It also doesn't address things that are obvious and don't affect gameplay (like how the <i>overwhelming grief</i> spell's Duration line should say "(see text)" because the description says you can try to save again to break the spell). I've noted this sort of issues in my master copy of UM as well, I'm just not going to make separate FAQ entries for little issues like this. I'll probably also do a compiled "these are the 'lost' spell references in the book, here are their replacements" post.
Significant issues remaining include:
* What to do with the witch's scar hex
* Animal speaker bard loses fascinate but keeps other performances that require fascinate
* Oath against the wyrm weaknesses
* Bioconstruct modification: heart and magical healing
* Synthesist healing and eidolon evolutions
* sample spellbooks not including cost of blank spellbook
Thanks for all the hard work you continue to invest!
|
I've added a bunch of FAQ items about many of the significant issues from this thread. I've noted this sort of issues in my master copy of UM for the eventual reprint.
These new FAQS don't address things that don't affect rules, such as transposed Components/Casting Time lines, missing punctuation after the Saving Throw line, a word not being bolded, and so on. It also doesn't address things that are obvious and don't affect gameplay (like how the <i>overwhelming grief</i> spell's Duration line should say "(see text)" because the description says you can try to save again to break the spell). I've noted this sort of issues in my master copy of UM as well, I'm just not going to make separate FAQ entries for little issues like this. I'll probably also do a compiled "these are the 'lost' spell references in the book, here are their replacements" post.
Significant issues remaining include:
* What to do with the witch's scar hex
* Animal speaker bard loses fascinate but keeps other performances that require fascinate
* Oath against the wyrm weaknesses
* Bioconstruct modification: heart and magical healing
* Synthesist healing and eidolon evolutions
* sample spellbooks not including cost of blank spellbook
Wow thanks Sean. I'll admit I'm surprised you mentioned the Scar hex. I absolutely believe it needs a mechanical benefit, and I hope Paizo will address it.
I have a Qustion the magus two weapon fighting with a spell ability can the Magus cast a spell like true strike before he makes his sword attack???
Yes, while using Spell Combat.
The alchemist's Plague Bomb says: "The effects of the smoke created by an alchemist's bomb duplicates the effects of contagion instead of fog cloud, filling an area equal to twice the bomb's splash area for 1 round per level."
Should that say something like "in addition to" instead of "instead of"? Otherwise it's not clear whether the plague bomb actually creates any smoke/fog or not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not Vic or Lisa, but IMO the best way to sum up our reprint policy is: "If a book sells out of its print run, and we have a reasonable expectation that reprinting it would continue to sell well, we'll reprint it." There are exceptions (for example, we didn't reprint the 3.5 campaign setting when it sold out because we knew the Inner Sea World Guide for the PFRPG was coming soon), but that's pretty much how it works out.
So far, all of our core rulebooks have sold well and we've gone to at least a second print run. We expect UM will be the same. And as the time for the UM reprint approaches, we'll compile all of this information into an update PDF (like we've done for the other hardcover rulebooks) and revise the UM PDF for everyone who bought it.
I was perusing this thread and noticed this bit of business policy. Now it seems to me if a book was not sold out and the reasoning was poor quality (hard to read sentences, unbalanced mechanics, general cookiness) it would make more business sense to re-print the book (with edits) and re-release rather then thinking your customers didn't want the kind of content in the particular book.
I mean UM is probably the closest thing paizo has to skirting this line, as through these boards and real life I know at least 70 pathfinder fans that wont buy it, for reasons of unclear writing and not getting as much content for a majority of spell-casters. If UM sells well that's great but if not making a revised UM might be in better interests. (Of course people who bought the unrevised would probably want a free copy so it may or may not balance out).
Just my thoughts.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I did a quick search in this thread and could not find anything about it.
I don't know if this was intentional or not but the list of 4th level ki powers (of the qinggong monk) there isn't the slow fall, i guess that this is just an oversight and nothing more but since i can't be sure i posted it here.
I mean UM is probably the closest thing paizo has to skirting this line, as through these boards and real life I know at least 70 pathfinder fans that wont buy it, for reasons of unclear writing and not getting as much content for a majority of spell-casters. If UM sells well that's great but if not making a revised UM might be in better interests. (Of course people who bought the unrevised would probably want a free copy so it may or may not balance out).
I have a copy. It's one of my gaming group's favorite books, soon to be followed by Ultimate Combat, I suspect. I think people putting off buying it because it's riddled with errors are misguided. There's similar threads about virtually every book when it comes out.
Right now our group only has two, but I suspect that the number of copies will grow to "Number of casters in group + 1", and that the number of copies of Ultimate Combat will grow to "Number of players in group + 1."
I think people are getting the impression that the book looks like some textual version of Swiss cheese, and it just ain't so. It's really pretty great.
Personally I found it inferior to the standards. There is a lot of stuff laughably weak or just nonsensical. The casptone of the Dragonslayer Paladin seems written in 3 minutes at best.
Other reasons are more personal. I find the flavour of a lot of stuff horrible. Spells to fill demons with remorse, druids summoning aberrations, mind-affectig for undeads.
Generally speaking there are good things and is definitively worth buying, but the quality dropped sadly (IMHO).
Here is another spell that needs errata. I looked on the thread but did not see this one yet.
Ear-splitting scream:
Duration is 1 round/lvl but the text says that the daze effect lasts only 1 round. So, does the daze effect last 1 round or 1 round/lvl?
A couple of posts from the 'Ask James Jacobs' thread, regarding inquisitions:
It was a simple oversight, and has already been marked up in my master copy of the book for updating in the reprint.
Here is another spell that needs errata. I looked on the thread but did not see this one yet.
Ear-splitting scream:
Duration is 1 round/lvl but the text says that the daze effect lasts only 1 round. So, does the daze effect last 1 round or 1 round/lvl?
I assume you mean ear-piercing scream? The duration should be "1 round."
Witch scar hex FAQ!
My priority for the next hour or so is the synthesist alchemist questions. Jason's already gotten his feet wet with Antagonize, so I'll let him bear the cross of future questions about that. :)
Correction: Synthesist SUMMONER questions.
Witch scar hex FAQ!
Nice, scar now has a decent effect.
Although, I can see a witch using Scar on her teammates to scar them in an area that's not all that visible, and then using the 1 mile range to heal them at range once per day with a heal hex. :) Awesome little use honestly.
|
|
My priority for the next hour or so is the synthesist alchemist questions. Jason's already gotten his feet wet with Antagonize, so I'll let him bear the cross of future questions about that. :)
Fair enough. I'll send him a pair of hip-waders, because it's clearly needing more than just wet feet.
Appreciate everything that you guys are doing.
Witch scar hex FAQ!Nice, scar now has a decent effect.
Although, I can see a witch using Scar on her teammates to scar them in an area that's not all that visible, and then using the 1 mile range to heal them at range once per day with a heal hex. :) Awesome little use honestly.
I'd be totally fine with that. :)
Thank you SKR for the scar hex, very good and thematically appropriate thinking, i love the whole "mark of the devil, cursed, bad things happen to me because of that". Very good.
Thank you SKR for the scar hex, very good and thematically appropriate thinking, i love the whole "mark of the devil, cursed, bad things happen to me because of that". Very good.
Or the good witch marked me with the sign of the Northern Star, or the sign of The Virgin, or the sign of The Healer, and she can make good things happen to me.