Protection from Good, Communal
Level antipaladin 2, cleric 2, inquisitor 2, paladin 2, sorcerer/wizard 2, summoner 2
Target creatures touched
This spell functions like protection from good, except you divide the duration in 1-minute intervals among the creatures touched.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this spell should not be on the Paladin's spell list...
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Yar!
This was mentioned and quickly forgotten here, but on pages 193 & 195, also seen in the PRD here, we have a clear rules contradiction:
A called shot is a single attack made as a full-round actionvs
Normal: You can make one called shot per round as a standard action....Which one is right?
~P
The more specific rule overrides an incidental mention in the "Normal" section of a feat.
|
Protection from Good, Communal
Level antipaladin 2, cleric 2, inquisitor 2, paladin 2, sorcerer/wizard 2, summoner 2
Target creatures touched
This spell functions like protection from good, except you divide the duration in 1-minute intervals among the creatures touched.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this spell should not be on the Paladin's spell list...
Protection from Law, Communal likely wasn't supposed to make the cut either to the paladin, but did.
|
Should this be calling out
DC = 10 + 1/2 caster level + Charisma (in the case of oracles) or Wisdom (in the case of clerics)
or
DC = 10 + 1/2 caster level + Charisma MODIFIER (in the case of oracles) or Wisdom MODIFIER (in the case of clerics)
Jolting Portent mentions the oracle in the description for save DC but it is only listed as Cleric 7.
Also the index lists "Oracle Spell Lists 212-213" but no list exists?School evocation (electricity) Level cleric 7
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, DF
Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Target one creature
Duration 1 round/level (D) see text
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance yes
The creature you designate is surrounded by a glowing red aura of vengeful fate. Once per round when the target makes an attack or casts a spell, it must succeed at a Fortitude saving throw with a DC = 10 + 1/2 caster level + Charisma (in the case of oracles) or Wisdom (in the case of clerics). If the target fails the saving throw, it takes 4d6 + your Charisma modifier (in the case of oracles) or Wisdom modifier (in the case of clerics) electricity damage. It takes no damage on a successful saving throw. You can dismiss this spell as an immediate action when its subject confirms a critical hit to negate the critical hit and daze the creature for 1 round. The attack still hits its target and deals normal damage. The effects of the daze occur after the attack.
|
|
Page 222 - Air walk, communal spell
1) Were alchemists intended to get this at the same level they get normal air walk? Currently both this and air walk are 4th level formulae for an alchemist.
2) Based on how this spell works, it'd probably be logical to include "Duration 10 minutes/level; see text" among the information in this spell in order to differ it from normal air walk which it's based off of.*
*EDIT: Just got around to checking ant haul, communal and it's the same way. I'm guessing all the communal spells from this book are like this.
|
|
Page 225 - Chain of perdition spell
A couple of times within this spell's description it mentions how this spell uses a different ability modifier for its functions depending on the class that's casting it. The format it uses is "Charisma modifier (sorcerer), Intelligence modifier (wizard), or Wisdom modifier (cleric)."
However, it should probably be changed to say "Charisma modifier (oracle and sorcerer)..."
|
|
Page 228 - Endure elements, communal spell
Other than the communal spell duration comment I brought up a few posts up:
This is more of an observation than an errata report, because it's probably not an error, but I find it weird that the summoner got dropped off the list of casters that can cast both normal endure elements and this one. The alchemist gets this 1 spell level higher than the others, but not summoner. Maybe this was intentional, though.
|
|
Page 229 - Energy siege shot, greater spell
Was it intentional for the greater version of this spell to be evocation while the normal version of it is transmutation? I'm guessing no, and it sounds more like transmutation is the actual school.
Also in the description "energy shot" should be changed to "energy siege shot" and italicized.
|
|
Page 232 - Judgement light spell
Several things:
1) This spell has a range of personal, but it definitely affects more than just you. Because it was listed as having a range of personal, the Saving Throw and SR lines were omitted but probably shouldn't have been. For instance, the Destruction aspect of this spell specifically mentions allowing a Will saving throw.
2) the Destruction aspect is the only part of this spell that mentions using a saving throw, yet Justice and Piercing aspects also affect enemies and make no mention of allowing a save.
3) The Healing aspect specifically says "Allies in the area regain a number of hit points..." Does this mean it was intentional for this aspect of the spell to NOT harm undead enemy creatures?
|
|
Page 238 - Nondetection, communal spell
The material component to this spell is cheaper than the normal nondetection spell's material component. That makes sense since the duration is being divided, except if you cast this on a single person, you effectively get the same spell at half the price (although it is at a higher spell level, so that could be a point of balance).
|
|
Page 239 - Phantom driver spell
Currently there is no point mechanically to choosing your phantom driver to be Medium over Small. The Medium driver has an AC of 19 while the Small driver has an AC of 20, but that is where the differences end. Later in the description it is stated as having a land speed of 30 feet. Shouldn't it say Medium drivers have a speed of 30 ft. while Small drivers have a speed of 20 ft.? Or is it the Small driver acts like one of those annoyingly fast little goblins.
|
|
Page 232 - Judgement light spell
Several things:
1) This spell has a range of personal, but it definitely affects more than just you. Because it was listed as having a range of personal, the Saving Throw and SR lines were omitted but probably shouldn't have been. For instance, the Destruction aspect of this spell specifically mentions allowing a Will saving throw.
Additional thoughts:
I suppose when it comes to the missing spell resistance line, one could make the argument it should be "no" mainly because this spell enhances the effects of an inquisitor's judgement ability, which is a supernatural ability, and thus not subject to spell resistance.
|
|
Page 245 - Spontaneous immolation spell
The saving throw line for this spell says "Fortitude half and Reflex (see description)"
The target takes 3d6 points of fire damage and catches of fire (Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook 444). A successful Fortitude save reduces this damage by half and prevents the target from catching on fire. Each round on your turn, a burning target can attempt a new save to extinguish the flames (DC equal to the DC of the spell); otherwise it takes another 1d6 fire damage.
Emphasis mine. The bolded section is refering to the rules found in the core rulebook regarding catching on fire and using a Reflex save to put out the flames. It should probably use the word "Reflex" in this bolded section, since as written it makes it sound like you make another Fortitude save like before.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Pages 245-246 - Symbol of striking spell
Every symbol spell, whether found in the Core Rulebook or in Ultimate Magic, has rules for making it permanent with the permanency spell, and I see no reason why this shouldn't either. I know the first line says this spell works like symbol of death, which would include its rules about being allowed to be made permanent, but the costs and minimal CL needed would definitely be different, given the 3 spell level difference.
|
|
Page 211 of the Core Rulebook describes Enchantment spells as affecting the mind. The first sentence of the second paragraph specifically says "All enchantment spells are mind-affecting spells." The following enchantment spell(s) from Ultimate Combat are missing their mind-affecting descriptor:
- bestow weapon proficiency (page 224)
- companion mind link (page 226)
- debilitating portent (page 227)
- litany of eloquence (page 234)
- litany of madness (page 234)
- terrain bond (page 247)
Additionally, the Core Rulebook also describes the two subschools of the enchantment school, compulsion and charm, and while it doesn't say all enchantment spells belong to one of these subschools, all of the ones in the core rulebook do, leading me to believe that's not a coincidence. The following enchantment spell(s) from Ultimate Magic don't have a subschool:
- terrain bond (page 247)
|
|
Pages 210 and 211 of the Core Rulebook describe Illusion spells in detail and even though it doesn't specifically say all Illusion spells belong to a subschool, every single illusion spell to date belongs to one, leading me to believe it's not a coincidence.
Except one, in Ultimate Combat:
- negative reaction (page 238) {If it's supposed to have a subschool, it's probably glamer}
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Pages 245-246 - Symbol of striking spell
Every symbol spell, whether found in the Core Rulebook or in Ultimate Magic, has rules for making it permanent with the permanency spell, and I see no reason why this shouldn't either. I know the first line says this spell works like symbol of death, which would include its rules about being allowed to be made permanent, but the costs and minimal CL needed would definitely be different, given the 3 spell level difference.
I noticed that no spells in this book have a mention of being able to be made permanent with the permanency spell. Was this intentional?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Ultimate Magic introduced some new spell descriptors to the rules. Ultimate Combat, however, fails to include any of them. Whether this was intentional (not enough room to explain them again, spells were developed before UM rules were finalized, wanting to avoid people requiring UM) or not, the following spells from Ultimate Combat very much seem to qualify for these new descriptors:
- Curse: none
- Disease: absorb toxicity
- Emotion: adoration, compel hostility, pup shape (arguably), qualm
- Pain: instrument of agony
- Poison: absorb toxicity
- Shadow: shadow bomb admixture (depending on what the "shadowy substance" created by this actually is), symbol of striking
Anyone who feels I've left any out or if I'm wrong about any of the ones above, please chime in.
Page 222 - Air walk, communal spell
1) Were alchemists intended to get this at the same level they get normal air walk? Currently both this and air walk are 4th level formulae for an alchemist.
It's somewhat irrelevant (according to a strict reading of the rules) because "the effects of an extract exactly duplicate the spell upon which its formula is based, save that the spell always affects only the drinking alchemist" (emphasis mine). So an alchemist's extract of communal air walk only affects himself anyways.
Yeah you need infusion to make ti affect others so watch out for the backwash.
|
|
It's somewhat irrelevant (according to a strict reading of the rules) because "the effects of an extract exactly duplicate the spell upon which its formula is based, save that the spell always affects only the drinking alchemist" (emphasis mine). So an alchemist's extract of communal air walk only affects himself anyways.Page 222 - Air walk, communal spell
1) Were alchemists intended to get this at the same level they get normal air walk? Currently both this and air walk are 4th level formulae for an alchemist.
Yeah Talonhawke's got the right of it. At the beginning of the spells section of this book it introduces communal spells with a description and a special note at the end saying that alchemists specifically need the infusion discovery in order to take them as formulae
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Page 20 - Samurai's honorable stand ability
One part of honorable stand says:
"He does not fall unconscious while his hit point total is below 0."
So does this mean that they are considered stable as well? Or are they simply conscious while they continue to lose a hit point each round until becoming so? Also, at exactly 0 hp and below are they staggered still?
|
|
Page 181 - Land Vehicles
The first paragraph on page 181 gives a brief description as to what "land vehicles" are. The last sentence of this paragraph says:
"The following are the most common types of land vehicles, including all land vehicles that characters can purchase in the Core Rulebook."
Emphasis mine. All the vehicles presented in the Core Rulebook are in Ultimate Combat except for one, the sled. UC has a vehicle called the sleigh, but it's 100 gp instead of the sled's 20 gp price tag, making me think it's somehow a larger variant of snow-craft than the sled.
Advantageous Terrain of the battle scout specifies a burst centered on a square, but bursts are centered on intersections.
|
|
Page 181 - Land Vehicles
The first paragraph on page 181 gives a brief description as to what "land vehicles" are. The last sentence of this paragraph says:
"The following are the most common types of land vehicles, including all land vehicles that characters can purchase in the Core Rulebook."
Emphasis mine. All the vehicles presented in the Core Rulebook are in Ultimate Combat except for one, the sled. UC has a vehicle called the sleigh, but it's 100 gp instead of the sled's 20 gp price tag, making me think it's somehow a larger variant of snow-craft than the sled.
I take this one back, I see there is a dog sled in the APG for 20 gp. I'm going to assume this is what that is.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Page 132 - Kyoketsu shoge
Two things:
1) Damage type should be changed to "B or S or P". Currently only S and P are listed, but the weapon's description and common sense say that the iron ring deals bludgeoning damage.
2) How does the throwing of this weapon work? It has a range increment of 20 ft., yet the rope is only 10 ft. long. How is this thrown? Do you throw the blade end and let the rope 'n' ring go with it? It seems like this would put some significant drag on the weapon, enough that it doesn't make much sense for this to have a longer range increment than a dagger.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Page 132 - Meteor Hammer
A few issues with this item.
1) Does an enemy that is dragged towards you provoke attacks of opportunity from the move? It's technically is just a 5-foot step, so I could see why not.
2) Was this intended to work like the Drag combat maneuver, as in there's a size restriction, rules for attacks of opportunity, and rules for if there's an obstacle in between you?
|
|
Pages 128-129 - Various eastern armors
None of the armors in the eastern armor description mention whether or not they include gauntlets. However, pages 200-201, which describe various arm armor in the piecemeal armor rules, mentions the following eastern armors as having gauntlets:
- O-yoroi
- Tatami-do
- Steel lamellar*
*This one seems a little odd, that only the steel lamellar gets gauntlets out of all the lamellar types (leather and horn lamellar, sure, but even iron doesn't get gauntlets?)
|
|
Page 145 - Throwing shield
The first sentence describing the throwing shield says:
"This shield is designed for throwing and has specially designed straps allowing you to unclasp and throw it as a free action."
Emphasis mine. What this sentence is suggesting is it allows using it as an attack as a free action. What it probably meant to say was something like "allowing you to unclasp it as a free action to be thrown."
