|
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see a thread about the errors in Ultimate Equipment, so here we are.
Maybe it is a bit early, but as I am making a new character, an Alchemist, this error jumped at me:
Alchemy Crafting Kit Price 25 gp Weight 50 lbs.
An alchemist with an alchemy crafting kit is assumed to have all the material components needed for his extracts, mutagens, and bombs, except for those components that have a specific cost. An alchemy crafting kit provides no bonuses on Craft (alchemy) checks. (This item was called an “alchemist’s kit” in the Advanced Player’s Guide, and was renamed to avoid confusion with this book’s pre-selected set of adventuring gear called an “alchemist’s kit.”)
In the APG it weight 5 lbs. 50 lbs can be more realistic but the playability of going around lugging a kit that weight as much as a full plate to be capable to use your class abilities seem a bit low.
Note that an Alchemist’s kit (one of the adventurer kits presented in the book), a kit that include "This kit includes an alchemy crafting kit, a backpack, a bedroll, a belt pouch, a flint and steel, ink, an inkpen, an iron pot, a mess kit, soap, torches (10), trail rations (5 days), and a waterskin." weight only 24 lbs.
Alchemy Crafting Kit Price 25 gp Weight 50 lbs.
An alchemist with an alchemy crafting kit is assumed to have all the material components needed for his extracts, mutagens, and bombs, except for those components that have a specific cost. An alchemy crafting kit provides no bonuses on Craft (alchemy) checks. (This item was called an “alchemist’s kit” in the Advanced Player’s Guide, and was renamed to avoid confusion with this book’s pre-selected set of adventuring gear called an “alchemist’s kit.”)In the APG it weight 5 lbs. 50 lbs can be more realistic but the playability of going around lugging a kit that weight as much as a full plate to be capable to use your class abilities seem a bit low.
Note that an Alchemist’s kit (one of the adventurer kits presented in the book), a kit that include "This kit includes an alchemy crafting kit, a backpack, a bedroll, a belt pouch, a flint and steel, ink, an inkpen, an iron pot, a mess kit, soap, torches (10), trail rations (5 days), and a waterskin." weight only 24 lbs.
I do think the error there is that the alchemy creation kit should indeed weigh 5 pounds, not 50 pounds -- it's a typo in the item entry. Because it's just a bunch of reagents, basically, and you need it for your class, I think 5 lbs is a fair weight (but not 50! :) ).
Another error (unless I am blind and not seeing it...)
Page 370, Table 7-13 Random Weapons is missing options for numbers 66-84. In other words, there's an entry for numbers ending at 65, and the item directly below it starts at rolling 85.
This is purely a layout/printing error, but if this sees a second printing you may want to fix this:
Page 124 - Under Adamantine Breastplate. There needs to be a break between the descriptive sentence and the header below it (Armor of Insults) -- currently the header is squished into the sentence.
And then under the Armor of Insults entry, there is an unnecessary break between its descriptive paragraph and the Construction Requirements section.
If you fix both--add the space where it's needed and remove it where it's not--it should not push anything off to the next column or page.
Typo Pg 145 Under "Limning" magical weapon quality.
In the description, the name is misspelled as "liming" in both places.
Through a bit of serendipity though, this gives me a great idea for alchemical birdlime to help bring fliers down to earth. ...err...for my players to use...yea...
pg 98-99: a "Poor" stay at an inn is listed as 2 gp when it should be 2 sp. This is most obvious on Table 2-13.
The error on page 370 was mentioned during the blog previews and the missing items were re-listed in the comments.
66 sai
67 sap
68-69 scythe
70-73 shortbow
74-75 shortspear
76-80 shortsword
81 shuriken
82 sickle
83–84 sling
Any errors listed in the previews need to be repeated here so there's only one place to look for looking up errata. If you know of any others, please post them!
And thanks for pointing this out!
|
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
page 270
Shouldn't Bonebreaker GAUNTLETS be hand slot items, and not wrist slot?
page 272
Bracers of Falcon's Aim seem ridiculously cheap given that its a +3 skill, +1 tho hit ranged, and essentially Keen for bows, continuously. Scabbard of Keen Edges is 16,000 (vs. 4000 for this) and it only works 3 times a day for a few minutes each, and is a standard action to use.
page 273
Gauntlets of skill at arms...also wrist items? Again, I have no problem with these items or their slot, but these should be described as bracers or armbands or something, not gauntlets.
I concur, the Bracers of Falcon's Aim seem like one heck of a bargain and my two ranged players found it in the first 30 minutes of sifting through.
Here are the things I noticed in the previews.
Page 130
Avalanche Shield: When used to make a shield bash attack, stones fall from shield and cling to the target of the shield bash.
- Should be: stones fall from the shield
Caster's Shield: Both instances of caster's shield should be italicized.
Page 171
Ring of Inner Fortitude: The first paragraph has ring of minor fortitude, shouldn't it be ring of minor inner fortitude?
- There was no reply to this.
A minor issue (perhaps personal): Wearing a ring of inner fortitude ring does not make the...
- The use of ring twice seems redundant and the second mention should be removed.
Page 364
Table 7-6: Type D Treasure, Coins and Small Objects
This treasure is made up coins and small magic items, such as potions, scrolls, and wands.
- Need to add "of" after "made up". The context is completely off without it.
Page 388
Table 7-50
Grade 1
09-14 Alabaster (09-14 works at 6 numbers)
14-20 Azurite (15-20 would make this entry 6 numbers)
Grade 2
87-92 Spinel, red or green
94-100 Zircon
Page 390
Ruby: Only slightly softer than diamonds, these striking gemstones come/s/ in numerous shades of red, and are often faceted but sometimes shaped and polished into decorative items.
- Need to remove the "s" as it should not be there.
The Luck Blade on page 157 lists prices for blades that have 0, 1, 2, and 4 wishes instead of 0, 1, 2, and 3 wishes.
|
|
I concur, the Bracers of Falcon's Aim seem like one heck of a bargain and my two ranged players found it in the first 30 minutes of sifting through.
I suppose the real issue with the item is not the cost, the cost is appropriate for a 1st level spell I suppose, but the fact that Aspect of the Falcon is only a 1st level spell. Keen Edge is 3rd level (though it is 10 minutes per level) but Aspect of the Falcon gives Keen to bows, plus a bonus to hit and a skill bonus. Aspect of the falcon should be at minimum 2nd level if not 3rd.
These are from the latest preview.
Page 178
Conduit Rod:
she can teleport anywhere that spell's effect,
- There are many ways to adjust this to properly fit the sentence.
Fiery Nimbus Rod:
faerie fire
- should be italicized
it takes and additional 1d10 fire damage.
- Replace "and" with "an".
Construction Requirements: fairy fire
- Replace "fairy fire" with "faerie fire".
Page 179
Rod of Absorption:
There is a mix of he/she usage in the text.
Page 338
Jar of Dragon Teeth:
and those 19 or more Hit Dice are affected as per form of the dragon III.
- Need to add "with" before 19.
If the owner changes before all the teeth created by the jar are consumed, the original owner no longer gains benefit from this artifact.
- The wording seems vague here. This makes it hard to understand what the true meaning of the text is.
|
|
I concur, the Bracers of Falcon's Aim seem like one heck of a bargain and my two ranged players found it in the first 30 minutes of sifting through.I suppose the real issue with the item is not the cost, the cost is appropriate for a 1st level spell I suppose, but the fact that Aspect of the Falcon is only a 1st level spell. Keen Edge is 3rd level (though it is 10 minutes per level) but Aspect of the Falcon gives Keen to bows, plus a bonus to hit and a skill bonus. Aspect of the falcon should be at minimum 2nd level if not 3rd.
Spell with a target of "you" generally are stronger than spells of the same level that can target anyone. When someone make a magic item based on those spells he should be extra careful with the price.
Chickens are listed as costing 1gp. That's fully 9sp and 8cp more than is listed in the core rulebook.
Obviously an error, especially since it lists them at the proper price (1 cp) later on in the same book.
Maybe they're vorpal chickens.
Pg. 176
Last line of the Ring of the Sea Strider description: "...must be connected by connected by a contagious mass of liquid." Contagious should be contiguous.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Pg. 143
The Huntsman weapon special ability; cut and past from the APG, still does not state that the bonus it provides to survival is equal to the enhancement bonus of the weapon.
FAQ entry on the matter
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pg. 106 & 107
On page 106, the introduction to Alchemical Weapons states "the DC to craft the item is listed in Table 2-16: Alchemical Weapons."
Table 2-16 on page 107 does not list the DC for any of the items.
Page 47
The second entry labeled "Axes" (toward the bottom of the first column) should be labeled "Double."
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
This belt’s wearer gains a +4 bonus to all poisons and a +2 bonus on Escape Artist checks.
What is a +4 bonus to all poisons?
+4 to craft
or +4 to all save DCs of poison he uses
or +4 to all save DCs of poison he applies
or +4 one saves against poisons?
|
|
Maybe it is a bit early, but as I am making a new character, an Alchemist, this error jumped at me:
Alchemy Crafting Kit Price 25 gp Weight 50 lbs.
An alchemist with an alchemy crafting kit is assumed to have all the material components needed for his extracts, mutagens, and bombs, except for those components that have a specific cost. An alchemy crafting kit provides no bonuses on Craft (alchemy) checks. (This item was called an “alchemist’s kit” in the Advanced Player’s Guide, and was renamed to avoid confusion with this book’s pre-selected set of adventuring gear called an “alchemist’s kit.”)In the APG it weight 5 lbs. 50 lbs can be more realistic but the playability of going around lugging a kit that weight as much as a full plate to be capable to use your class abilities seem a bit low.
Note that an Alchemist’s kit (one of the adventurer kits presented in the book), a kit that include "This kit includes an alchemy crafting kit, a backpack, a bedroll, a belt pouch, a flint and steel, ink, an inkpen, an iron pot, a mess kit, soap, torches (10), trail rations (5 days), and a waterskin." weight only 24 lbs.
I looked at all the kits, and for the most part, the weights seem off.
|
|
I looked at all the kits, and for the most part, the weights seem off.
It seem a bit weird, but this is SKR explanation:
Many of the skill kits have off weights with no mention as to why.
Sorc kit is listed at 19 lbs when the actual weight is 32 lbs
Pathfinder kit is off by half a pound when full and light
Wizard and witches kit is listed as 21 lbs when actual weight is 32 lbs
There are probably more but those are the few I've found, is there a reason for this or is this a misprint?I know that some of it is because we didn't want to list separate entries for Small and Medium kits, and most of them contain items that have different weights and capacities for smaller creatures, so we determined an approximate middle value that would work for either size.
And some of it is because you can assume that the kit is built/packed/tied in an efficient way, so its relative bulk is less than its component parts bought separately.
Well the problem is the fact that since the kits are full of separate expendable pieces of gear the weight starts to become important the minute you start expending it which will change the weights and lead to a lot of questions in game that kill table time.So if a character has a kit,
and has to drop pieces of that kit,
and looks up the weights of those pieces to get a new weight,
and if he then takes the time to add up all the different other pieces in the kit,
and realizes that the total doesn't match what's listed for the kit weight in the Core Rulebook,
I really don't think that's going to be a problem. I think on the list of things to worry about for characters, that's really, really low on the totem pole.
I fully agree with the "better packaged" part, less with the "pproximate middle value that would work for either size" but still that is the reasoning behind the weight of the kits.
I looked at all the kits, and for the most part, the weights seem off.Maybe it is a bit early, but as I am making a new character, an Alchemist, this error jumped at me:
Alchemy Crafting Kit Price 25 gp Weight 50 lbs.
An alchemist with an alchemy crafting kit is assumed to have all the material components needed for his extracts, mutagens, and bombs, except for those components that have a specific cost. An alchemy crafting kit provides no bonuses on Craft (alchemy) checks. (This item was called an “alchemist’s kit” in the Advanced Player’s Guide, and was renamed to avoid confusion with this book’s pre-selected set of adventuring gear called an “alchemist’s kit.”)In the APG it weight 5 lbs. 50 lbs can be more realistic but the playability of going around lugging a kit that weight as much as a full plate to be capable to use your class abilities seem a bit low.
Note that an Alchemist’s kit (one of the adventurer kits presented in the book), a kit that include "This kit includes an alchemy crafting kit, a backpack, a bedroll, a belt pouch, a flint and steel, ink, an inkpen, an iron pot, a mess kit, soap, torches (10), trail rations (5 days), and a waterskin." weight only 24 lbs.
Diego has the right of it. I think it would have been good to have a brief clause in the introduction to the section that the packages were re-weighted, as it is not as obvious as I think the devs think it was. Always hard with writing/gming/designing--often what you think must be clear is day is actually obscure.
But the "Alchemy Crafting Kit" (which is not one of the package kits, just part of another) is still mis-weighted at 50 lbs instead of 5.
|
|
I looked at all the kits, and for the most part, the weights seem off.Diego has the right of it. I think it would have been good to have a brief clause in the introduction to the section that the packages were re-weighted, as it is not as obvious as I think the devs think it was. Always hard with writing/gming/designing--often what you think must be clear is day is actually obscure.
But the "Alchemy Crafting Kit" (which is not one of the package kits, just part of another) is still mis-weighted at 50 lbs instead of 5.
Were they re-weighted? Has Paizo confirmed this?
Were they re-weighted? Has Paizo confirmed this?I looked at all the kits, and for the most part, the weights seem off.Diego has the right of it. I think it would have been good to have a brief clause in the introduction to the section that the packages were re-weighted, as it is not as obvious as I think the devs think it was. Always hard with writing/gming/designing--often what you think must be clear is day is actually obscure.
But the "Alchemy Crafting Kit" (which is not one of the package kits, just part of another) is still mis-weighted at 50 lbs instead of 5.
Read Diego Rossi's post. He provides the Dev posts that explain the weights of the package kits.
Not sure if it's an errata so much as an error but:
p. 268, Shawl of the Crone: The shawl's description misspells coven as "covey". Twice.
| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
p 137: Impact weapon property is listed as only applying to slashing and piercing weapons, when it should be listed as not being applicable to light weapons.
p 154: Earthenflail is listed as having the Shattering weapon property, which doesn't seem to exist.
p 43: The dragon pistol is listed as having a range of 20 feet, while page 45 lists it as having a 10 foot range when firing a bullet.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
p. 162 Sword Of Subtlety
"A +1 short sword with a thin, dull gray blade, this weapon provides a +4 bonus on its wielder’s attack and damage rolls when she makes a sneak attack with it."
two questions
1) is the +4 bonus while sneak attacking in addition to the base +1 or instead of? so is it +4 or +5 due to a sneak attack?
2) why can't you just say "this weapon is a +5 short sword when the wielder makes a sneak attack"? more direct.
If I am interpreting things correctly, not ever a +5 short sword -- for the purposes of determining stuff like damage reduction, it is still a +1 sword (a +5 weapon bypasses all kinds of DR that the +1 weapon does not). It is exactly what it says, a sword with a magical +1 enhancement bonus that grants an additional +4 to attack and damage when sneak attacking (but does not have the other properties of a +5 weapon). Maybe it would help if the additional bonus were typed (circumstance bonus, luck bonus).
If this were to be clarified, this is a Core Rulebook item so it would need to be clarified for that book as well as UE. I'm FAQing your post because of this.
On page 15, under the Masterwork Armor heading in the second paragraph, the spell Masterwork Transformation is referenced. The first sentence discusses using the spell for masterwork conversion of weapons, but this section is about armor and shields. Seems to me that this sentence should reference armor, not weapons. The referenced spell works on both.
What it looks like to me, is that a copy-paste was performed and wasn't cleaned up afterward.
p. 169 Ring Of Delayed Doom
minor typo in last sentence of description"for each of its garnets that ha sbeen destroyed"
should be "has been"
Here's another one for the same item.
The delayed harmful effect occurs when the wearer falls unconscious, when the ring is removed, or 1 minute after the last time the ring’s power [is] activated;
And as long as we're quibbling... I would actually say "for each of its garnets that have been destroyed." Or maybe "for each garnet that has been destroyed." Yes, I understand antecedents; and when they're potentially vague, it's better to make them proximal. So, when choosing between "for each [of its garnets] that has been destroyed" and "for each of [its garnets that have been destroyed]", I would go with the latter.
|
|
Page 110, under Crafting poison: "If you have the poison use class feature, you do not risk accidentally poisoning yourself when applying poison."
Irrelevant as the paragraph is about crafting poison, not applying it.
It seem to be a copy/paste problem and it should say:
"Crafters with the poison use class feature do not risk poisoning themselves when using Craft to make poison."
as in CRB.