Diego Rossi wrote:
It's doubly frustrating for me because I rely on Hero Lab heavily and they're not going to be able to implement the kits in such a way that you add the kit and it auto-adds the items... which means that you have to add all of the items manually... and therefore will never get the weight listed in UE.
Sadly, it kind of completely defeats the point of kits...
My 2 cents on the kits:
I love the idea of kits. I'm playing with a lot of new players and when they had to buy their starting equipment they nearly had an aneurism over all the choices in front of them.
That being said, I agree with the discounted price, but I don't agree with the one-size-fits-all weight issue because mass =/= weight. No matter how tightly you pack something in, it's not going to get lighter. I also agree with everyone else's reasons mentioned on here, too.
Still, I understand why they did it.
Pg. 262 - Catching cape
TECHNICALLY NOT AN ERROR: This cape's construction requirements mention the spell shield, but the actual function of this item is a mimic of the entropic shield spell. Perhaps "or entropic shield" should be added to the end of the construction requirements, which would allow a wider variety of spellcasters access to making one of these with little fuss.
Just because it doesn't get said often enough, I'm going to say "thank you Strife2002" for all of your free proofreading. I know that it's a fun hobby, and also that you're not perfect, but still. You're doing something that's useful, and you deserve recognition for it. Yay you! :)
odd, the APG had this same error then the errata removed the leadership text.I wonder where they copied this text from.
You guys need to hire Strife2002 as an Editor.
Haha, at Dragon*Con I told Jason Bulmahn that I was willing to relocate.
Technically I'm cheating a little. Since many of these errors are cut n' paste mistakes from other books that haven't been errata'd yet, I'm drawing some of these from those errata threads.
Pg. 342 - Armor of rage cursed item
The item armor of rage mentions something called an "armor of command" twice (once in the first sentence of the description, then again under the Intended Magic Item section) and says it functions like it as a suit of +1 full plate.
There is nothing called an armor of command, but there is a breastplate of command, but obviously it functions as breastplate, not full plate.
Pg. 33 - Net
Prepare thyself for a tarrasque-sized headache.
Net's have a lovely little issue with them. For years there was nothing wrong with them mechanically, and then Ultimate Combat came out:
Long-version jargon. For the TL;DR version, scroll down:
Ultimate Combat Pg. 111; Net and Trident feat wrote:
1) The description of the net says nothing about requiring two hands to throw it. According to someone on these boards that's used one of these things personally, he confirms that using one one-handed is a feat of mythic legerdemain. That's all well and good, but I'm guessing most of us are like me and haven't touched one. I feel it's important this is mentioned in the description. Especially since...
2) With Two-Weapon Fighting, apparently you could always wield one of these one-handed since the Core Rulebook, as long as the weapon in your other hand was also a thrown weapon:
Core Rulebook Pg. 202; Two-Weapon Fighting description wrote:
Thrown Weapons: The same rules apply when you throw a weapon from each hand. Treat a dart or shuriken as a light weapon when used in this manner, and treat a bolas, javelin, net, or sling as a one-handed weapon.
Emphasis mine, obviously. So you can throw one of these one-handed without the Net and Trident feat as long as your other weapon is a ranged weapon, as well. Odd and awkward, but technically not contradictory to the rules.
So to summarize:
1) Nets are apparently two-handed thrown weapons, which the item descriptions in both the Core Rulebook and Ultimate Equipment fail to mention. We only know this via a mention in the Net and Trident feat on page 111 of Ultimate Combat.
2) This same Net and Trident feat allows a character to wield a net as a one-handed ranged weapon, permitting them to wield a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand. However...
3) Despite all this, according to the two-weapon fighting rules on page 202 of the Core Rulebook, a net can be used as a one-handed ranged weapon as long as the weapon used in the other hand is also a ranged weapon.
Agreed, it's nuts.
In the treasure generation table, a lessor minor armor can be any armor with a special material...even adamantine full plate, which shouldn't appear until medium or better armors (since adamantine breastplate is listed in the specific medium armors).
Pg. 35 - Sai
In 3.x, the Sai granted you a +4 bonus at your attempts to disarm a foe. Presumably because the thing is just so darn good at disarming.
In pathfinder, the disarm quality grants you a +2 bonus to CMB checks made to disarm.
So, the sai in pathfinder has the disarm quality, meaning it has a +2 to disarm, but then it says it also has a +2 to sunder. This is so strange since the description just extols these things as amazing disarming tools, then randomly implies they're good at breaking stuff when their description gives no such allusions.
I feel "sunder" was actually meant to be "disarm" because this would be like adding an additional +2 to the disarm quality's inherent +2, making this thing a +4 total to disarm like editions past (which the Core Rulebook was all about).
FWIW, when I was in college, I knew some guys who were studying an Okinawan form of karate, and one actually owned a couple of sai. IIRC (from many years ago), they were about a foot long, remarkably heavy -- very dense metal -- and normally used in pairs. The way he explained it to me, you could use one to trap a weapon with its prongs, and then either disarm that weapon with a twist of the wrist, or bring the other sai down and smash it. That would be a bit difficult to turn into a mechanic, so I can see them just giving it a +2 to sunder weapons, without requiring the use of two of them.
p. 138 Cunning weapon quality - this costs a +1 enhancement bonus, and grants a +2 to confirm critical hits, only for creatures you could identify with knowledge skills that you have 5 ranks in. When you compare this to simply increasing the enhancement bonus of the weapon directly, that gives a +1 to confirm crits against ALL creatures, as well as a +1 to attack, weapon damage, CMB checks using the weapon such as disarm or trip if applicable, and gets your weapon closer to bypassing DR.
This makes the actual bonus seem pretty puny - I would think that the bonus was supposed to be +4 to confirm crits, and that it wouldn't stack with Critical Focus feat.
p. 163 - Void Scythe - since this is powered by channeled negative energy and inflicts negative levels, and destroys the body of those it kills so they can't be raised by anything less than a 9th level effect, should it:
a) have an evil aura
p. 66 Harrow Deck and p. 77 - Fortune-Teller's Deck:
The Harrow Deck is 100gp and weighs "-", but the Masterwork Fortune-Teller's Deck costs 50 gp and weighs 1 lb (with even a cheap common one weighing 1/2 lb).
Furthermore, the Fortune-Teller's Deck provides a +2 bonus to Profession(fortune-teller), and similar skills, but the Harrow Deck makes no mention of this.
I think the best solution is to decide which is correct and simply remove the other item entirely.
On a related note, the entire division between Adventuring Gear and Tools and Skill Kits is annoying. There are items that give bonuses to skills in both sections, and there's some overlap like this, such as the Book of Letters on p. 60 and the Forger's Kit on p. 77.
moreover, you cannot generate a special material armor or sheild with magical properties.
Ah, I see! Well then that's understandable, thanks.
moreover, you cannot generate a special material armor or sheild with magical properties.
Ugh, you can actually, it's just mentioned in an out-of-the-way spot. On page 114, within the first few paragraphs describing armor special abilities, paragraph 4 says the following:
Page 114, paragraph 4 wrote:
A suit of armor or a shield may be made of an unusual material. Roll d%: 01–95 indicates that the item is of a standard sort, and 96–100 indicates that it is made of a special material (see page 48).
Suggestion/Request for the Paizo folks when they address table 7-13 (weapons): Please include ammunition. I'm not sure whether it was supposed to be in there to begin with, but there is apparently some room if not originally allocated. A single "slot" for "ammunition" (like the "other <X> weapon" entries) would be sufficient. Thanks!
Thank you :) based on the table I only found the non magical ones !
Pg. 134 - Magic weapon special qualities
The paragraph titled "Special Qualities" says the following:
Special Qualities wrote:
Roll d%. A 01–30 result indicates that the item sheds light, 31–45 indicates that something (a design, inscription, or the like) provides a clue to the weapon’s function, and 46–100 indicates no special qualities.
I've never agreed with this. The options this randomization gives you are completely unrelated. It's like going to a restaurant and ordering a sandwich where your options are with cheese OR crust-less.
Basically, why can't it have both? I say roll these but make them separate rolls. Rolling for light would be 1-30 and no light 31-100. Rolling for design clue would be 1-15; 16-100 would be no clue.
Also I see a lack of randomizing the size of the weapons and armor you find in a treasure. I thought in the Core Rulebook there was a certain percentage you'd find armor for Small creatures and another percentage you'd find armor for Medium creatures.
EDIT: Example: I could find a +2 orc bane short sword that glows brightly and depicts the slaughter of orcs on its sheath.
Chapters 3, 4, and 5
These chapters cover all magic items other than the artifacts and specific intelligent and cursed items in Chapter 6.
At the beginning of each subsection in each chapter, it gives a description about the type of item and various ways it can be customized. For example, in chapter 3, the start of the Weapon Special Abilities section on page 134 mentions rolling a d% to determine if a special material was used in construction, as well as a paragraph titled "SPECIAL QUALITIES" that mentions rolling a d% to determine if the weapon glows or has a clue that reveals its function.
Some of the sections, however, seem to have some details missing, including:
- The Armor Special Abilities section (page 114) is missing a "SPECIAL QUALITIES" paragraph all together, where surely it could have been included to mention that a d% roll would determine if a magic armor possessed a clue in its design that hinted at its function.
p. 139 the Dispelling and Dispelling burst weapon qualities don't appear on Table 3-10 for ranged magic weapons, but the description doesn't limit them to melee weapons only.
True, but I think that's what was intended from the first sentence of dispelling's description, saying it functions like a spell storing weapon except...
Spell storing weapons are melee only.
p. 163 - The undercutting axe is described as "feels unusually heavy, as if it were made from something far heavier than mere wood and steel." However, it actually weighs 6 lbs, just like any other battleaxe. Should it weigh more based on the description?
Maybe that's part of the magic. It FEELS unusually heavy, like you try to lift it and it takes noticably more effort but you seem to have no problem doing so in the end.
Just a mundane flavor effect, maybe, like constantly having the sweet smell of lilacs wafting in your nostrils as long as you're wielding the greatsword of incomparable destruction
Ah, good catch - but it would be more user friendly if the dispelling qualities stated it, instead of having to look up spell storing.
That's the requirement for the Bane special weapon quality, so it applies to the Heartwood Spear.
Ah, so it is.
Pg. 20 - Table 1-6: Exotic Weapons; Two-handed weapons; Harpoon
The harpoon had the fragile quality in Ultimate Combat but not in this book. Don't get me wrong, I agree with taking it out since it's probably a fairly common coastal and oceanic weapon and not necessarily exclusive to Bronze Age cultures (like UC labels it), I just thought I'd mention that it differed from its last appearance.
p. 330 Hammer Of Thunderbolts
it says "+3 Large returning warhammer"
items made of bones have the fragile quality. In the UE, they are described this way: "Most harpoons have metal points, but someuse ivory or are made entirely of wood" . Probably the reason why the fragile quality was removed from the table and replaced by "a see text"
Pg. 22 - Grapple weapon quality
Perhaps the grapple special weapon quality should add something along the lines of:
"Grappling an opponent while using these weapons to do so doesn't incur the normal -4 penalty to grapple for not having both hands free."
Assuming that was the intent. I guess it's entirely plausible that the penalty was meant to be left in there, but I can easily imagine this rule as being overlooked.
Pgs. 48 & 49 - Blood crystal
At the price it sells for, one would think that an item crafted from blood crystal would always be masterwork, but it doesn't say. Since it doesn't say, however, we can't be sure.
Also, it says that weapons made of blood crystal have half the normal hit points, but then says it has 10 hit points per inch of thickness. Is this latter value for un-worked, raw blood crystal?