Possible Mythic Adventures errata


Product Discussion

201 to 250 of 256 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Contributor

I don't have access to my spreadsheets any more, so I can't look up how these were built. But remember that the last step of making a mythic monster is "make sure its abilities and stats are appropriate for its new CR." So, frex, if its damage and SLA DCs are low, we probably boosted the Str and Cha to fix that.

In other words, just like magic item pricing, monster design (whether mythic or otherwise) is part art, part science.


Devil, Ice, page 186

1) SR listed as 27, should be 30.

2) All-Around Vision listed among senses, but should be among defensive abilities.

3) Entrap ability hasn't been tied to any kind of attack, and is thus unusable. If you ask me, I'd attach it to the bite (like spitting entrapping ice on successful hit), since it's the only attack with no linked ability.

Next would be the Dragons, but they are Hell, reverse-statting-wise, so I'm going to forget that they even exist and go on.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:

I don't have access to my spreadsheets any more, so I can't look up how these were built. But remember that the last step of making a mythic monster is "make sure its abilities and stats are appropriate for its new CR." So, frex, if its damage and SLA DCs are low, we probably boosted the Str and Cha to fix that.

In other words, just like magic item pricing, monster design (whether mythic or otherwise) is part art, part science.

Yep, I always assume that, but of course ignoring what was design choice and what actual error, I always point it out. After that, be what it must.

Elemental, Air, page 193

0) Question: this is maybe the first time I see DR listed in Swallow Whole stats. For an Elemental it makes sense, since it is composed of only one kind of matter and its inside is the same as the outside, but what about other creatures with more common flesh? Should DR apply?

1) Swallow Whole AC listed as 14, should be 21.

2) Slam damage has been increased from 2d8 of the non-mythic Air Elemental to 4d8 with no actual rule behind such change. Dunno if design choice or error.

3) Whirlwhind damage should be equal to slam damage, thus 4d8+11; it is listed as 2d8+9.


All four Elder Elementals, pages 193-196

Their non-mythic CR is 11; since their MR is 5, the final CR should be 11 + (5 / 2 [rounded down]) = 13, although I suppose they were purposedly brought up one CR by increasing their damage and considering their new mythic abilities.

Elemental, Earth, page 194

1) Mythic Improved Critical increase the multiplier by 1, not the range, so the critical info for the slam attacks should read "19-20/x3".

2) It gained two spell-like abilities, the highest of which is 5th level. That means that it needs at least Cha 15 to use it. The 4 points of abilty bonus increase from MR were spent on Int and Wis; if they were put into Cha, they'd bring it to exactly 15 and fix the problem, but then other things should be changed in the stat block (Will save, skills and concentration and the DC of Transmute Mud to Rock).

Looking back o the Svirfneblin (which has Cha 8 but has a number of spell-like abilities), if I recall correctly, it was resolved that a creature who has spell-like abilities, but not enough Cha, can still cast them as if it had the minimum Cha needed to cast them, upon which the DCs are calculated too. In the Elder Earth Elemental's case, this would mean that Transmute Mud to Rock would still have its DC changed from the listed 15 to 17 (10 + spell level + 2 [modifier of 15 Cha]).
Same process would apply to the Great Cyclops (issue #3, a few posts ago).


Astral Wanderer wrote:

Elemental, Air, page 193

1) Swallow Whole AC listed as 14, should be 21.

EC: it should be 16, not 21.

Elemental, Water, page 196

1) Swallow Whole AC listed as 14, should be 16.

2) Slam attack: Mythic Improved Critical issue as #2 for the Marilith and the Nalfeshnee in my previous posts.

3) CMD is listed as "48 (50 vs. bull rush or sunder)", but unless I'm missing something it should be "46 (48 vs. bull rush or sunder)". [Already including the bonus from Mythic Dodge.]


Ettin, page 197

1) The 2 flails' attack bonuses are listed as +13/+13, but they should be +13/+8 (two separate arms with two separate weapons, each of which can make two attacks).

2) The CMD entry is missing a "(26 vs. overrun)".

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My, you guys surely like to crunch the numbers! I probably wouldn't have spotted any of those "errors", since I (like SKR) think creating monsters is part art, part science.

When 'Deities & Demigods' came out for 3E, I started to create the dead god Moander's avatar for my FR campaign. Turns out the system was REALLY wonky, and I ended up with way, way too few "Salient Divine Abilities". Plus, his/its stats were also weird (too low, IIRC?). In the end I forgot all about Divine Ranks, SDAs and whatnot; I dicthed all limitations and created a 36-HD aberration-plant that had all the spells and abilities it needed.

(BTW, I'm not criticizing anyone; I'm just saying that all the Mythic stuff has looked just fine by me. Then again, I just wouldn't have the energy to pick apart all the monsters to see AC, skills or saves are off by one or two. ;))


Asgetrion wrote:

My, you guys surely like to crunch the numbers! I probably wouldn't have spotted any of those "errors", since I (like SKR) think creating monsters is part art, part science.

When 'Deities & Demigods' came out for 3E, I started to create the dead god Moander's avatar for my FR campaign. Turns out the system was REALLY wonky, and I ended up with way, way too few "Salient Divine Abilities". Plus, his/its stats were also weird (too low, IIRC?). In the end I forgot all about Divine Ranks, SDAs and whatnot; I dicthed all limitations and created a 36-HD aberration-plant that had all the spells and abilities it needed.

(BTW, I'm not criticizing anyone; I'm just saying that all the Mythic stuff has looked just fine by me. Then again, I just wouldn't have the energy to pick apart all the monsters to see AC, skills or saves are off by one or two. ;))

Well, as far as I'm concerned, there are two things to say.

First: I use dedicated software where I input the creatures for later use on my own games, and it's quick enough to do -which is good, given the little and scattered time I have for that- unless we're talking about things like Dragons who have a set of rules of their own they're created upon, making things much slower and chaotic. Finding errors is sort of a side-effect of that (numeric errors, primarily, just pop out on their own, unless I'm the one to make some mistake), and since I find them, I share them, so that Paizo can eventually use them for future re-prints/errata, or at least common players can look them up. Plus, sometimes the feedback on an error I report is useful for me too; doing this error-scanning work gave me a lot of useful insight on many rules, and other good things.
Second: even when I question if stuff may be too strong or too weak for a CR or things like that, I do it just on an objective point of view; on the subjective level, beside the fact that I haven't used mythic monsters in game yet, I'm one who has never had balancing issues with anything official I've used (including the Monk and Rogue everyone moans so loudly about), or at least I don't recall any significant issue, so, as previously said, since I wasn't there when they statted the monsters and thus don't know what is design choice and what actual error, I just point it out.

Gargoyle, page 198

Skills: Stealth bonus in stony areas and racial modifier for stealth in stony areas have numbers in excess written there (well, it's quicker if you look it up than if I try to describe it properly).

Dark Archive

Astral Wanderer, I know you guys are doing important work here; no question about it. It benefits everyone if later printings have less errors, and you're practically helping Paizo do that.

It just *amuses* me how good you guys are at this, since I rarely see any of them myself. And that is because I trust the books (I'm a librarian, after all!) and don't just have time to pour through stat blocks or feat lists. If I think something -- for example, a feat or spell -- just doesn't "click" (weird effect or wording), I make a ruling how it should work. :)

But, keep up the good work!


Giant, Fire, page 199

1) Greatsword attack bonuses read "+22/+17/+12", but thanks to the Precision ability they should be "+22/+22/+17".

2) The original Fire Giant's slam damage die was 1d8, here it has been lowered to 1d6.
Rock damage die, instead, brings up an old issue where the universal monster rule for Rock Throwing says the rock damage is generally double the base slam's damage (thus, for the Fire Giant, 2d8; or 2d6 if the slam's reduction was purposeful), but instead 90% if not more of the creatures with Rock Throwing haven't been statted with that doubling.

3) CMD listed as "34 (36 vs. overrun or sunder)", but should be "32 (34 vs. overrun or sunder)".


Golem, Flesh, page 201

Hp entry is "145 (10d10+90)", but should be "135 (10d10+80)". The bonus hit points are: +30 for being a Large Construct; +30 from MR; +20 from Mythic Thoughness.


Golem, Flesh, page 201

1) Bite's critical stats are listed as "18-20", but should be "19-20/x3", since Mythic Improved Critical increases the multiplier, not the range of the critical.

2) Skills issue. Total skill points are 36 [(6, -3 Int) * 12 HD].
- Acrobatics +15 (10 ranks, +2 Dex, +3 class)
- Perception +14 (7 ranks, +2 Wis, +3 class, +2 Alertness)
- Sense Motive +4 (+2 Wis, +2 Alertness)
- Stealth +17 (8 ranks, +2 Dex, +3 class, +5 racial, +3 skill focus, -4 size)
- Survival +17 (9 ranks, +2 Wis, +3 class, +3 skill focus)

10 + 7 + 8 + 9 = 34 skill points used; 2 still unassigned.


Lamia, page 205

Claws' attack bonus listed as +12, but should be +7, since they're made after manufactured weapon attacks and should be thus treated as a secondary natural attack.

Skipping Lich and Vampire; template upon template plus class levels is too much for my time and will.


Medusa, page 209

Snake Bites: same exact issue than for the Lamia's claw in the post above.


Minotaur, page 210

Gore: as the two posts above, except this time the numbers are 1 lower.


Mummy, page 211

Create Spawn states it can be used on a "slain opponent"; wouldn't it be better stated as a "slain humanoid" (and Medium, pehaps)?


Phoenix, page 214

Aura line: Shroud of Flame's DC is listed as 26, but should be 25 (it is listed correctly in the ability's description).


Rakshasa, page 215

1) Attacks: bite's attack bonus and damage bonus from Str are listed respectively as +5 and +3, but should be +10 and +5.

2) Sorcerer Spells: CL and concentration bonus are respectively listed as 7th and +12, but looking at the spells below, it's clear that the real CL should be 9th, thus bringing concentration to +14.
Also, there's a spell missing among the known level 0 spells.

Silver Crusade

Astral Wanderer wrote:

Giant, Fire, page 199

1) Greatsword attack bonuses read "+22/+17/+12", but thanks to the Precision ability they should be "+22/+22/+17".

2) The original Fire Giant's slam damage die was 1d8, here it has been lowered to 1d6.
Rock damage die, instead, brings up an old issue where the universal monster rule for Rock Throwing says the rock damage is generally double the base slam's damage (thus, for the Fire Giant, 2d8; or 2d6 if the slam's reduction was purposeful), but instead 90% if not more of the creatures with Rock Throwing haven't been statted with that doubling.

3) CMD listed as "34 (36 vs. overrun or sunder)", but should be "32 (34 vs. overrun or sunder)".

Great work, and while I hope that they will nerve the mythic abilities for characters quite a bit (way less work than changing all a lot of monsters and the adventure path and other books), correcting the stat blocks is very usefull, especially since it makes a lot of enemies a bit tougher.


Thanks.

Sphinx, page 217

1) Claws' critical info in Melee and Special Attacks lines: usual Mythic Improved Critical error of lowering the critical range by 1 instead of raising the multiplier by 1.
Basically, they are listed as "18-20", while they should be "19-20/x3".

2) Riddle special ability: actually, what is the save for? As the description is written, there is no benefit for making a successful one. Once it targets you, the Sphinx will get its +4 no matter what you do. The only way is to answer correctly, regardless of the save's result. Or perhaps if you're immune to compulsions or whatnot the Sphinx can't target you with this ability to begin with, but either way the save remains completely irrelevant, unless I'm missing something.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm sure Sean will drop in on this one, but it seems to me that if the compulsion were to require a standard or full-round action on the target's part while it tries to come up with an answer, the saving throw makes sense.

As it stands, you're better off voluntarily failing the save to prevent the bonuses.


Treant, page 218

1) Same as #1 in the above post.

2) Normal rule for Rock Throwing is that it deals double the slam's base damage. Given that the original Treant didn't double it, and that the mythic one's slam has been increased to 3d6, maybe the base damage here should have been 3d6 too? It has been left to 2d6, dunno if purposefully or as an error.

3) CMD is listed as "32 (34 vs. sunder)", but should be "30 (32 vs. sunder)".

4) Of truly minimum concern, but the paragraph for Druidic Magic has been put after Treespeech, while alphabetically it should go before it.

Contributor

The riddle is a magical ability. The sphinx's bonuses described in that ability only apply to creatures compelled to answer the riddle. In other words, if you pass the saving throw, you aren't compelled to answer and it doesn't get any bonuses against you for refusing to do so, fleeing, and so on.


Alright, I supposed it intended to be that way. So, "any creature that refuses to answer (via a successful saving throw)" should be removed/corrected from the text.

Worg, Winter Wolf, page 222

Not technically an error, but the Breath Weapon, which inflicts slow together with the damage, only says "Reflex DC 17 half"; in cases such as this, usually the save also negates the secondary affliction other than halving damage, but in this case it doesn't. Dunno if intentional or not.

Wyvern, page 222

1) Rake special attack: the attack bonus for the talons is listed as +10, but should be +11.

2) Swallow Whole special attack: AC is listed as 14, but should be 16 (10 + half the creature's natural armor).

______________________________

And with this, I'm off to Bestiary 4...


In the mythic version of "FORM OF THE DRAGON (ALL)" the write-up states the breath weapon damage "increases" to 10d6 (average of 35 and max of 60). That's a genuine increase for "FORM OF THE DRAGON I" (6d8 or average of 37 and max of 48) but is a decrease for "FORM OF THE DRAGON II" (which has a damage of 8d8 - or an average 36 and max of 64). It is really lame compared to FORM OF THE DRAGON III which already has 12d8 (average of 54 and max of 96). Since the mythic version increases the breath weapon damage by 25% for FORM OF THE DRAGON I, shouldn't the damage increase by 25% for FORM OF THE DRAGON II and III? That would make the mythic damage be 10d8 (for II) and 12d10 (for III).


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Sorry - mistyped the average for FotD I - should have been 27 (for 6d8) instead of 37. The basic complaint I have with the 10d6 "increase" for ALL versions still stands - even if my math is off. :)


The Base Mythic Ability "Force of Will" has the text "At 7th tier...", but in the chart, it appears at 6th tier.

Magik


The base ability "Mythic Saves" from the chart doesn't match the description below "Mythic Saving Throws". Also, the description mentions that if you fail a save from a mythic source then you take full effects, which is a given; however, it doesn't state what happens from a non-mythic source. Is there something special that happens?

"Mythic Saving Throws (Ex): At 5th tier, whenever you succeed at a saving throw against a spell or special ability, you suffer no effects as long as that ability didn't come from a mythic source (such as a creature with a mythic tier or mythic ranks). If you fail a saving throw that results from a mythic source, you take the full effects as normal."

Magik


It looks like Power Attack (Mythic) got progressively better with BAB, but Combat Expertise (Mythic) did not. Was that an oversight or a balance decision?

Magik


The text in Dual Path is controversial. The statement “Select a mythic path other than the path you selected at your moment of ascension.” is used to identify the path that you selected when you ascended, but many players read this as you can only take the Dual Path feat at the moment of ascension.

The Prerequisite also isn’t clear. Anyone that ascends has the 1st mythic tier, so anyone mythic qualifies; however, some believe that this references the only time at which you can take this feat.

As written, there is nothing stopping a player from taking this feat again to get a 3rd path or more.

Additionally, it looks like the 10th level feature in the newly selected path isn’t gained, so you may want to spell that out whichever way you intended it.

There are questions on what tier the feature and abilities of the new path function at. Since there is nothing stating anywhere that you need to keep track of another tier for the new path, I assume that they function at the only tier you have.

Magik


The Archmage ability “Crafting Mastery (Ex)” should be renamed to Item Creation Mastery. At first glance, a player would likely assume that it made you mythic at the skill: Craft.

“Speedy Summons (Su)” has the text “You must be at least 3rd tier to select this ability.” However, it appears under the 1st tier list of abilities.

“Many Forms (Su)” allows you to alter self at will, but the text makes it sound like it is not actually the spell you are affected by. Can this ability be dispelled or detected? “You can alter your appearance at will as if using alter self.”

“Mythic Spellpower (Sp)” is a 3rd tier ability, but it effectively has the same strength as taking the Universal path ability “Extra Mythic Power (Su)” and the mythic feat “Extra Mythic Power”, which give you 2 more uses of mythic power per day that isn’t limited to just spells. So an Archmage is better of taking these other two up to three times each before taking this Archmage ability.

“Surge (Su)” doesn’t specifically state that this modifies a natural 1 on the die roll. If your intent was to allow this to avoid critical failures, then this should be stated.

Magik


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Magik wrote:

The text in Dual Path is controversial. The statement “Select a mythic path other than the path you selected at your moment of ascension.” is used to identify the path that you selected when you ascended, but many players read this as you can only take the Dual Path feat at the moment of ascension.

The Prerequisite also isn’t clear. Anyone that ascends has the 1st mythic tier, so anyone mythic qualifies; however, some believe that this references the only time at which you can take this feat.

That's not how any other pre-requisite works, so why would this be different?

If it was meant to be taken only at first tier, it would explicitly say.

Quote:
As written, there is nothing stopping a player from taking this feat again to get a 3rd path or more.

You are only allowed to take a feat more than once if the feat explicitly allows that. So you can only take the feat once. Like most other feats.

Quote:

Additionally, it looks like the 10th level feature in the newly selected path isn’t gained, so you may want to spell that out whichever way you intended it.

There are questions on what tier the feature and abilities of the new path function at. Since there is nothing stating anywhere that you need to keep track of another tier for the new path, I assume that they function at the only tier you have.

It doesn't say you gain the 10th tier ability, so you don't gain it.

Your tier based abilities work with your tier.

As far as I can see, it works fine as written.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Magik wrote:
The Base Mythic Ability "Force of Will" has the text "At 7th tier...", but in the chart, it appears at 6th tier.

General consensus is that the chart is correct, because otherwise you wouldn't gain anything at 6th level.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Magik wrote:
“Surge (Su)” doesn’t specifically state that this modifies a natural 1 on the die roll. If your intent was to allow this to avoid critical failures, then this should be stated.

I don't think that is the intent. They would be explicit if it was. Force of Will let's you re-roll 1s, which seem a much more appropriate tier to be able to bypass critical failure.


deinol wrote:

That's not how any other pre-requisite works, so why would this be different?

If it was meant to be taken only at first tier, it would explicitly say.

Well, this is mythic, so it is different. :) The prerequisite could be rewritten as simply "Mythic tier" to clarify it.

I've read at least 3 conversations and 1 mythic guidance document that misinterpreted this feat. Simply changing the first sentence to: "Select another mythic path other than your current path." would go a long way.

deinol wrote:
It doesn't say you gain the 10th tier ability, so you don't gain it.

Sure, it doesn't say it, but it starts to imply that it was intended to be by calling the feat Dual Path and giving you the initial feature. It isn't a stretch to think that the 10th tier feature was accidentally not mentioned. Or, to look at it a different way, if the initial feature wasn't mentioned then it would be implied that you get both, because you now fully have both paths.


First off, props to the game devs on the Mythic rules. High power play is tough to write a rule set for.

Some feedback re: mounted characters in the Mythic rules. I think there is some room for clarity (and perchance a little bit of love) by way of errata or expanded FAQ on how certain Mythic path abilities function while a character is mounted, namely:
- Beast's Fury
- Fleet Charge
- Fleet Warrior
- Impossible Speed
- Burst Through
- Mirror Dodge
... Essentially any path ability that involves some form of movement.

Do these abilities cease to function while mounted, or does your movement - as part of the path ability - apply to your mount as well?


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Magik wrote:
deinol wrote:

That's not how any other pre-requisite works, so why would this be different?

If it was meant to be taken only at first tier, it would explicitly say.

Well, this is mythic, so it is different. :) The prerequisite could be rewritten as simply "Mythic tier" to clarify it.

I've read at least 3 conversations and 1 mythic guidance document that misinterpreted this feat. Simply changing the first sentence to: "Select another mythic path other than your current path." would go a long way.

Yes, but it is different in precisely the ways described in the Mythic Feats section, none of which says anything about changing how prerequisites work. Does anyone only allow Fighter's to take Weapon Specialization as their 4th level feat?

Quote:
deinol wrote:
It doesn't say you gain the 10th tier ability, so you don't gain it.
Sure, it doesn't say it, but it starts to imply that it was intended to be by calling the feat Dual Path and giving you the initial feature. It isn't a stretch to think that the 10th tier feature was accidentally not mentioned. Or, to look at it a different way, if the initial feature wasn't mentioned then it would be implied that you get both, because you now fully have both paths.

I don't think it implies that nearly as strongly as you think. The capstone abilities are quite strong, and better than most feats would grant. As opposed to the initial path abilities, where an extra can be acquired for as a path ability choice (or through the feat that gives another path ability).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Axiem wrote:

The only thing in the Mythic Adventures book that has me scratching my head thus far is the Spellcasting sub-ability within the Intelligent legendary ability you can apply to legendary weapons (Page 172).

-It's unclear whether you can "save" unspent points to use for a level 6-9 spell, or if the intent is to cap them at level 5.

-It's unclear if spells with expensive components are permissible; even capped at 5th level, you could put raise dead on it, then be ahead 5k gold each use... Or permanency, for arcane casters. (OR, if players CAN 'roll-over' the points to get 9th level spells, Wish and Miracle...)

Those are both things that I can easily houserule... I'm just curious what the design intent is. All in all I have to say it's definitely worth the money, though, my players are loving it so far.

If anyone has any light to shed on that, it'd be appreciated.

Staff of Life already gives you raise dead at no cost if you recharge it with heal spells. There's a precedent for frontloading the costs of material components.


Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Weapons in stat blocks are not carved in stone.

They weren't, but then they looked into the eyes of a mythic medusa...

Also, "but you can houserule it!" isn't a defense of bad design.

Now that I have the book, I should start a houserule fix topic over in houserules where it belongs. Giving her a bandoleer of throwing daggers she coated with snake venom seems like a good idea. Do those feats work with thrown weapons?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

If there is errata, can the wording of Mythic Combat Reflexes be clarified?

Mythic Combar Reflexes wrote:
Benefit: You can make any number of additional attacks of opportunity per round. As a swift action, you can expend one use of mythic power to, until the start of your next turn, make attacks of opportunity against foes you've already made attacks of opportunity against this round if they provoke attacks of opportunity from you by moving.

In the rule as written, expending mythic power is useless; You can already take multiple attacks of opportunity for multiple opportunities (spell casting, moving, greater trip), and this does not explicitly override the rule of 1 AoO per move (it only says you can make attacks against people that move, which you can already do by RAW). Many posts of the forums and my own interpretation of the rule as intended is that this should be 1 AoO provoked per threatened square left, as opposed to the normal 1 AoO cap from movement per turn. Is that in fact the correct interpretation?


If you upgrade a staff to an artifact, does it go to 50 charges like a staff of the magi? You will already be 50th mythic level, so are staff charges 10 per mythic level for the bonded staff?

Grand Lodge

Pg. 81 - Mythic 3rd-level bard spells

In the list of mythic 3rd-level bard spells, divine favor is included, but that spell is not on the bard spell list.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pg. 83 - Mythic summoner spells

Since the release of Pathfinder Unchained, the summoner now has its correct spell list published (the one it was always intended to get, but the APG was published with the wrong spell list and Paizo just had to go with it). For those with an unchained summoner, or for GMs like myself that enforce the Unchained Summoner's spell list even with a vanilla summoner player, then on Page 83 the mythic spell list for the summoner will differ slightly. You can make the following changes to adhere to the unchained version:

* 2nd-level spells: Move ablative barrier, haste, and slow to the 3rd-level list.
* 3rd-level spells: Move black tentacles, dimension door, fire shield, stoneskin, wall of fire, and wall of ice to the 4th-level list.
* 4th-level spells: Move baleful polymorph, sending, and wall of stone to the 5th-level list.
* 5th-level spells: Move plane shift and wall of iron to the 6th-level list
* 6th-level spells: Delete all three spells mentioned in this list, and instead use those moved from the 5th-level list mentioned earlier.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pg. 83 - Mythic 2nd-level ranger spells

In the list of mythic 2nd-level ranger spells, animate dead is included, but that spell is not on the ranger spell list.

Grand Lodge

Strife2002 wrote:

Pg. 83 - Mythic summoner spells

Since the release of Pathfinder Unchained, the summoner now has its correct spell list published (the one it was always intended to get, but the APG was published with the wrong spell list and Paizo just had to go with it). For those with an unchained summoner, or for GMs like myself that enforce the Unchained Summoner's spell list even with a vanilla summoner player, then on Page 83 the mythic spell list for the summoner will differ slightly. You can make the following changes to adhere to the unchained version:

* 2nd-level spells: Move ablative barrier, haste, and slow to the 3rd-level list.
* 3rd-level spells: Move black tentacles, dimension door, fire shield, stoneskin, wall of fire, and wall of ice to the 4th-level list.
* 4th-level spells: Move baleful polymorph, sending, and wall of stone to the 5th-level list.
* 5th-level spells: Move plane shift and wall of iron to the 6th-level list
* 6th-level spells: Delete all three spells mentioned in this list, and instead use those moved from the 5th-level list mentioned earlier.

There's a handful I missed here since I forgot the unchained summoner got a few extra spells that it's vanilla counterpart doesn't have:

* 1st-level spells: Add obscuring mist to the 1st-level list.
* 2nd-level spells: Add fog cloud to the 2nd-level list.
* 3rd-level spells: Add stinking cloud to the 3rd-level list.
* 4th-level spells: Add solid fog to the 4th-level list.
* 5th-level spells: Add cloudkill to the 5th-level list.

Grand Lodge

Pg. 154 - Mithral rose

This item says wearing it on your chest allows you to treat "all natural attacks, unarmed attacks, and weapon attacks as if they were made using silver weapons". Should this instead have said they're treated this way for the purposes of overcoming DR? Or should the wearer also subtract 1 from their damage like you do with silver weapons? I know the item's called a mithral rose, so it implies you treat it instead like a mithral weapon (like silver but without the damage penalty), but the text specifically said "silver weapon".

Grand Lodge

JoelF847 wrote:

p. 161 Screaming Spear of the Sun - what effect does having this spear lodged in a target have? The rules explain how to remove it, but there doesn't seem to be any penalty to having it stuck in you. As written, if my character had this stuck in them, they'd just leave it there until after combat.

I'd suggest at a minimum it giving the entangled condition.

It doesn't have an effect or inherent penalty per se, but being lodged means it has to be removed, either eventually after the battle by the victim or possibly during battle by the wielder him or herself. The "game effect" is only the damage one takes from being forced to remove the spear.

Grand Lodge

JoelF847 wrote:
p. 215 Rakshasa - the telepathic dodge ability doesn't indicate how much of an insight bonus it grants. Also, the AC listing in the stat block includes a +5 insight bonus (which suggests that the bonus is equal to the Charisma bonus), but since that bonus doesn't apply to all opponents, wouldn't it be standard not to include in the baseline AC listed?

Or possibly equal to mythic rank.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

Strife2002 wrote:
JoelF847 wrote:

p. 161 Screaming Spear of the Sun - what effect does having this spear lodged in a target have? The rules explain how to remove it, but there doesn't seem to be any penalty to having it stuck in you. As written, if my character had this stuck in them, they'd just leave it there until after combat.

I'd suggest at a minimum it giving the entangled condition.

It doesn't have an effect or inherent penalty per se, but being lodged means it has to be removed, either eventually after the battle by the victim or possibly during battle by the wielder him or herself. The "game effect" is only the damage one takes from being forced to remove the spear.

Technically they wouldn't have to to remove it ever. Might look pretty silly with a spear lodged in them forever, but if there's no penalty for having it stuck in you which encourages you to remove it, why do so?

201 to 250 of 256 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / Possible Mythic Adventures errata All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.