Advanced Class Guide Potential Errors


Product Discussion

251 to 300 of 1,126 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Pg. 186 - Line in the sand spell

This spell is also missing its saving throw and spell resistance information. Typically the only spells that get a pass from this are those with "Personal" as the range and "You" as the target. This spell is very similar to a spell like that, so saving throw and spell resistance entries are probably "None" and "No", respectively.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pg. 188 - Molten orb spell

It looks as though this spell should have had both the earth and fire descriptors.


Chemlak wrote:
Kana wrote:
ngc7293 wrote:

Pg. 55

Quote:


Rogue and Ninja Advanced Talents: A slayer can select
any of the following advanced ninja or rogue talents
in place of an advanced slayer talent: deadly sneakAPG,
evasionUC, hunter’s surpriseAPG, knock-out blowAPG, master
of disguiseAPG, opportunist, and stealthy sniperAPG. A slayer
can select this advanced talent multiple times

The last part bolded by me

It doesn't make sense. It says THIS advanced talent and that could be the mistake but none of the Advanced talents can be taken multiple times (normally as far as I read)

It is as if it was meant for another talent and that was deleted and this piece of text was left. It isn't in the revised Playtest.

I read that to mean that you can choose to take a Rogue or Ninja Advanced Talent in place of another Slayer Advanced Talent more than once. Though I do see how that wording could be confusing.
Basically, there is a Slayer Advanced Talent called "Rogue and Ninja Advanced Talents". This talent may be selected multiple times. Each time it is selected, pick a Rogue or Ninja Advanced Talent from the available list.

There is another way to look at it. It could be just a Sub heading under Slayer Talents. It should be extra advanced talents from rogue and ninja IMHO.

Obviously no one has the impression that these Rogue & Ninja Advanced Talents are not a Singular Slayer Talent and thus the slayer is allowed to take all of them. That would be crazy.

Now, even if you were to STILL go with the idea that this is a Slayer Talent not a secondary list of talents there is the problem of singular and plural

"Rogue and Ninja Advanced Talents:" is obviously plural while the last line

"A slayer can select this advanced talent multiple times" ...is singular

As I said before, if I didn't notice the last line, I wouldn't be annoying people with it. ;)


Any news on when an Errata pack is supposed to come out for the ACG? (If nothing else, when is a second printing planned for, since this would likely coincide if an Errata pack wasn't released earlier?)


A second printing is unlikely to happen anytime soon. Paizo's gotten better and better at estimating how many copies of a book they'll sell, and so there's longer periods of time between each new printing. We know the ACG got "tens of thousands" of copies printed in the first batch. Incidentally, this is why the errata packs have slowed down in general.

Hopefully we'll get a decent run at some of the bigger issues created by the book soon. Mark in particular seems very keen to push out more FAQs. :)


Kits in the ACG don't line up with the UE kits for weight and cost.

Barbarian vs Bloodrager is the most obvious, as the only difference is the Barbarian kit weighs LESS despite containing "Rope" (Which I assume is 50 feet of hemp rope worth 1 GP and weighing 10 pounds) while the Bloodrager kit does not. Despite this the Bloodrager kit costs the same while weighing 3 pounds more.

Additionally, only the Warpriest has a holy symbol or spell component pouch in his kit (while all UE kits contained these if needed).

Plume of Panache makes no sense.


Kudaku wrote:

A second printing is unlikely to happen anytime soon. Paizo's gotten better and better at estimating how many copies of a book they'll sell, and so there's longer periods of time between each new printing. We know the ACG got "tens of thousands" of copies printed in the first batch. Incidentally, this is why the errata packs have slowed down in general.

Hopefully we'll get a decent run at some of the bigger issues created by the book soon. Mark in particular seems very keen to push out more FAQs. :)

This. APG sold out the year it was printed and got a second printing in the same year, and it hasn't had a new printing since then. That was in 2010.


Hey, first post on this forum. Just wanted to say, people are talking about the problems with the Pack Flanking feat where the wording seems not to benefit the animal companion who gets it.

How about the part where the feat requires Int 13, which no animal companion is going to reach without serious magic items/GM intervention? And Combat Expertise isn't on the animal companion feats list, either (although reaching Int 3 lets them take off-list feats).

Contributor

ExperimentKraj wrote:

Hey, first post on this forum. Just wanted to say, people are talking about the problems with the Pack Flanking feat where the wording seems not to benefit the animal companion who gets it.

How about the part where the feat requires Int 13, which no animal companion is going to reach without serious magic items/GM intervention? And Combat Expertise isn't on the animal companion feats list, either (although reaching Int 3 lets them take off-list feats).

"Hunter Tactics (Ex): At 3rd level, the hunter automatically grants her teamwork feats to her animal companion. The companion doesn’t need to meet the prerequisitesof these teamwork feats." —ACG, page 28


The Fortuitous Weapon Ability not working with Parry and Riposting seems like a big error. I mean it is all about adding a second attack to AoO attacks and well this seems to be the Swashbucklers gimmick.

Answering is just awesome (Count your +1 Rapier as a +5 when using Parry and Riposte)


The Genie wrote:

The Fortuitous Weapon Ability not working with Parry and Riposting seems like a big error. I mean it is all about adding a second attack to AoO attacks and well this seems to be the Swashbucklers gimmick.

Answering is just awesome (Count your +1 Rapier as a +5 when using Parry and Riposte)

This was answered in another thread. Parry and riposte does not qualify because the attack does not hit anything and Fortuitous requires a hit to land. It was also question as to whether or not Parry and Ripsote is actually an attack of opportunity or whether it just expended the use of use. However in any event not hitting shuts down the idea on its own.


wraithstrike wrote:
The Genie wrote:

The Fortuitous Weapon Ability not working with Parry and Riposting seems like a big error. I mean it is all about adding a second attack to AoO attacks and well this seems to be the Swashbucklers gimmick.

Answering is just awesome (Count your +1 Rapier as a +5 when using Parry and Riposte)

This was answered in another thread. Parry and riposte does not qualify because the attack does not hit anything and Fortuitous requires a hit to land. It was also question as to whether or not Parry and Ripsote is actually an attack of opportunity or whether it just expended the use of use. However in any event not hitting shuts down the idea on its own.

True perhaps

But we can do a few things as an attack of opportunity like Combat Maneuvers, using a Deed, in completion as a AoO isn't such a far strength. True we do not know for sure if it counts as one, but we know it does for Fencer trait and the like as it has been mentioned before.

So what if it works like this
Use AoO
Make the Parry
Make the Riposte
End the AoO

Now you did in fact land a blow during a AoO. Of course that is reading into the rules a little more then I think was intended. But because you can make an AoO CM Check and it still counts as an AoO to make a check (Sometimes not a hit) and it still count is confusing.


I did check the ability. It is not really an AoO. You are just expending one. As for combat maneuvers you still hitting the target CMD so I guess that might work, but not this ability since you not hitting anything or making an actual AoO.

Quote:
Opportune Parry and Riposte (Ex): At 1st level, when an opponent makes a melee attack against the swashbuckler, she can spend 1 panache point and expend a use of an attack of opportunity to attempt to parry that attack.

If it was an AoO they could just say you were making an attack of opportunity.


wraithstrike wrote:

I did check the ability. It is not really an AoO. You are just expending one. As for combat maneuvers you still hitting the target CMD so I guess that might work, but not this ability since you not hitting anything or making an actual AoO.

Quote:
Opportune Parry and Riposte (Ex): At 1st level, when an opponent makes a melee attack against the swashbuckler, she can spend 1 panache point and expend a use of an attack of opportunity to attempt to parry that attack.

If it was an AoO they could just say you were making an attack of opportunity.

They could have also just said you use an immediate or swift action. Trust me Swashbuckler has loads of them 1 more wouldn't hurt.

Also is there any other ability anywhere that expends an AoO but is not considered one?


The Genie wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

I did check the ability. It is not really an AoO. You are just expending one. As for combat maneuvers you still hitting the target CMD so I guess that might work, but not this ability since you not hitting anything or making an actual AoO.

Quote:
Opportune Parry and Riposte (Ex): At 1st level, when an opponent makes a melee attack against the swashbuckler, she can spend 1 panache point and expend a use of an attack of opportunity to attempt to parry that attack.

If it was an AoO they could just say you were making an attack of opportunity.

They could have also just said you use an immediate or swift action. Trust me Swashbuckler has loads of them 1 more wouldn't hurt.

Also is there any other ability anywhere that expends an AoO but is not considered one?

There might be. I don't know if there are others or not. If so they would not activate the weapon ability either.

My point is that with the way both abilities were written it is not an error that they don't work together. If they had said "if the AoO is "successful" then that would be more open than a "hit". Combine that with actually making the ability be an AoO, and the two would work together without a problem.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Luthorne wrote:
I also oticed that Improved Spell Sharing, Pack Flanking, and Share Healing are all teamwork feats that technically only function if your animal companion, eidolon, familiar, or special mount also possesses the feat...which normally it can't because it does not have the ability to acquire one (and if it could that would be pretty silly). Pack Flanking I could let slide as being a Hunter-only feat, since it only lists animal companions, but the other two specifically call out eidolons, familiars, and special mounts as options, so it seems problematic. Mind you, I think most DMs would allow your animal companion, eidolon, familiar, or special mount to take it anyways, since that seems the intent...

It's not an error; there are many ways to legitimately get around that prereq. For example, the cavalier class's tactician ability allows him to grant a teamwork feat to *all* allies, and those allies don't need to meet the prerequisites. So if your party has a cavalier with Share Healing, a witch with a familiar, and a summoner with the eidolon, when the cavalier uses tactician to share Share Healing, all three of those characters can use the feat to split healing with their companion creature.

Also, many time the designers leave in some things as options for future content, even though there's no content in that book that allows it. For example, there could be a future summoner archetype that grants his eidolon a teamwork feat, or a witch archetype that does the same thing, and so on.

As an add-on to what Sean said:

In particular there is the valet familiar archetype:

Quote:
Teammate (Ex): A valet is considered to have all the teamwork feats its master has.

It's on page 21 of the animal archive and is one of my favorite archetypes.

Also the animal archive (to my understanding) goes on about trading out feats for familiars for other feats.


wraithstrike wrote:
The Genie wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

I did check the ability. It is not really an AoO. You are just expending one. As for combat maneuvers you still hitting the target CMD so I guess that might work, but not this ability since you not hitting anything or making an actual AoO.

Quote:
Opportune Parry and Riposte (Ex): At 1st level, when an opponent makes a melee attack against the swashbuckler, she can spend 1 panache point and expend a use of an attack of opportunity to attempt to parry that attack.

If it was an AoO they could just say you were making an attack of opportunity.

They could have also just said you use an immediate or swift action. Trust me Swashbuckler has loads of them 1 more wouldn't hurt.

Also is there any other ability anywhere that expends an AoO but is not considered one?

There might be. I don't know if there are others or not. If so they would not activate the weapon ability either.

My point is that with the way both abilities were written it is not an error that they don't work together. If they had said "if the AoO is "successful" then that would be more open than a "hit". Combine that with actually making the ability be an AoO, and the two would work together without a problem.

The Bodyguard feat allows you to give up an use of AoO to instead aid other to increase an ally's AC. It is a feat I use a lot on tank/martial builds to help give incentive to attack me (after all when the fighter gives the wizard 6+ points of AC when you finally got to where you could hit the wizard you tend to get upset at the fighter).


I like the bodyguard feat. There is also a weapon and armor ability that adds the item's enhancement bonus IIRC.

Grand Lodge

Not really an error, but wanted to point out that this book missed an opportunity to beef up the qinggong monk archetype by selecting feats and spells that could have been selectable by qinggong monk's as ki powers (just like mighty fist of the earth and stone shield from Advanced Race Guide did). The spells extreme flexibility, heightened reflexes (self only), long arm, nauseating dart, persistent vigor, sundering shards, thunderstomp, and greater thunderstomp come to mind as excellent candidates.


That would imply that paizo likes the monk somehow.


This isn't really an error either, but along the lines of Strife's qinggong disappointment, I'm rather miffed that the feats Kick Up and Killing Flourish are unavailable to fighters. Kick Up certainly seems like something they'd be able to do, and Killing Flourish... They can already do the same as Killing Flourish with Dreadful Carnage, except as a free action instead of a swift, and 7 levels later.


Thymus Vulgaris wrote:
This isn't really an error either, but along the lines of Strife's qinggong disappointment, I'm rather miffed that the feats Kick Up and Killing Flourish are unavailable to fighters. Kick Up certainly seems like something they'd be able to do, and Killing Flourish... They can already do the same as Killing Flourish with Dreadful Carnage, except as a free action instead of a swift, and 7 levels later.

Kick Up strikes me as an underwhelming feat in general. It has Acrobatic as a prerequisite, is limited to 10 lb weapons or less irregardless of your strength score, and it doesn't say anything about not provoking AoOs so you're still getting smacked when you use the feat.

It could be useful for a disarm-focused build as long as he's not fighting anything that's Large or larger? Maybe?

It's also showcased with art showing the magus iconic using it... I guess Seltiyel took a level of swashbuckler.


Can someone give me the wording of the new ACG Dex to Damage feat?


ifyou're referring to slashing grace:

Spoiler:

Slashing Grace (Combat)
You can stab your enemies with your sword or another
slashing weapon.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus
with chosen weapon.
Benefit: Choose one kind of one-handed slashing
weapon (such as the longsword). When wielding your
chosen weapon one-handed, you can treat it as a
one-handed piercing melee weapon for all feats and
class abilities that require such a weapon (such as a
swashbuckler’s or a duelist’s precise strike) and you can
add your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength
modifier to that weapon’s damage. The weapon must be
one appropriate for your size.

needlessly restrictive/specific. only seems worth really considering for the sawtooth saber.

note that it doesnt work with light weapons, giving the impression that in paizo's mind it makes more sense to be able to dex-to-damage a dwarven waraxe than a dagger (and it shoots the 'iconic' rogue in the foot yet again because of it).

fencing grace (which is literally slashing grace but ONLY for rapiers, still not addressing the no-light-weapons-DtD issue) is not in the ACG. it's in the next book, so you'll have to shell out more money if you want it (wonderful way to treat your fans/paying customers, paizo!).


AndIMustMask wrote:

ifyou're referring to slashing grace:** spoiler omitted **

needlessly restrictive/specific. only seems worth really considering for the sawtooth saber.

note that it doesnt work with light weapons, giving the impression that in paizo's mind it makes more sense to be able to dex-to-damage a dwarven waraxe than a dagger (and it shoots the 'iconic' rogue in the foot yet again because of it).

Why doesnt it work with Light weapons? Where does it say that?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

DrDeth wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:

ifyou're referring to slashing grace:** spoiler omitted **

needlessly restrictive/specific. only seems worth really considering for the sawtooth saber.

note that it doesnt work with light weapons, giving the impression that in paizo's mind it makes more sense to be able to dex-to-damage a dwarven waraxe than a dagger (and it shoots the 'iconic' rogue in the foot yet again because of it).

Why doesnt it work with Light weapons? Where does it say that?

In the Core Rulebook, where it says that "light" is one category and "one-handed" is another.


DrDeth wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:

ifyou're referring to slashing grace:** spoiler omitted **

needlessly restrictive/specific. only seems worth really considering for the sawtooth saber.

note that it doesnt work with light weapons, giving the impression that in paizo's mind it makes more sense to be able to dex-to-damage a dwarven waraxe than a dagger (and it shoots the 'iconic' rogue in the foot yet again because of it).

Why doesnt it work with Light weapons? Where does it say that?

The part where it says it only works with one-handed weapons (which are different from light weapons as Jiggy said):

Slashing Grace (Combat)

You can stab your enemies with your sword or another slashing weapon.

Prerequisites: Dex 13, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus with chosen weapon.

Benefit: Choose one kind of one-handed slashing weapon (such as the longsword). When wielding your chosen weapon one-handed, you can treat it as a one-handed piercing melee weapon for all feats and class abilities that require such a weapon (such as a swashbuckler’s or a duelist’s precise strike) and you can add your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to that weapon’s damage. The weapon must be one appropriate for your size.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wyntr wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:

ifyou're referring to slashing grace:** spoiler omitted **

needlessly restrictive/specific. only seems worth really considering for the sawtooth saber.

note that it doesnt work with light weapons, giving the impression that in paizo's mind it makes more sense to be able to dex-to-damage a dwarven waraxe than a dagger (and it shoots the 'iconic' rogue in the foot yet again because of it).

Why doesnt it work with Light weapons? Where does it say that?

The part where it says it only works with one-handed weapons (which are different from light weapons as Jiggy said):

S

Are we sure that this meant the CATEGORY "one handed" and not "wielding your chosen weapon one-handed"?

Anyway- Isnt a Scimitar a one handed slashing weapon?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Wyntr wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:

ifyou're referring to slashing grace:** spoiler omitted **

needlessly restrictive/specific. only seems worth really considering for the sawtooth saber.

note that it doesnt work with light weapons, giving the impression that in paizo's mind it makes more sense to be able to dex-to-damage a dwarven waraxe than a dagger (and it shoots the 'iconic' rogue in the foot yet again because of it).

Why doesnt it work with Light weapons? Where does it say that?

The part where it says it only works with one-handed weapons (which are different from light weapons as Jiggy said):

S

Are we sure that this meant the CATEGORY "one handed" and not "wielding your chosen weapon one-handed"?

Anyway- Isnt a Scimitar a one handed slashing weapon?

Fun fact, the majority of weapons that are in the one handed category and also deal slashing damage are not compatible with Weapon Finesse. So if you took Slashing Grace with a Scimitar, you would get strength to attack rolls and dexterity to damage.

The only compatible weapons are the Aldori Dueling Sword and the Whip if I recall correctly.

As an aside, if you are a Swashbuckler or a Daring Champion Cavalier, you have less issue as Slashing Grace allows you to treat the weapon as if it were a one-handed piercing weapon for class features, which then triggers the Swashbucklers Finesse class feature of the above two classes. That means Slashing Grace only *truly* works if you have at least one level in Swashbuckler or Daring Champion Cavalier, anyone else is paying for a feat that only partially works, and clunkily at that.


^Although Weapon Finesse itself isn't compatible with a Scimitar, Dervish Dance does let you get both Dex to Attack and Dex to Damage. Since it has Weapon Finesse as a Feat Tax, and since Dervish Dance has caused scimitars to be popular weapons, maybe the designers just didn't think of what you mention as being a problem for Slashing Grace.


UnArcaneElection wrote:

^Although Weapon Finesse itself isn't compatible with a Scimitar, Dervish Dance does let you get both Dex to Attack and Dex to Damage. Since it has Weapon Finesse as a Feat Tax, and since Dervish Dance has caused scimitars to be popular weapons, maybe the designers just didn't think of what you mention as being a problem for Slashing Grace.

[Edit] Actually, you know what, see this thread for the SLashing Grace discussion where the issues and nuances of the feat have been discussed in exhausting detail.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

DrDeth wrote:
Wyntr wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:

ifyou're referring to slashing grace:** spoiler omitted **

needlessly restrictive/specific. only seems worth really considering for the sawtooth saber.

note that it doesnt work with light weapons, giving the impression that in paizo's mind it makes more sense to be able to dex-to-damage a dwarven waraxe than a dagger (and it shoots the 'iconic' rogue in the foot yet again because of it).

Why doesnt it work with Light weapons? Where does it say that?

The part where it says it only works with one-handed weapons (which are different from light weapons as Jiggy said):

S

Are we sure that this meant the CATEGORY "one handed" and not "wielding your chosen weapon one-handed"?

Anyway- Isnt a Scimitar a one handed slashing weapon?

Find your answer?


Jiggy wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Wyntr wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:

ifyou're referring to slashing grace:** spoiler omitted **

needlessly restrictive/specific. only seems worth really considering for the sawtooth saber.

note that it doesnt work with light weapons, giving the impression that in paizo's mind it makes more sense to be able to dex-to-damage a dwarven waraxe than a dagger (and it shoots the 'iconic' rogue in the foot yet again because of it).

Why doesnt it work with Light weapons? Where does it say that?

The part where it says it only works with one-handed weapons (which are different from light weapons as Jiggy said):

S

Are we sure that this meant the CATEGORY "one handed" and not "wielding your chosen weapon one-handed"?

Anyway- Isnt a Scimitar a one handed slashing weapon?

Find your answer?

Yes, Mark made this clear. But it is confusing.


We're not quite sure if restricting Slashing Grace to one-handed weapons is an intended limitation on the feat or if it was simple oversight and the feat is intended to work with light weapons - that they simply bungled the wording. The later announcement of a feat that does the same thing for rapiers but no comments on rephrasing Slashing Grace makes me suspect it's the former.

As it is you CAN make slashing grace work (but not with light weapons) by dipping swashbuckler, which get weapon finesse with all one-handed piercing weapons. That way you can get dexterity to damage with a battleaxe, but not a shortsword - something I personally find a little counterintuitive.

The other option is to use one of a handful of weapons that are both one-handed and can be used with weapon finesse. The aldori dueling sword and the whip are examples of these.

It would be nice to have a developer speak up on this somewhere down the line.


Last I checked Jason hasn't posted since sometime around the 1st this month.


Insain Dragoon wrote:
Last I checked Jason hasn't posted since sometime around the 1st this month.

Based off his Facebook posts, it seems alot of his free time has been consumed by his Pirate Loot game/kickstarter, so I'd suspect his presence on the boards will remain diminished for awhile.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well he did say that he would post about ACG after Gencon! Can't wait for that to end lol.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
deuxhero wrote:

Kits in the ACG don't line up with the UE kits for weight and cost.

Barbarian vs Bloodrager is the most obvious, as the only difference is the Barbarian kit weighs LESS despite containing "Rope" (Which I assume is 50 feet of hemp rope worth 1 GP and weighing 10 pounds) while the Bloodrager kit does not. Despite this the Bloodrager kit costs the same while weighing 3 pounds more.

Additionally, only the Warpriest has a holy symbol or spell component pouch in his kit (while all UE kits contained these if needed).

Plume of Panache makes no sense.

I personally am baffled by the Arcanist's Kit, which has exactly the same contents as the Wizard's Kit, has the same price, and is somehow 18 pounds heavier. (39 vs 21 lbs)


singingzombies wrote:
I personally am baffled by the Arcanist's Kit, which has exactly the same contents as the Wizard's Kit, has the same price, and is somehow 18 pounds heavier. (39 vs 21 lbs)

Bored at work tonight, so I figured I'd do the math on this. Near as I can tell the kit should actually weigh 34 lb?

Torches (10) + bedroll (5) + trail rations (5) + iron pot (4) + waterskin (4) + backpack (2) + spell component pouch (2) + mess kit (1) + belt pouch (.5) + soap (.5) = 34

All numbers taken from Ultimate Equipment.

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

Is twilight haze supposed to be better than fog cloud when they're both 2nd level wizard spells? It states that it acts as fog cloud, plus drops the illumination level by one step, and since it's illusionary it's unaffected by wind and can be cast underwater?

While it's certainly not as good as stinking cloud, it should have some way it's not as good as fog cloud, such as at least having a token material component cost (it doesn't even have a material component), like euphoric cloud does, even though it's only 5 gp.

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

Is there a reason heightened reflexes is a bard only spell? Normally bard only spells are either language dependent, sonic, or intereact with bardic performance. While I certainly see that this spell is nice for skalds, it's not especially bardic in theme, and certainly doesn't have any reason I can see that a wizard/sorcerer shouldn't be able to cast it.

Grand Lodge

Pg. 204 - Hunter's kit

This kit needs a spell component pouch as well as holly and mistletoe to serve as a divine focus.

Grand Lodge

Pg. 35 - Shaman

I noticed this when I was reading about the shaman's kit on page 205 and saw it doesn't come with a divine focus.

What does the shaman use as a divine focus? Or do they not require one like an oracle? They venerate spirits, but would spirits have a holy symbol? Is it assumed they use a theme-generic holy symbol that clerics that venerate a cause or ideal rather than a deity use?

In any case, if the latter is true, and I'm starting to think it does, then the shaman's kit on page 205 needs a holy/unholy symbol.

EDIT: Also the shaman's kit is missing a spell component pouch.


JoelF847 wrote:

Is twilight haze supposed to be better than fog cloud when they're both 2nd level wizard spells? It states that it acts as fog cloud, plus drops the illumination level by one step, and since it's illusionary it's unaffected by wind and can be cast underwater?

While it's certainly not as good as stinking cloud, it should have some way it's not as good as fog cloud, such as at least having a token material component cost (it doesn't even have a material component), like euphoric cloud does, even though it's only 5 gp.

There is the duration - Fog cloud is 10 min/level while twilight haze is 1 round/level. Darkness is in the middle with 1 min/level, but you can cast Darkness on an item and carry it around with you.

I'm not entirely sure if Illusion (Shadow) is countered by True Seeing, but that might also be a factor when comparing fog cloud and twilight haze?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Insain Dragoon wrote:
Well he did say that he would post about ACG after Gencon! Can't wait for that to end lol.

Apparently that excuse has been milked to its fullest extent, considering GenCon ended nearly a month ago.

Grand Lodge

Pg. 206 - Tome of epics

This item grants a bonus on two Perform checks: Perform (oratory) and Perform (vocal). There is no such thing as perform (vocal). It probably meant Perform (sing).

Also, it doesn't list what kind of bonus these bonuses are to these Perform checks, but it does mention that the bonus to Knowledge (nobility) is a circumstance bonus. They should probably all be circumstance bonuses.

Grand Lodge

deuxhero wrote:

Kits in the ACG don't line up with the UE kits for weight and cost.

...

Additionally, only the Warpriest has a holy symbol or spell component pouch in his kit (while all UE kits contained these if needed).

Not true, actually. The warpriest has his holy symbol, but is missing his spell component pouch. That needs to be added to his kit (page 206). Furthermore, both the arcanist and the investigator have their material-component-providing item (spell component pouch and alchemy crafting kit, respectively), so they're fine in that regard.

Finally, the UE kits weren't all peachy-keen. The bard's kit, oracle's kit, and summoner's kit were all missing their spell component pouches.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pg. 208 - Vomit capsule

Not an error, just an observation. This item says its purpose is primarily for criminals wanting to create a distraction. I'm not a designer, but I feel like the perfect use for an item like this is as an alchemical remedy to help stave off the effects of ingested poisons. Something along the lines of "biting down on this capsule 1 round after swallowing an ingested poison allows you to roll twice on your next saving throw against its effects and take the higher result."

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

Kudaku wrote:
JoelF847 wrote:

Is twilight haze supposed to be better than fog cloud when they're both 2nd level wizard spells? It states that it acts as fog cloud, plus drops the illumination level by one step, and since it's illusionary it's unaffected by wind and can be cast underwater?

While it's certainly not as good as stinking cloud, it should have some way it's not as good as fog cloud, such as at least having a token material component cost (it doesn't even have a material component), like euphoric cloud does, even though it's only 5 gp.

There is the duration - Fog cloud is 10 min/level while twilight haze is 1 round/level. Darkness is in the middle with 1 min/level, but you can cast Darkness on an item and carry it around with you.

I'm not entirely sure if Illusion (Shadow) is countered by True Seeing, but that might also be a factor when comparing fog cloud and twilight haze?

True, I had missed the duration being shorter. However, since most of the time either spell would be used in combat, and combats last a few rounds only, fog cloud lasing 10 min/level isn't really that much of a balancing factor.

Grand Lodge

Pg. 208 - Dust knuckles

This item raises several questions:

1) So a glove has, what, 4 vial inserts? One for each knuckle? So on Table 5-4: Alchemical Weapons where it lists Dust knuckle vials (4), those 4 are all used for one "application" right? It's not 4 uses but really a set of 4 that gets inserted into one glove at once? What's odd is the diamond dust vials don't mention a quantity.

2) The description says you can fill the vials with ground glass or poison. Is the "ground glass" it's referring to the same as those diamond dust vials described further on? If not, what does ground glass do?

3) So you can fill them with poison. What kind? The standard assumption would be injury and contact. What about inhaled? You're punching someone in the face; the imagery of a glass cloud bursting forth from the impact of your fist comes to mind, like when you smack someone with a florescent bulb.

4) It should probably mention that vials filled with poison add the poison to their cost.

251 to 300 of 1,126 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / Advanced Class Guide Potential Errors All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.