Search Posts
I'm looking for a link to the "Ultimate Magic Playtest—Round 1: Magus PDF". I can't find it on Paizo's website anymore. Does anyone have a link for that or can send it to me by email to encorus@gmail.com? It's a free PDF so no copyright problems here I hope!
Flyby Attack writeup gives me a real headache. I wonder who wrote it. There couldn't have been a worse way of writing this feat's description. First: "This creature can make an attack before and after it moves while flying." Before AND after? So it means a creature with flyby attack can make 2 attacks? And if the first attack is before the move, and the second one is after the move, then it means it cannot make an attack during the move, which I thought is the entire point of the feat. Second: "Benefit: When flying, the creature can take a move action and another standard action at any point during the move." Why does it say "and another standard action"? Why "another"? It hints there was another standard action somewhere. Where? And finally: "The creature cannot take a second move action during a round when it makes a flyby attack." Why is this mentioned exactly? If someone took a standard action and a move action so of course it cannot take another move action, per the standard rules.
We've received the update. It was a bit confusing that it was broken into two this time around. Thanks a lot for the explanation and for pushing this out Sean!
Thanks for the reply, Sean. However, this is not in the 4th printing errata file that you can download. It's also not in my GM's Core Rulebook which he just re-downloaded from you and which is supposed to reflect the 4th printing. Also, I wonder why it's +20 and not +0 (which is how it worked in 3.5). And this still contradicts with the Invisibility spell, where they mention a fixed modifier no matter what type of movement you use.
This bothers me too. It is a glaring error that deserves to be fixed or at least have some official comment/explanation. 14 months after release the 4th printing comes out, and yet these errors are still there and the invisibility rules are messed up. Paizo - you suck.
That's what the Bestiary says (page 146). But I can't find anything about elves being immune to paralysis. I guess this is another one of the zillion leftovers from previous editions, the copy-paste legacy that plagues the entire Pathfinder line?
I find it sad it's been over 7 months since I asked for a clarification regarding the invisibility modifier problems in the rules, but there's nothing new regarding the topic and no Paizo member (except for SKR's brief comment) has taken the time to address this issue (which was sadly completely ignored in the latest errata).
The errata is out, and guess what? Nothing has been fixed. Meager 2 pages of errata. Nothing about invisibility or about 100 other errors.
Do you know when we can expect the pdf to be updated? I just bought it, and wondered. Thanks.In a few weeks, probably shortly after we release the new errata docs and PDFs for the Core Rulebook and Bestiary. Will the core errata update take care of the invisibility problems? This has been plaguing our game since August with no official answers or corrections.
Bumping it up. And update from Bulmahn? From someone else? And no errata yet although the last one (which was really minimal) was back in August...
It seems pretty clear with the invisibility description. stealth check +40 would be the opposed perceptions DC for an unmoving invisible creature. Clear...? Have you read the entire thread, or should I repeat the different contradictions and mistakes in the rules? SKR agreed this needs clarification, but for you it's all clear? *sigh*
Any errata for this? Any update from Bulmahn? *bump*
Any errata for this? Any update from Bulmahn?
+30+1 -100 (yes, I can play your silly game).
I'm referring to the fact that since August there hasn't been any errata although there were numerous promises of it being "just around the corner" for months now. The errata you are linking to from August doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of the problems in the book.
This is getting really ridiculous. How long should we wait for an official errata for the bug-ridden Core Rulebook? It's been 8 months now!
I was familiar with that thread (posted several times on it myself) but wasn't aware that it was updated recently with replies from both Jason and Sean that are really encouraging. Thanks for pointing it out!
There are literally hundreds of similar threads regarding different rule topics that has gone unanswered for over half a year now. We are not talking about one thread, and I'm sure you know it very well.
Under Shield Proficiency feat (page 133):
When you are using a shield with which you are not proficient, you take the shield’s armor check penalty on attack rolls and on all skill checks that involve moving. Under Tower Shield Proficiency feat (page 133):
First of all, there's an inconsistency as the Tower Shield Proficiency feat entry mentions "including Ride" which the other feat doesn't. Second, in the summary of feats on page 116 it says next to Tower Shield Proficiency "No penalties on attack rolls when using a tower shield". That's confusing and incorrect, as a Tower Shield still incurs a -2 penalty on attack rolls even when the user is proficient with it. It should say instead (like the 3.5 Player's Handbook): "No armor check penalty on attack rolls". Third, the information in both feats doesn't really coincide with the entry on Armor Check Penalty in the equipment chapter on page 150: Armor Check Penalty: Any armor heavier than leather, as well as any shield, hurts a character’s ability to use Dexterity and Strength-based skills. An armor check penalty applies to all Dexterity- and Strength-based skill checks. The above says Dexterity- and Strength-based skill checks, and not "skill checks that involve moving" (and Ride) as the entries in the feats chapter say. There might sometimes be a difference between the two.
What about losing current customers who feel the game they invested so much money on is not supported properly? Does that generate money? How come other companies (smaller than Paizo) manage to release errata promptly while still making new products?
Just one example of many rule problems, mistakes and contradictions that haven't been addressed since August, despite repeated requests from the community. All we have is just one meager 6 months old errata, that doesn't even scratch the surface, while the folks at Paizo are busy running contests and putting together advanced player's guides while the core game gets neglected. Yeh, I'm pissed off.
3.5's solution to this question was that the summoned monster was only allowed a standard action on the turn that a standard action summon was performed. Otherwise, you could do everything that was listed. And what's Pathfinder's answer to the question? Jason? :)
So a summoner can move, then cast summon monster, and still have the summonned monster move and attack (or perform a full-round action) on the very same round? Am I right?
Aye, one of those 2 threads was started by me actually. There's, however, also a contradiction between the table and the Invisibility spell, in addition to the table not being correct by itself. Also, WotC manages to release a lot of new products while having a very comprehensive and maintained errata.
I was referring to how to handle ability score increases every 4 levels... it never tells you by how much you increase your ability score, how many ability scores can you increase, etc. Sorry, got confused here. The wrong mentions are to "prohibited schools" instead of to "opposed schools" which is the correct Pathfinder term. It's a typo and should be fixed.
Is it really +40? Or maybe it's +0? There are very long threads about this subject in the Rules forum, and no one is sure. Apparently it's not clear at all. And the text above the table is also ambiguous as to what is the base DC that the modifier in the table applies to. Let's see, a PC wants to pinpoint the location of a non-moving invisible creature. According to the text the base DC is 20, then you apply +20 because you want to pinpoint the location, then according to you, you have to add +40 to the DC, so you get a total DC of 80 to poinpoint a non-moving invisible creature. Isn't the too high? Worse, the table contradicts what is written under the Invisibility spell in regard to detecting a stationary invisible creature that tries to Stealth. According to the table the Perception DC would be the creature's Stealth +20 +40 (according to your interpretation) for a total of Stealth +60 but according to the Invisibility spell it's only Stealth +40 (and Stealth +20 if he's moving - and there, in further contradiction of the table, it doesn't give different modifiers for walking as opposed to running). So as you see the table and text are contradictory. It's really a mess!
The only part I can find that is missing is where it says you only get one point to add to a stat, but that might have been stated somewhere else in the book. All the other rules are present. No, it never says how to handle ability score increases anywhere else in the book. Apparently you don't have the PDF version of the book. It's easy to see what's missing when you can search a PDF. Also as I mentioned the 3.5 Player's Handbook had all the creation and levelling rules very nicely detailed in steps, while in Pathfinder they are condensed and spread around. For example, the +1 to hp or skill rank as you level your main class is not detailed in the same place where the other level increase details are.
Sorry, got confused here. The wrong mentions are to "prohibited schools" instead of to "opposed schools" which is the correct Pathfinder term.
The problem is that the table (the one with modifiers for detecting hidden creatures; in the appendix - sorry don't have the book now to give a page number) lists the wrong modifier for not moving and also the heading says Perception instead of Perception DC, adding more to the confusion. Also it's unclear what's the base DC the modifiers from the table are applied to.
Compiling new errata to be incorporated into the third printing of the Core Rulebook and the second printing of the Bestiary is just about to become a top priority, as both of those books have now reached low enough inventory levels that we need to get reprints going. It's too early to provide a specific date that we'll be releasing them as standalone documents, though. Good news. Is there a chance for us fans to see the compiled errata BEFORE it is actually sent to the printers. I'm sure we will detect missing things or other problems. Most problems have been touched in these boards, but they are spread through so many different forums and threads, that I can imagine some things will be missed.
Any ETA for the errata? It's been nearly half a year now since the first one...
No official word on this yet? The title of the table should definitely say "Perception DC" and not just "Perception", and the modifiers are wrong. Also it's unclear from the text what the base DC to which you apply the modifiers in the table is. I've seen people interpret it differently.
My original question all started from this note in The Bastards of Erebus: "He uses charm person to take weak-willed creatures out of the fight
Why would someone go home to get potions while his party members (his usual friends) are being attacked by a wizard (the one that cast the spell) and his lackeys? Also, if the wizard tells the charmed person to convince his friends not to fight, how would that be resolved if the friends (his party members) tell him to continue fighting?
I run both systems, and I have the same amount of roleplaying going on in both 4E and Pathfinder. Actually, the D&D 4E DMG and DMG2 have much more material about roleplaying than the Pathfinder Core Rulebook.
Charming effects their perceptions of YOU, not of anyone else. If they don't like your friends, they may well urge you to get new friends.Correct. I have seen charm person and suggestion used like they were dominate person to many times. So let's say an evil wizard and his lackeys attack your party and then in the middle of the fight the wizard charms you. What would be the wizard's best course of action to get you out of the fight, and how would your friends be able to counter that?
Mind listing a few specific cases? If you let everybody know precisely what errors they are, they are more likely to be noticed and fixed.Not unplayable, but the source of many arguments during our play sessions. Many of the modifiers are wrong, some have the opposite sign, or a table or note says they relate to the DC while in reality they should be applied to the die roll. There are also contradictions between different sections in the book, some are remnants of 3.5 rules that do no longer apply. I just cringe each time I encounter such a mistake, and unfortunately it happens every other page. You just need to look at the lengthy errata threads on the forums to find these problems - all of them have been reported already. I don't have the book next to me now, but here are some examples from the top of my head: Missing rules:
Some remnants of 3.5 rules:
Wrong modifiers:
There’s confusion about types, sub-types and descriptors. They are used many times to refer to the wrong thing. E.g. a spell has a descriptor of fire, not a sub-type fire.
Not unplayable, but the source of many arguments during our play sessions. Many of the modifiers are wrong, some have the opposite sign, or a table or note says they relate to the DC while in reality they should be applied to the die roll. There are also contradictions between different sections in the book, some are remnants of 3.5 rules that do no longer apply. I just cringe each time I encounter such a mistake, and unfrotunately it happens every other page.
No comment from anybody? No date for the errata? It's sad to know that 4E has a much better support from WotC errata-wise than what Pathfinder has. That doesn't bid well for the future of the system.
So a wizard casts a charm person on a party member. That means that the party member will not attack the wizard. But: 1. Will he still be able to attack the wizard's friends? Will the charming wizard need to do a Charisma check to convince the charmed person not to attack them?
Still no updated errata? I'm very disappointed. This is not the way to keep your customers. I don't give a damn currently about an Advanced Player's Guide; I want the core game corrected - the Core Rulebook is rife with errors (many more than in the first printing of the 3.5 Player's Handbook).
When should we expect an updated errata for the Core Rulebook. There are many problems in the book (as reported on these forums), and so far only a very short errata list was released, and that was months ago.
If a priest channels negative energy, is he also damaged by it? If so, that would make the ability to channel negative energy pretty much useless to NPC adversaries of the PCs. Similarly, if a priest channels positive energy, is he also healed by it?
Any official response? The modifiers don't add up together. There are too many contradictions. I wish Paizo would fix their Core Rulebook before starting a beta for an advanced guide... There are tons of errors in the Core Rulebook and so far only a single meager errata was released.
This was discussed here but no Paizonite ever chimed in on it. I went ahead and updated the table here with their suggestions. Our favorite website. We used it all the time during our sessions :) To make it clear: the table is supposed to apply to the DC to pinpoint a creature's exact location. It assumes a base DC of 40 (DC 20 to "feel" that there's some hidden creature around and +20 DC to use perception to pinpoint it). So the DC to pinpoint a stationary hidden creature would be... 80? That seems too high. Something here doesn't work. That's why I suggested that the table should note +0 for stationary creatures. The base DC discussed in the paragraph before the table suggests a score of 40 (20+20). We need an official clarification.
Table on page 563 notes that if the invisible creature is "Not Moving" the Perception DC to detect it is reduced by 40? I don't get it... Should it just say +0 or not note that entry at all? Also why does the title of the column say "Perception". Should it be "Perception DC"? Sorry, but this is just confusing. Also when it says -20 for in combat or speaking... what counts as "combat"? I mean, if an invisible wizard attacks he loses his invisibility. Does it refer to creatures that can attack and remain invisible?
All the D&D 4E PDFs work great with Adobe 9 - you can copy and paste specific images. So it's not really a problem with Adobe 9, it's a problem with how you folks at Pazio generate the PDFs. The WotC's PDFs (while they were still releasting them) were also extremely fast to page through. The Pazio ones are painfully slow, even when the file is small (e.g. the new Advanced Player's Guide Playtest) and even on very powerful machines. It defeats to purpose of having a PDF - I want something I can page and search through quickly during my game session, but the Pazio PDFs make it so slow, I just end up looking up things on online websites in HTML form. I think one of the problems might be the background image on each and every page in your PDFs. It would be great if Pazio can start releasing optimized PDFs that are fast; just do whatever WotC did to achieve such PDFs.
Another map problem: Page 44 says: "If the complex is on alert, the four tiefling rogues and the sorcerer Vethamer from area G11 wait in the dark" It should say area G10, not G11.
Assuming there's bright light where the PCs fight a Shadowgarm, and assuming a PC's Dexterity was reduced as a result of the Shadowgarm's Shadow Slime, at what point in the round exactly does the Dexterity penalty lessen by 2?
There are 2 in area C (Carpenter's House). Then there are 4 in area G3 (Old Crypt) according to the text (and according to the CR which is 5), but in parenthesis it says Wolf Skeletons (2) and not (4), as if there are only 2. Finally area G10 has 2 of them, but in previous threads I saw people thinking these 2 are part of the 4 in area G3. It's really unclear to me how many wolves are in total.
Oh well, I love the adventure and the lay out. But the typos just threw me off. Same here. I really hope that future adventures will be better proofread. It's obvious that the adventure was rushed out. By the way area G8 is also missing from the map, but easy to locate from the text.
There are many mistakes in the text, which is quite disappointing. It also mentions areas D1b (page 41) and D1a (page 43) but these are not noted on any map.
That was my group's plan, although it would have been easier for the wizard to cast sleep twice... he cast it only once and then the armigers that were left awake awoke the others on their turns. They didn't even try to take the -4 for non-lethal damage; the cleric thought he could heal the unconscious armigers later, but then crit one of them for 27 points of damage, while the others started using coup de gras on the rest that were still sleeping... Regarding the Large crossbow's damage, according to the rules of weapon sizes in the core rulebook, it should do 2d6 damage, not 2d8.
Yes, I also had that notion and found it amusing :)
|
