Something to clarify in the errata...
cesti, rope gauntlets, and brass knuckles. For a monk, it's unclear how they are all supposed to work.
You said that a monk does their normal unarmed damage, not 1d3, with the knuckles earlier in the thread. Does that apply to the cesti and rope gauntlets as well? I notice they're listed under "light weapon" not "unarmed attack" in the tables which might imply not...
The cesti are listed as a monk weapon (allowing flurries) but monks aren't proficient with it by default.
The brass knuckles are not listed as a monk weapon but monks are proficient with it by default - so no flurries with the knuckles?
The rope gauntlets are neither a monk weapon (no flurries) nor are monks proficient in them and they're exotic. So... Why?
Anyway, I'd strongly recommend looking at all these, making the mechanic more similar for each of them, and clarifying how they work with unarmed strikes esp. for monks, but also in conjunction with Amulet of Mighty Fists and stuff like Magic Fang. Naturally people are immediately wanting adamantite +2 cesti of flaming, wanting to also enchant it as if it's a glove slot, and wanting the +2 flaming to stack with an Amulet of Mighty Fists (+2, flaming) for a +4 double flaming experience (and of course weapon enchants are way cheaper than the amulet). Of course that's not all clear with gauntlets/spiked gauntlets either, but anyway, those list "cannot be disarmed" as a specific trait and these don't, but I assume it holds for them. Can gauntlets, brass knuckles, cesti, rope gauntlets be enchanted and does that stack/not stack with effects on an unarmed attack/natural attack?
Something to clarify in the errata...
cesti, rope gauntlets, and brass knuckles. For a monk, it's unclear how they are all supposed to work.
You said that a monk does their normal unarmed damage, not 1d3, with the knuckles earlier in the thread. Does that apply to the cesti and rope gauntlets as well? I notice they're listed under "light weapon" not "unarmed attack" in the tables which might imply not...
The cesti are listed as a monk weapon (allowing flurries) but monks aren't proficient with it by default.
The brass knuckles are not listed as a monk weapon but monks are proficient with it by default - so no flurries with the knuckles?
The rope gauntlets are neither a monk weapon (no flurries) nor are monks proficient in them and they're exotic. So... Why?
Anyway, I'd strongly recommend looking at all these, making the mechanic more similar for each of them, and clarifying how they work with unarmed strikes esp. for monks, but also in conjunction with Amulet of Mighty Fists and stuff like Magic Fang. Naturally people are immediately wanting adamantite +2 cesti of flaming, wanting to also enchant it as if it's a glove slot, and wanting the +2 flaming to stack with an Amulet of Mighty Fists (+2, flaming) for a +4 double flaming experience (and of course weapon enchants are way cheaper than the amulet). Of course that's not all clear with gauntlets/spiked gauntlets either, but anyway, those list "cannot be disarmed" as a specific trait and these don't, but I assume it holds for them. Can gauntlets, brass knuckles, cesti, rope gauntlets be enchanted and does that stack/not stack with effects on an unarmed attack/natural attack?
Enhancement bonuses don't stack and two instances of the same enchantment don't either. You could do an amulet of just Freezing burst and use +2 Shocking Cesti however.
Chief Technical Officer
|
If the second printing is intending to contain the errata ia there any way to preorder this pronting?
Nope. We'll be shipping first printing until we're out of them, and then we'll start shipping second printings. Depending on when we sell out of the first, and when the second arrives, there may or may not be a gap between the two.
Since this product seems to be a "core rules" addition could we get an official errata pdf sometime in the future?
thanks
Well, I wouldn't consider it a core rules addition—note that it's in the Pathfinder Companion line, not the Pathfinder RPG line...
However, we will be releasing an official errata PDF when the second printing becomes available, and those of you who have access to the PDF will be able to download the complete second printing in PDF form as well.
What about those of us that don't? I bought the print version. I'd like to know what is changing and what is not. Also, I'd like to know some of the missing information in the book i purchased (range on a lasso, range on a Launching Crossbow, is the Bill a X3 crit, etc.)
OK. I took that statement to mean that the PDF was only available to those who bought the PDF version.
|
OK. I took that statement to mean that the PDF was only available to those who bought the PDF version.
The PDF is only available to those who bought it, or received it because they have a subscription. If there is an errata there will be a online download with just the errata changes for those that own the book.
Those who own the PDF version of the book can download the Full book with the changes, if you don't own the PDF you just download a PDF file with just the changes.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
OK. I took that statement to mean that the PDF was only available to those who bought the PDF version.The PDF is only available to those who bought it, or received it because they have a subscription. If there is an errata there will be a online download with just the errata changes for those that own the book.
Those who own the PDF version of the book can download the Full book with the changes, if you don't own the PDF you just download a PDF file with just the changes.
Yes. What he said.
GRRR. POSTMONSTER!!!
From the second printing of AA, or from the Comapnion line ?We are dumping the NPC.
I didn't see an answer to this.
For my part, as a customer, I hope you are dropping NPCs from the entire product line. I see little-to-no use for 1 random NPC per book. I'm not likely to use them, and if I wanted to, I would first have to remember which book a particular NPC appeared in. If I want an NPC that someone else created, I'll use one from an AP. Or, better yet, from a book of NPCs. I seem to recall seeing one on the market at some point.
Yes. What he said.
I'm happy with that. Well, happy isn't the right word. Content, maybe. Happy would be no need for a free-floating page in my book. But as long as the PDF I have available allows me to use what I purchased, that's good enough.
Just curious, where are the eratta's located on the website? I've heard that the core book has several, and I have a first-run version.
For my part, as a customer, I hope you are dropping NPCs from the entire product line.
Starting with Orcs of Golarion, the Companions products will no longer have a Persona section with a NPC and stat block.
|
Creative Director
|
Just curious, where are the eratta's located on the website? I've heard that the core book has several, and I have a first-run version.
The core book has only 1 so far. We're close to releasing the second errata for the core rules. You should be able to download them from your downloads page (click the link near the top of the page).
|
Just curious, where are the eratta's located on the website? I've heard that the core book has several, and I have a first-run version.
The errata for the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game core rulebook can be found HERE. Whether or not that's where they'll put the errata for Adventurer's Armory as well is something only Paizo can answer but it seems a logic choice to me.
EDIT: Man you're fast Jacobs!
Just curious, where are the eratta's located on the website? I've heard that the core book has several, and I have a first-run version.The errata for the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game core rulebook can be found HERE. Whether or not that's where they'll put the errata for Adventurer's Armory as well is something only Paizo can answer but it seems a logic choice to me.
EDIT: Man you're fast Jacobs!
Ravenmantle: Thanks. That's what I meant. Many "individual" eratta, not many eratta documents.
James & Sean: I LOVE these forums. They are usually very helpful, and it's one of the reasons I like Paizo so much. Thanks for having them.
This book will be a great addition to my low magic, home brew setting. I especially like the Channel Foci and Alchemical Power Components.
I have a clarification question regarding the flambard; am I correct in the following interpretation of its function? A character with only martial weapon proficiency can only wield it two handed and does not gain the bonus to sunder. A character with Bastard Sword Proficiency but not Flambard Proficiency can wield it one handed and does not gain a bonus to sunder. A character with Flambard Proficiency but not Bastard Sword Proficiency can only wield it two handed, but does gain the bonus to sunder. A character with both Flambard and Bastard Sword Proficiency can wield it one handed and gains the bonus to sunder.
Also, shame on Paizo for publishing that bats are rodents in one of their products. Bats are of the order Chiroptera, not Rodentia. I'm surprised no one has pointed this out yet.
I have a clarification question regarding the flambard; am I correct in the following interpretation of its function?
{A character with only martial weapon proficiency can only wield it two handed and does not gain the bonus to sunder.}
Correct.
{A character with Bastard Sword Proficiency but not Flambard Proficiency can wield it one handed and does not gain a bonus to sunder.}
Correct.
{A character with Flambard Proficiency but not Bastard Sword Proficiency can only wield it two handed, but does gain the bonus to sunder.}
Correct.
{A character with both Flambard and Bastard Sword Proficiency can wield it one handed and gains the bonus to sunder.}
Correct.
{Also, shame on Paizo for publishing that bats are rodents in one of their products.}
Reminds me of writing the 3E PH and trying to explain what weasel-like animals were for the purpose of a familiar's "speak with animals of its kind" ability. "We can't say 'speak with mustelidae,' most people don't know what that means without looking it up...."
It's actually to your advantage to treat bats as rodents, otherwise bat familiars can only talk with bats, while rat familiars can talk with rats, mice, squirrels, porcupines, beavers, chipmunks, guinea pigs, and voles. And yes, I know the familiar rules treat them as different types of animals.
A madu is listed as an Exotic one-handed melee weapon on the back cover, yet the description says that you treat it like a light shield when not proficient. For the purpose of penalties on attack rolls, a light shield is treated as a light weapon. Which should you use, one-handed weapon or light weapon?
I've talked it over with Jason, and we've decided in the hand of a proficient user it should be a light weapon (so that quality doesn't change at all whether you're proficient or not).
|
|
Short answer: firearms are complex enough, and have enough real-world fans and physics involved, that to do them proper service (and not cause horrendous outrage among fans who wants guns in the game and want them done RIGHT) would require a book on its own.
Does this mean we may see an Alkenstar Companion someday?
Does this mean we may see an Alkenstar Companion someday?
Heh, your question is so very open ended that I'm afraid saying "yes" may get your hopes up. :/
I admit this is fairly nitpicky, but the weights on the hawk, owl and falcon are all way off. Unless you're training some of the biggest falcons in the world, they won't hit 20 pounds. With a hawk I can't think of any that break 15 pounds. And the Owl weighs 1 pound, which is less than the crow (At 3 pounds, which is an accurate description of the common crow). I guess that's my little thing I'd like to see redone in the errata just to prevent a lot of misinformation the players are going to get. At present no one has bought a bird in my game, but I'd likely just wiki it to find out what the weight is. I'm a big fan of falconry so I guess it's a labor of love, but nonetheless we had a good laugh over it when the book arrived. No offense intended, I have a problem with a lot of the weights in this system (Particularly for weapons and armor) but it's usually somewhat accurate when it comes to real life animals. Thanks again for a fun product!
Mok, Paizo staff members (mostly James Jacobs, and Sean K. Reynolds if my memory is working) have said repeatedly that not every choice has to be an optimal one. And that there will be suboptimal choices.
I am betting the Launching Crossbow won't get changed officially.
And if that doesn't agree with your sensibilities, I would point you at the Dagger vs. the Hand Crossbow in the Core Rulebook. Or the Heavy Mace and Morning Star. It is already "built in" to the game, and was there before Paizo took over.
Mok, Paizo staff members (mostly James Jacobs, and Sean K. Reynolds if my memory is working) have said repeatedly that not every choice has to be an optimal one. And that there will be suboptimal choices.
I am betting the Launching Crossbow won't get changed officially.
Don't be so sure! I griped about the thorn bow when the Pathfinder Campaign Setting came out (it was a more expensive shortbow with a worse range modifier), and -- lo and behold! -- the Adventurer's Armory comes out and says the thorn bow is just a normal shortbow. So miracles do happen. :-)
What happened to the field plate?
It was the missing link - in fact, it should have been properly updated and put into the core rules - because the half-plate is crap and should have gone long ago, while this is a good alternative to full-plate if you're not quite as clumsy as that.
Now it's "masterwork banded mail that can be double-masterwork-dipped".
This is in addition to the stoneplate that was marginalised, too.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I'm sorry, but I'm extremely upset about this product. I wasn't going to say anything, but I keep encountering things in the book that bother me. The book seems to be loaded with inconsistancies and errors.
...
A few items are listed out of alphabetical order. For example: Bloodblock before Bodybalm on the list;
While I agree with your large points, especially 2B, I'd like to report that "BL" is supposed to precede "BO".
And I'll have to admit defeat for the garotte. Yes, it's a nasty way to kill someone. But I don't want my party to all run after a pack of club-wielding ogres with garottes. The weapon either has to be very difficult to use, or else it can't kill people like it does in the real world.
The weapon either has to be very difficult to use, or else it can't kill people like it does in the real world.
Now it can be both.
|
|
And I'll have to admit defeat for the garotte. Yes, it's a nasty way to kill someone. But I don't want my party to all run after a pack of club-wielding ogres with garottes. The weapon either has to be very difficult to use, or else it can't kill people like it does in the real world.
The problem in the old days with garrottes is that the suffocation rules are wonky. Someone suffocating shouldn't count to three and then die (this isn't the Three Steps Exploding Death Touch, after all), but just take nonlethal damage each round or something until they are unconscious, and then lethal damage thereafter.
A 'weapon' that ignores the hit point mechanic and uses an alternate system is just asking for trouble, IMO. This game has hit points. Use 'em!
A 'weapon' that ignores the hit point mechanic and uses an alternate system is just asking for trouble, IMO.
Then we better ban ropes, since a few simple grapple checks can leave an opponent tied up and helpless.
|
|
Then we better ban ropes, since a few simple grapple checks can leave an opponent tied up and helpless.
A 'weapon' that ignores the hit point mechanic and uses an alternate system is just asking for trouble, IMO.
Ditto tanglefoot bags, and poison, and tons of other non-weapons.
But I was referring to weapons, with, like, proficiencies and stuff.
Then we better ban ropes, since a few simple grapple checks can leave an opponent tied up and helpless.
A 'weapon' that ignores the hit point mechanic and uses an alternate system is just asking for trouble, IMO.Ditto tanglefoot bags, and poison, and tons of other non-weapons.
But I was referring to weapons, with, like, proficiencies and stuff.
I was referring to an item that uses the grapple mechanic, like the garotte does. So a rope is a better grappling weapon, and it doesn't even require a proficiency!
1) it does no damage. Therefore a failed attempt to kill someone has no lasting effect.
It's listed as doing 1d4 (small) / 1d6 (medium) crit x2, slashing damage, doesn't this mean that while you choke they will loss HP. However you don't get the benefit of sneak attack:
Sneak Attack: If a rogue can catch an opponent when he
is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she
can strike a vital spot for extra damage.
Sneak attack would require picking a location for specific damage and the garrote is just a wire or thin rope that you put around their throat.
I doubt it is intended as a superior weapon but in a couple of rounds it can silence a guard either through damage or choking.
Of course I might be completely wrong.
What do y'all think of a garrotte mechanic that just lets a rogue "lock on" and keep getting backstab, basically? You sneak up on 'em while they're flatfooted or whatnot and make a hit and grapple check; then each round you still have them in the grapple you can deal your sneak attack to them even without flankers etc.
Hence why I prefer the WotC rules for garrotes. Theirs was a little more detailed and finely tuned. I believe it was reprinted in a Dragon Magazine article for the Class Acts section.
And SA should be allowed, how else can one stranglehold 7th or 8th level bodyguards in a round or two? It'd suck to have to deal 1d6 damage per round of strangling on someone that has 60+ hp
Hi there!
As a big polearm fan, I am very happy that so many new ones were added in this book.
However there seem to be quite a few problems with their entries in the weapons table (in fact it almost looks like some of the "special" entries were copy-pasted) and I am surprised nobody noticed anything.
Some of the issues I have actually touch on a problem in the core book, that up until now I had dismissed as an unavoidable balancing "artifact". However this book flatly contradicts my assumption. What I am talking about, is the fact that while the halberd has the "brace" rule, the ranseur and lance don't. My assumption was that they didn't have it because they were reach weapons and thus were too long and unwieldy to quickly brace. This book however flatly contradicts this "rule". I would really like a clarification and a consistent argument. By the way, another assumption I made is also contradicted in this book: the "brace" rule is only for weapons with piercing damage and a upward facing spear-head.
Another general problem is that in reality, there were a lot of different designs under the same polearm name. The best example is the "guisarme". Originally it was a spear with an attached pruning hook. However there were also voulge- or bill-like designs with blades. Since in the core book the damage is slicing(S), I assumed it referred to the blade variant. Now that this book adds so many new designs, I strongly recommend a change to the original form of a "spear-and-hook" (giving it piercing(P) damage and maybe "brace" - depending on your answer to the question on reach and brace going together or not).
Here is the list of the polearms in this book that from my perspective seem problematic:
- Bardiche: This weapon has (in reality) the same size as a halberd (5 feet) and should thus not be a reach weapon. It also doesn't have a upward facing spear-head with which one could effectively impale a charging enemy, thus no "brace".
- Bec de Corbin/Lucerne Hammer: In reality the difference between these two weapons is very vague. The name "Lucerne Hammer" is a general name given to pole-axes and the many different names are mostly due to different regional names for the same weapon. At face value both have the same design (one might argue that they favor different ends of their heads, but that is conjecture, as it depends as much on the smith making the weapon and the person commissioning it, than anything else).
It would be much better to look at the general class of weapons called pole-axes (to which the halberd also belongs) and then to differentiate by designs. Generally these weapons' heads have three "slots". The top is always occupied by a spear-head. For the two side-slots there are three options. It could either be an axe, a hammer (with or without prongs) or a pick (sometimes as a hook). Thus in all we have three possibilities: axe-pick (aka halberd), axe-hammer and hammer-pick (aka Lucerne Hammer or Bec de Corbin). [Interestingly there are also rare occurrences of pole-axes with 2 hammer or 2 axe heads.]
Instead of making the minimal difference between these two weapons, I would strongly recommend to only add one of them and to replace the other with the axe-hammer combination and call it "Poleaxe" (sometimes also written as "Pollaxe") or "Hache" (from the French "Jeu de la Hache"). While I'll leave the damage and crit up to you, the damage type for the axe-hammer/Poleaxe has to consequently be "B or S or P". Also generally pole-axes weren't much longer than 5 feet (ie halberd-sized) and thus shouldn't have "reach". "Brace" is a given for all of them and those with a pick on the side should have "trip".
- Bill: As a classification for weapons this name is almost as bad as pole-axes. I'll go with the original design, which similarly to the guisarme was due to peasants attaching agricultural tools to poles. In the bill's case they used billhooks (a mix between a knife and an axe, normally used for hedging and snedding). The defining feature is that the sharp edge is on the side of the hook, thus making it a curved blade.
I strongly disagree that the hook was used for parrying as the text mentions. It was used for dismounting and tripping. The original also didn't have a pointed spear-tip (although later versions commonly had both a spear-tip and a hook on the blunt side). Accordingly the special rules should be: "reach, trip, see text" and the text shouldn't have the +1 AC rule. Also, one might argue that the damage type should be slashing AND piercing (S and P).
- Glaive-Guisarme: Essentially this is a glaive with a hook on the dull side of the blade (making it the inverse of the bill). As such it shouldn't have the "brace" rule. It should however have the "trip" rule (like the guisarme). I would also make it slightly heavier than the normal glaive.
That's pretty much it. Hope this helps.
I make suggestions, and if the rest of the editorial team likes them, then they get picked up. If not, then there is usually a really good reason why not. We almost always make decisions on products as a group consensus effort, which I think makes for a better product list and a more enthused editorial group.
-Lisa
You and the rest are why I am coming to regard Paizo on a par equal to Nintendo: "I tossed it from a 3-story window, but we just picked it up and kept playing!"
We need more of you. Badly.
*salute*
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
We have updated the Pathfinder Companion: Adventurer's Armory PDF to match the second printing, which includes several corrections to the first printing.
Those of you who have the PDF may download the updated PDF for free from your My Downloads page. (If the file shows that it has already been personalized, you'll need to repersonalize it before you can download the new version.)
These corrections are also available as a separate one-page PDF errata document, linked from the product description above.
Vic, will the second printing copies be available at GenCon?
Ah! Don't word it that way!
Problems at the printer brings back bad memories!
Vic, will the second printing copies be available at GenCon?Doubtful. We're really not quite sure on the timeframe... we had a problem arise at the printer.
Aw crap, was hoping to pick it up at the con. :(
Yes, but I have been holding off for the second printings as I heard they are supposed to have the updated errata.
