|
Hey guys I didn't see one up for the Beta yet, so I thought I'd post one here, if there is one please link it to this page so we can continue discussion there.
Okay the first one I noticed is in the bards weapon and armor proficiency.
It says:
A bard can cast bard spells while wearing light armor and using a shield without incurring the normal arcane spell failure chance. Like any other arcane spell caster, a bard wearing medium or heavy armor, [u]or using a shield[/u] incurs the arcane spell failure chance if the spell has somatic components.
So does this mean they can't use a shield or that they can as long as they aren't wearing medium or heavy armor?
Hey guys I didn't see one up for the Beta yet, so I thought I'd post one here, if there is one please link it to this page so we can continue discussion there.
Okay the first one I noticed is in the bards weapon and armor proficiency.
It says:A bard can cast bard spells while wearing light armor and using a shield without incurring the normal arcane spell failure chance. Like any other arcane spell caster, a bard wearing medium or heavy armor, [u]or using a shield[/u] incurs the arcane spell failure chance if the spell has somatic components.So does this mean they can't use a shield or that they can as long as they aren't wearing medium or heavy armor?
I read it as meaning if they are wearing light armor and they are using a shield, they don't get the arcane spell failure percentages, BUT if they are wearing medium or heavy armor and they are using a shield, they get the arcane penalties for both the armor and the shield.
i.e. the shield only gives the bard its ASF percentage if it is used in conjunction with medium or heavy armor.
The first paragraph of Staves in the Magical Item descriptions lists them as having 50 charges when created. Later on in the descriptions it lists them as having 10.
-S
I mentioned in another thread a typo that I spotted (p79, benefit for Natural Spell - Case typed instead of Cast.
Apparently we're going to go thru the Beta a few chapters at a time, and we can give Jason and team our discoveries as we go. (At least as another poster pointed out to me. See Welcome to the Beta thread.)
I'm still looking for information on the cleric's domain-based bonus spells (pgs. 22 and 176)...
The confusing verbage might be connected to some non-OGL spells. The Spell Compendium had a number of domain-based spells. Just my thoughts.
Not sure of the fix though.
|
Hey guys I didn't see one up for the Beta yet, so I thought I'd post one here, if there is one please link it to this page so we can continue discussion there.
In this thread, Jason explains that they will be going through the book by chapters.
Here is the thread for editing mistakes and typos for the chapters currently being reviewed.
|
The confusing verbage might be connected to some non-OGL spells. The Spell Compendium had a number of domain-based spells. Just my thoughts.Not sure of the fix though.
I posted this in another thread earlier: "There's talk of bonus spells for clerics based on domains (pgs. 22 ("Each domain grants a number of domain powers dependent upon the level of the cleric, as well as a number of bonus spells.") and 176 ("In addition, each domain grants a number of bonus spells.")), but I'm not seeing that list/information. Granted domain powers remain the same as far as I can see between Alpha and Beta, so unless some of those domain powers are now considered bonus spells either something is missing from the book or the wording seems misleading."
I thought at first, when the blog a few weeks back mentioned the return of bonus spells, that we'd see a return to kind of bonus spells granted that were outside the normal clerical spells at a certain level, like in the Spell Compendium. Now that I'm looking over the Beta I'm wondering if the bonus spells were meant to be more like what wizards get with arcane schools (pg 194).
"While wielding the weapon in which you have Weapon Focus, you can perform a Dazzling Display as a full-round action. Make an Intimidate check against all foes within 30 feet who can see you. You can substitute an
attack roll in place of your Intimidate check if your attack bonus is higher."
To do what? I looked up the Intimidate feat and one of it's uses is demoralize. I guess the intimidate check is meant to do that, but the feat discription does not say that.
From knowing the 3.5e rules, I assumed that Intimidate is used to make captives talk or guards move aside, so I think it should be clearly stated with the feat.
In the Combat Chapter, it says you get a number of negative HP equal to 10 or your Constitution score, whichever is less.
The "dying" condition in the glossary says the same thing.
The "dead" condition in the glossary directly contradicts this, saying:
"The character’s hit points are reduced to negative amount equal to his Constitution score (minimum –10),"
If I were to choose, I would forgo punishing low Con characters as the first two options do. It's better to reward high con characters with a few more points to stave off death.
EDIT: I suppose you could mean "less" as a negative number, but that would be inappropriate for comparison of magnitude between 10 and Con Score. In either case, it's dreadfully ambiguous.
I posted this in another thread earlier: "There's talk of bonus spells for clerics based on domains (pgs. 22 ("Each domain grants a number of domain powers dependent upon the level of the cleric, as well as a number of bonus spells.") and 176 ("In addition, each domain grants a number of bonus spells.")), but I'm not seeing that list/information. Granted domain powers remain the same as far as I can see between Alpha and Beta, so unless some of those domain powers are now considered bonus spells either something is missing from the book or the wording seems misleading."I thought at first, when the blog a few weeks back mentioned the return of bonus spells, that we'd see a return to kind of bonus spells granted that were outside the normal clerical spells at a certain level, like in the Spell Compendium. Now that I'm looking over the Beta I'm wondering if the bonus spells were meant to be more like what wizards get with arcane schools (pg 194).
I interpret the comment on page 176 as meaning that when the domain power says "You can cast X 1/day", then that's the bonus spell that's being referred to. I.e. it's an actual spell, not a spell-like ability.
|
|
I interpret the comment on page 176 as meaning that when the domain power says "You can cast X 1/day", then that's the bonus spell that's being referred to. I.e. it's an actual spell, not a spell-like ability.
Then the wording needs to be changed in the progression table 4-5 on page 21, because they're all listed as Domain Powers, just as they were in Alpha.
The domain powers don't seemed to have changed in any way from Alpha to Beta. But there is now, in the Beta, a distinction being made between domain powers and the additional bonus spells.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
Hey guys I didn't see one up for the Beta yet, so I thought I'd post one here, if there is one please link it to this page so we can continue discussion there.
Okay the first one I noticed is in the bards weapon and armor proficiency.
It says:A bard can cast bard spells while wearing light armor and using a shield without incurring the normal arcane spell failure chance. Like any other arcane spell caster, a bard wearing medium or heavy armor, or using a shield incurs the arcane spell failure chance if the spell has somatic components.So does this mean they can't use a shield or that they can as long as they aren't wearing medium or heavy armor?I read it as meaning if they are wearing light armor and they are using a shield, they don't get the arcane spell failure percentages, BUT if they are wearing medium or heavy armor and they are using a shield, they get the arcane penalties for both the armor and the shield.
i.e. the shield only gives the bard its ASF percentage if it is used in conjunction with medium or heavy armor.
I have put it in bold for clarification.
"or" is the defining word in that subject. If you are using a Shield you would gain the Arcane Spell Failure Chance if you are casting Spell with a Somantic Component, but not any other Spell.That is how I read the description.
A bard can cast bard spells while wearing light armor and using a shield without incurring the normal arcane spell failure chance. Like any other arcane spell caster, a bard wearing medium or heavy armor, [u]or using a shield[/u] incurs the arcane spell failure chance if the spell has somatic components.So does this mean they can't use a shield or that they can as long as they aren't wearing medium or heavy armor?
I believe this is simply carryover from the 3.5 SRD text - where bards could not avoid the arcane spell failure from shields at all.
Although I would agree with Ixancoatl in "i.e. the shield only gives the bard its ASF percentage if it is used in conjunction with medium or heavy armor."
I'm still looking for information on the cleric's domain-based bonus spells (pgs. 22 and 176)...
The bonus spells mentioned are part of the Domain Powers of a Cleric (that's why they are mentioned in that section of the class). The spells listed on pages 176 forward in the Domain charts as "cast X spell 1/day" are the bonus spells. This is a change from them being spell-like abilities.
Sai. Bludgeoning damage.
~m
Sai. Bludgeoning damage.
~m
Raphiel and Electra aside, Sias are not designed to pierce the target.
Hello to everyone. I noticed some errors regarding the modified grapple mechanics.
Table 9.6 (pag.147) says that a grappling character who defends against a non-grappling one loses any Dexterity bonuses to AC, while the Grappled condition (pag.400) says that grappled creatures take a -4 penalty to Dexterity. This penalty is only for creatures that are grappling each other, or is Table 9.6 wrong (perhaps due to a copy-paste from the SRD)?
Also, the grappled condition says that a character who wishes to cast a spell must make a Spellcraft check DC 15+spell level or lose it (and so says also the Spellcraft ability, pag.72), but pag.155 says under "Grappling or Pinned" that the DC check for casting a spell while grappling or pinned is 20+spell level (this is obviously a copy-paste problem...).
Speaking of grapple, the Escape Artist ability says "You can make an Eacape Artist check opposed by your enemy's GRAPPLE CHECK..." (and even the following table sets the DC for Restraint:Grappler as Grappler's GRAPPLE CHECK result). This is another copy-paste problem.
Save from this few typos, I think that this a real good product (almost unbelieveable it's still only a Beta !). Keep doing a good work, guys ! And thanks for keeping 3.5 still alive !
PS: Sorry for my English, it's not my mother language...
Regarding Cleric Domains (pagg.176-184), despite the text saying "In addition, each domain grants a number of bonus spells. These spells are PREPARED along with the cleric's other spells for the day", all the tables lists these spells as (Sp), which is Spell-Like. This is (IMHO)from the tables of the Alpha version(s)...
The adept has Polymorph on its spell list! I know that since the spell no longer exists, this is a typo, but what spells should we use to replace them?
Here's a minor one:
Alphabetical listing error - on page 93, "Scribe Scroll" is listed before "Scorpion Style".
The adept has Polymorph on its spell list! I know that since the spell no longer exists, this is a typo, but what spells should we use to replace them?
Actually, while the polymorph spells have been broken down into types, there's still a "polymorph" and "greater polymorph".
Polymorph gives you Alter Self, Beast Shape II, and Elemental Body I. (Beta page 256)
Divine Favor says that the maximum luck bonus you can get is +6 (at caster level 18), while the SRD specifically says that the maximum you can get is only +3. Is this boost intentional ? I personally would have left only +3, since the new Divine Power spell gives you a luck bonus of +1 every 3 caster levels (and thus, a maximum of +6 at 18th again); of course, Divine Power gives you also temporary hit points and a Haste, but still...
The Web Enhancement lists the prices of the various Tomes/Manuals of Strength, Constitution etc. with a price range from 27500 gp (for +1 inherent bonus) to 137500 gp (for +5 inherent bonus); the cost to create is half this value (from 13750 to 68750)... which is LESS than the cost of the Wishes a character must supply to create the item itself ! I think that the prices would have to double (IMHO), in order to match the "usual" progression of the prices for magic items...
I've noticed that, as written, the Feint combat manuever is a completely useless ability. it says:
"Feinting is a standard action. To feint, make a Bluff skill
check. The DC of this check is equal to 10 + your opponent’s
base attack bonus + your opponent’s Wisdom modifier.
If your opponent is trained in Sense Motive, the
DC is instead equal to 10 + your opponent’s Sense Motive
bonus, if higher. If successful, the next melee attack you
make against the target does not allow him to use his
Dexterity bonus to AC (if any). This attack must be made
on or before your next turn."
Now, you only get one standard action per round, and you just used it to make your feint. You don't get another standard action until your next turn, after the effects of the feint expire?! Without taking the Improved Feint feat, speeding up a feint to a move action, you never gain any benefit from the manuever; thus it is a useless ability.
There are two ways to fix this that I can see. First, make feinting a move action automatically (Improved Feint would make feinting a swift action). Second, change the last sentence of the above paragraph to read "This attack must be made on or before the end of your next turn." Either of these options would make feinting useful, especially to rogues who would be able to apply sneak attack damage. I guess this slipped past the rules lawyers at Paizo...
DogBone
Most of the references to "staffs" have been changed to "staves", except for a few places:
- Use Magic Device skill
- Craft Staff feat
- Description of double weapons ("quarterstaffs")
- Activate Magic Item (under list of things to do in combat)
- Efficient Quiver magic item
|
|
I've noticed that, as written, the Feint combat manuever is a completely useless ability. it says:
"Feinting is a standard action. To feint, make a Bluff skill
check. The DC of this check is equal to 10 + your opponent’s
base attack bonus + your opponent’s Wisdom modifier.
If your opponent is trained in Sense Motive, the
DC is instead equal to 10 + your opponent’s Sense Motive
bonus, if higher. If successful, the next melee attack you
make against the target does not allow him to use his
Dexterity bonus to AC (if any). This attack must be made
on or before your next turn."Now, you only get one standard action per round, and you just used it to make your feint. You don't get another standard action until your next turn, after the effects of the feint expire?! Without taking the Improved Feint feat, speeding up a feint to a move action, you never gain any benefit from the manuever; thus it is a useless ability.
There are two ways to fix this that I can see. First, make feinting a move action automatically (Improved Feint would make feinting a swift action). Second, change the last sentence of the above paragraph to read "This attack must be made on or before the end of your next turn." Either of these options would make feinting useful, especially to rogues who would be able to apply sneak attack damage. I guess this slipped past the rules lawyers at Paizo...DogBone
Um it says and I quote "on" or before your next turn. or in other words, this attack must be made on your next turn or before your next turn. Not the clearest terminology so I agree that adding "the end" there would clear it up. but it does allow for use on your next turn.
Um it says and I quote "on" or before your next turn. or in other words, this attack must be made on your next turn or before your next turn. Not the clearest terminology so I agree that adding "the end" there would clear it up. but it does allow for use on your next turn.
Huh... I didn't notice that. I guess if you look REALLY closely, it does allow you the benefits on your next turn. But they really do need to clear up the language a bit.
There's a description for a spell called Align Fang in the list of spells. However:
(1) It's not listed in any class's spell list.
(2) There's already a non-Open Content spell called Align Fang in the Spell Compendium, so I don't know if it's possible to make an Open Content version that's identical (for all intents and purposes).
|
|
In the Combat Chapter, it says you get a number of negative HP equal to 10 or your Constitution score, whichever is less.
The "dying" condition in the glossary says the same thing.
The "dead" condition in the glossary directly contradicts this, saying:
"The character’s hit points are reduced to negative amount equal to his Constitution score (minimum –10),"If I were to choose, I would forgo punishing low Con characters as the first two options do. It's better to reward high con characters with a few more points to stave off death.
EDIT: I suppose you could mean "less" as a negative number, but that would be inappropriate for comparison of magnitude between 10 and Con Score. In either case, it's dreadfully ambiguous.
I had been taking it to mean 'less' in the negative mathematical sense, IE: -11 is less than -10.
So in the case of going to negative HP, a character with 8 con would go to -10 (-10 being less than -8), but a character with 16 con would go to -16 (-16 being less than -10).
As the wording does get confusing, and I've had many a player assume 'less than' meant the other way (-3 being 'less than' -5), having an example to clear this up would help.
In the Druid, Ranger & Wizard spell lists, the brief description for Animal Growth says "One animal/two levels doubles in size". They should instead read "One animal doubles in size".
I'll re-post when the classes chapter thread comes out - but so I don't forget:
Beta, page 20
Cleric:
Alignment: A cleric’s alignment must be within one step of her deity’s, along either the law/chaos axis or the good/evil axis.
as stated this says that one alignment axis must be within one step of my diety, and the other can be anything. the section on alignment later in the book doesn't clarify it.
Better wording would be "A claric's alignment may be up to one step away from her diety's alignment along either the law/chaos axis or the good/evil axis."
the 3.5 PHB has a whole paragraph example about you can be up to one step away on one axis and must match on the other. but with that language removed and nothing replacing it the field has opened way up.
The material components for the spell "Scrying" are confusing. They're listed as:
In the translation from 3.5 to Pathfinder, it lost the description of the arcane material component ("The eye of a hawk, an eagle, or a roc, plus nitric acid, copper, and zinc") and the description of the clerical focus (a holy water font) -- whether on purpose or not, it's hard to say. It's also not clear whether the divine focus (a pool of water) is needed in addition to the focus (a silver mirror). In 3.5 this was all specified clearly in the body of the spell.
Page 4, in the second paragraph under 'Step 7: Details':
"The process of advancing your charter ..."
Replace charter with character.
Another small one:
p.7, under Wisdom, the second bullet point starts with Heal. It looks like there is a space before Heal that could be removed.
I haven't figured out why some skill headings are in all-capitals, some in title case and some both!
Hand of Glory spell, p376/377.
Requirements list has "detect invisibility", rather than "see invisibility".
p.59, under Repair Items it reads "The cost of repairing an item is one-fifth of the item's price.", while p.399, the last sentence of the Broken condition reads: "Most craftsmen charge 1/10 the item's total cost to repair such damage (more if the item is badly damaged or ruined)."