Director of Games
|
Welcome to the Errata and Typos thread for the Combat portion of the playtest. If you spot any typos or rules that need errata in this section, please post them to this thread. Note that this is not a thread for discussing rules changes, only obvious mistakes or unclear rules. We have done our best to make these chapters as clean as possible, but 10,000 eyes are better than 12. Thanks for your help.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
"Designer Notes:CMB" (p. 133) is not on the same page as anything actually about CMB.
Grapple: The "Escape" and "Tie Up" options should be BOLDed just like "Move/Damage/Pin"
Overrun on page 151:
It doesn't say what happens to you if you fail your CMB check.
The Channel Energy rules for negative energy mention undead being "immobilized" (essentially prev. Rebuked), but there are no rules to allow for this to happen.
nit: Table 9-2: Actions In Combat on p.135, Full Round Action includes "Use touch spell on up to six friends" should read "Use touch spell on up to six allies". An ally is not necessarily a friend.
I assume that the allies must be adjacent, so allowing a 5-foot step lets the caster touch allies in up to twelve squares (diagonal step) or ten squares (sideways step); not that any clarification is needed. Is it a full round action to use a touch spell on a single ally?
Attack, Critical Hits on p.136: "A critical hit means that you roll your damage more than once, with all your usual bonuses, and add the rolls together." Sounds like your Strength bonus counts more than once, but a bit later: "Exception: Extra damage over and above a weapon’s normal damage is not multiplied when you score a critical hit." This makes it sound like your Strength bonus does not count more than once. Something this important to combat should be easier to interpret. Are any "usual bonuses" not subject to the exception? I'm guessing that "extra damage" in the exception needs to be defined more exactly and does not include "usual bonuses" like Strength bonus to damage. The definition of a critical hit might be clearer if it said "with all your usual bonuses applied to each roll".
Attack, Critical Hits on p.136: "A critical hit means that you roll your damage more than once, with all your usual bonuses, and add the rolls together." Sounds like your Strength bonus counts more than once, but a bit later: "Exception: Extra damage over and above a weapon’s normal damage is not multiplied when you score a critical hit." This makes it sound like your Strength bonus does not count more than once. Something this important to combat should be easier to interpret. Are any "usual bonuses" not subject to the exception? I'm guessing that "extra damage" in the exception needs to be defined more exactly and does not include "usual bonuses" like Strength bonus to damage. The definition of a critical hit might be clearer if it said "with all your usual bonuses applied to each roll".
Yes, it would be more clear if the reference on page 151:
"Multiplying Damage: Sometimes you multiply damage by some factor, such as on a critical hit. Roll the damage (with all modifiers) multiple times and total the results.Note: When you multiply damage more than once, each multiplier works off the original, unmultiplied damage.
Exception: Extra damage dice over and above a weapon’s normal damage are never multiplied."
was added also on the paragraph mentioned above.
Yes, it would be more clear if the reference on page 151:
"Multiplying Damage: Sometimes you multiply damage by some factor, such as on a critical hit. Roll the damage (with all modifiers) multiple times and total the results.
Note: When you multiply damage more than once, each multiplier works off the original, unmultiplied damage.
Exception: Extra damage dice over and above a weapon’s normal damage are never multiplied."
was added also on the paragraph mentioned above.
Thanks!
Is it a full round action to use a touch spell on a single ally?
I found the answer on p.137 (Holding the Charge): "You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action."
The entry in Table 9-2 would be clearer if it read "Use touch spell on multiple allies (max 6)".
Casting a Metamagic Spell p.139: "Note that this isn’t the same as a spell with a 1-round casting time—that kind of spell takes effect in the same round that you begin casting, and you aren’t required to continue the invocations, gestures, and concentration until your next turn."
It sounds like "that kind of spell" refers to a spell with a 1-round casting time, but that contradicts what was said a few paragraphs earlier:
"When you begin a spell that takes 1 round or longer to cast, you must continue the invocations, gestures, and concentration from 1 round to just before your turn in the next round (at least)."
I suspect that "that kind of spell" was really meant to refer to a metamagic version of a spell cast by a sorcerer or bard. If so, it should read "this kind of spell" or else refer to the intended spell more specifically. The current wording is like a shell game intended to make you confuse this with that.
Also it would be more clear to say "takes effect at the end of your turn in the same round that you begin casting".
EDIT: Although couldn't you use the Start/Complete Full-Round Action to start casting as a standard action in one round and finish casting as a standard action in the next? Maybe the wording should be "takes effect at the end of the action in which you finish casting".
Some of the confusion comes from the term "full-round action" I think, which really ought to be "full-turn action" because it uses your entire turn (rather than the current round including everyone's turn). Not that I'm suggesting a non-backward-compatible terminology change :-)
Casting a Metamagic Spell p.139: "Note that this isn’t the same as a spell with a 1-round casting time—that kind of spell takes effect in the same round that you begin casting, and you aren’t required to continue the invocations, gestures, and concentration until your next turn."
It sounds like "that kind of spell" refers to a spell with a 1-round casting time, but that contradicts what was said a few paragraphs earlier:
"When you begin a spell that takes 1 round or longer to cast, you must continue the invocations, gestures, and concentration from 1 round to just before your turn in the next round (at least)."
I suspect that "that kind of spell" was really meant to refer to a metamagic version of a spell cast by a sorcerer or bard. If so, it should read "this kind of spell" or else refer to the intended spell more specifically. The current wording is like a shell game intended to make you confuse this with that.
Yes, the phrase was more clear in the official SRD:
"Note that this isn’t the same as a spell with a 1-round casting time—the spell takes effect in the same round that you begin casting, and you aren’t required to continue the invocations, gestures, and concentration until your next turn."I think (IMHO) that would be better to revert the sentence to this format.
Yes, the phrase was more clear in the official SRD:
"Note that this isn’t the same as a spell with a 1-round casting time—the spell takes effect in the same round that you begin casting, and you aren’t required to continue the invocations, gestures, and concentration until your next turn."
I think (IMHO) that would be better to revert the sentence to this format.
I agree, but I think it could be even clearer that the spell takes effect at the end of your turn rather than waiting until the start of your next turn; or if you use the Start/Complete Full-Round Action, it takes effect during your turn at the end of the Complete Full-Round Action. "In the same round that you begin casting" leaves room for head-scratching about the exact timing, and may not even be true.
Free Actions, Speak p.140: "Speaking more than few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action." Should be "more than a few".
Effects of Hit Point Damage p.141: "If if your hit point total is negative"
EDIT: Exactly the same typo is repeated in Dying (Negative Hit Points) on p.142
Dead p.142: "... or if he takes massive damage, he’s dead." Since massive damage allows a saving throw, it would be better to say something like "if he succumbs to massive damage".
Cover & Concealment:
The wording about imagining lines between corners of squares to determine if Cover/Concealment applies could be MUCH better explained with a small matching diagram!
Helpless Defenders:
It says they receive -4 AC vs. melee, and THEN says they are considered to have a -5 Dexterity modifier to AC (0 Dexterity)... Does this mean they have -9 AC vs. melee/ -5 vs. ranged???
If so, why doesn't it just say: "None of the character's DEX modifers to AC apply, making them "Flat Foot" & prone to Sneak Attack, and they additionally suffer -9 to AC vs melee and -5 to AC vs. ranged", instead of breaking it into parts that must be correctly re-combined by the reader?
Temporary HPs:
The wording on Temporary Hit Points could really be simplified. Anyone familiar with D&D will understand it easily, but it's too complicated for someone completely new to the game. The one sentence explaining how it functionally works (several lines down) is good - If that was slightly expanded, it could suffice for the entire explanation, eliminating the unwieldy first part.
...and are Barbarian Rage HPs modified in any way to be less lethal?
(like being subtracted later, but leaving you stabilized at -1,
or ABSORBING Damage like Temp HPs, but only damage past 0 hps.
The other option is as Temp HPs, but that seems too much/ abusable by Raging often)
Since no one else has posted this:
Quick FYI - Jason clarified this waaaay back in September during the Fighter playtest. The roll is d20 + CMB vs. DC15 + CMB.Correct. This is d20 + CMB vs DC 15 + Opp CMB....
This needs to be posted to the errata thread.
Jason Bulmahn
Seems like the CMB language should change...
From: "Make an attack roll and add your Combat Maneuver Bonus..."To either: "Roll a d20 and add your Combat Maneuver Bonus..."
or: "Make an attack roll using your Combat Maneuver Bonus (plus other mods) in place of your normal attack bonuses."
Combat Maneuvers p.150:
CMB = Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + special size modifier
Since the "special" size modifier doesn't differ arbitrarily from the usual size modifier, would it be better to call it "reverse size modifier"? The current "special" label forces you to read all the modifiers to understand what special means, while the proposed "reverse" label lets you rest on your knowledge of Table 9-1.
Cover & Concealment:
The wording about imagining lines between corners of squares to determine if Cover/Concealment applies could be MUCH better explained with a small matching diagram!
The same is true of flanking on p.147 (which also asks you to trace an imaginary line). Ideally the diagram (or diagrams) would give both an example and a counter-example: what is flanking and what is not flanking.
Tactical Movement, Movement in Combat, p.143:
“If you spend the entire round running, you can move quadruple your speed. If you do something that requires a full round, you can only take a 5-foot step.”
Should say “If you do something that requires a full round and doesn’t move any distance” to avoid sounding like a contradiction with the previous sentence.
Temporary HPs:
The wording on Temporary Hit Points could really be simplified. Anyone familiar with D&D will understand it easily, but it's too complicated for someone completely new to the game. The one sentence explaining how it functionally works (several lines down) is good - If that was slightly expanded, it could suffice for the entire explanation, eliminating the unwieldy first part.
I couldn't figure out which sentence sufficed by itself. I wonder if the explanation would be more clear if the following sentence (on p.143) changed from
"If the character’s hit points are below his current hit point total at that time, all the temporary hit points have already been lost and the character’s hit point total does not drop further."
to
"If the character's hit points are below the total noted previously, ..."
since "at that time" is ambiguous.
|
Table 9-2, p135
How in the world do Open/Close a Door and Mount/Dismount a Horse not provoke AoOs if you do that in combat? If you change these to 'yes' they do draw AoOs and move Direct/Redirect Spells to standard actions as suggested above, that pretty much means that all move-equivalent actions other than drawing a weapon and readying a shield provoke AoOs; pretty clean and easy to remember.
nit: Table 9-2: Actions In Combat on p.135, Full Round Action includes "Use touch spell on up to six friends" should read "Use touch spell on up to six allies". An ally is not necessarily a friend.
Now I see that "friend" and "foe" are used elsewhere in the combat chapter, so I take it back (leave it as friends). However, since "friend" is a game term that means something a little different than what you ordinarily expect, a glossary entry might help to clarify the game usage.
Bull Rush, p.150: "A bull rush attempts to push an opponent straight back without doing any harm." Actually a bull rush might be intended to push someone off a cliff into a river of lava. Something like "directly causing damage" might be more to the point, or the sentence could just end at "push an opponent straight back."
nit: Disarm, p.150: "your target drops one item it is carrying (of your choice). If your attack exceeds the DC of the target by 10 or more, the target drops the items it is carrying in both hands"
The target is likely a he or she, so the pronoun "it" reads a little strangely. Why not
"your target drops one carried item of your choice. If your attack exceeds the DC by 10 or more, your target drops items carried in both hands."
Combat while Mounted, p.152: "Likewise, you can take move actions normally" (last sentence of that section) is missing a period at the end of the sentence.
p132 error: Surprise, Surprise round: "...take a standard OR MOVE action..."
p133 error: AOO, threatened squares: "...when it is not your TURN..."
p136 contradiction with p161: Touch, "...1 friend as standard action, 6 friends as full round action..." p161 contradiction with p137: Touch, "as many as you reach in melee..."
p141 error: Effects of damage, 2. section, delete one IF
p142 error: Dying, delete one IF
p143 clarify: temporary HP
p144 clarify: Move through square, "large creatures are..."
p152 error: Throw Splash Weapon, "Thrown SPLASH weapons require no weapon proficiency..."
Throw Splash Weapon, p.152: "Thrown weapons require no weapon proficiency" should be "Thrown splash weapons require no weapon proficiency".
What is a "grid intersection"? Is it a square, or the corner of a square? If it's the corner of a square, are there only four adjacent squares instead of eight? How does targeting a low AC cut the number of splashed squares in half? Is it possible to target an empty square instead, so that the splash affects a larger number of squares? If so, what is the AC in that case? If, instead, a "grid intersection" is a square, why not just call it a square instead of a grid intersection?
"This determines the misdirection of the throw, with 1 being straight back at you"
This sentence inadvertently creates a mental picture of a splash weapon doing a mid-air rebound. How about "with 1 falling short (toward the thrower) and 2 through 8 counting clockwise"
EDIT: Oh, and could we include the range increment of a typical thrown splash weapon here? Seems like a pain to look it up if you don't know, and you need it to determine where it lands on a miss. Shouldn't it be possible to miss by one square even if the range increment is multiple squares?
Ready, p.153; It seems like the conditions you can specify for a readied action need to be more clearly defined. Otherwise, vagueness can be used to your advantage. A player can say something vague like "anyone attempting to damage anyone in my group" and still get the benefit of interrupting an action. "Distracting Spellcasters" and "Readying to Counterspell" both give example conditions that involve a specific caster. Should conditions for all readied actions be limited to a single individual, so that it is always known ahead of time who you can possibly interrupt? If that's not the intent, and a concise rule cannot handle all cases, a few examples and counter-examples might help GMs adjudicate.
Do you have to take the readied action the first time the condition is satisfied or not at all, or can you wait for the condition to be satisfied again later in the round?
Throw Splash Weapon, p.152:
<snip>
"This determines the misdirection of the throw, with 1 being straight back at you"This sentence inadvertently creates a mental picture of a splash weapon doing a mid-air rebound. How about "with 1 falling short (toward the thrower) and 2 through 8 counting clockwise"
On re-reading, I think the suggested change could be more precise:
"... roll 1d8. This determines the misdirection of the throw, with 1 falling short (off target in a straight line toward the thrower), and 2 through 8 rotating the line of misdirection clockwise around the target creature or square."
Grapple (pg 150):
once you pin someone do you still take a standard action and make a roll to maintain the grapple (which you automatically win because your target cannot move)?
the distinction between 'grappling someone' & 'being grappled' & having the grappled condition is not clear. as i understand it:
Krakow the dwarf has just grappled Gronk the half-orc. Krakow is 'grappling someone' and has the grappled condition, Gronk is 'being grappled' and has the grappled condition.
on Gronk's turn he tries to turn things around and makes a grapple check (successfully!) to grab Krakow. now both Krakow & Gronk are 'grappling someone,' 'being grappled,' and have the grappled condition.
on Krakow's turn he must take a standard action and make a CMB roll in order to maintain his grip, if he succeeds he will pin Gronk.
1) if he succeeds:
Krakow is 'grappling someone,' has the grappled condition and automatically succeeds to keep Gronk pinned each round (and may do an automatic hit of unarmed damage).
Gronk is 'being grappled,' has the pinned condition and can only try to escape from the pinned condition to the grappled condition each round.
2) if he fails:
Krakow is 'being grappled' and has the grappled condition.
Gronk is 'grappling someone' and has the grappled condition.
if this correct then a clearer distinction between 'grappling someone' and 'being grappled' in the rules would help a lot.
Combat Maneuvers p.150:
CMB = Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + special size modifier
Since the "special" size modifier doesn't differ arbitrarily from the usual size modifier, would it be better to call it "reverse size modifier"? The current "special" label forces you to read all the modifiers to understand what special means, while the proposed "reverse" label lets you rest on your knowledge of Table 9-1.
Combat maneuvers are explained some 20 pages after Table 9-1. "Reverse size modifier" would be more confusing IMO. Since the "special modifiers" are specified in the CM section, I would leave it as it is.
Also, there is a typo : "manuever" instead of "maneuver", end of 1st paragraph "Performing a Combat Maneuver".