| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well I know it is early and only just released but I thought I would get the ball rolling on this. My first sweep through this is a really good book, but I have found a few errors and have a few questions now that I am reading it in depth -I have no Core Book :-(
So not expecting Gareth-M. to come on and answer for a week or more, but I'll get them down while I am thinking about them. So I'll add posts as I get them..
Artificer:
1. (errata) Both BAB and Fort save show ZERO at first level not 1 or 2, respectively.
2. (errata) No Armour or Weapon proficiencies are listed.
3. (question) Weird science: in the description it says "Spell statistics (casting times, etc.) remain unchanged" however in the 2nd example it says the weird science creates "a weapon which did 5d6 points of electrical damage, 1d8+5 points of additional damage, and bestowed a +4 to the AC of the shooter while in use". This doesn't make sense to me. If the spell statistics stayed the same you would have 'a weapon which does 5d6 electricity damage at 120' range, 1d8+5 points of damage if you use touch attack and bestows +4 shield bonus to AC for 1 min/level'
5. (question) Why 5 skill points per level? Just because it feels right (like full BAB and 1d6 hit die?)
Knight:
1. (question): Mounted Combat: Bonus to "defence rolls" What are defence rolls?
Warlock:
1. (errata) On the table it list Arcane Armour Mastery (Medium) rather than (Light)
2. (question) Why are the number of cantrips based on INT rather than CHA, bit MAD isn't it?
3. (question) Maybe this will be answered when I get the Core Book, but I guess that the School Abilities don't suffer from spell fail, so no real reason for a low INT Warlock to go for armour prof feats...?
4. (Errata) Arcane Bolt has no range, maybe irrelevant if you have the Core Book in hand?
continued....
Warlord:
1. (errata) Under Class features it says "All of the following are class features of the knight.
2. (question) Under armour prof "all shields" does this include tower shields?
continued:
Stunt Final Example (errata) In the example the PC takes a 10 penalty to get a 20 bonus to damage, Power Attack does not work that way in PFRPG (unless the previews are wrong!)
Temporary Enchantments (errata AFAIK, PF rule picked up from forums!) Ghost Touch uses the old 3.5 rules, rather than PFRPG (50% miss vs 50% damage)
Warlock:
1. (errata) On the table it list Arcane Armour Mastery (Medium) rather than (Light)
2. (question) Why are the number of cantrips based on INT rather than CHA, bit MAD isn't it?
3. (question) Maybe this will be answered when I get the Core Book, but I guess that the School Abilities don't suffer from spell fail, so no real reason for a low INT Warlock to go for armour prof feats...?
4. (Errata) Arcane Bolt has no range, maybe irrelevant if you have the Core Book in hand?
Adding some more findings under Warlock:
5. Skill Points at 1st Level: (2 + Int modifier) x4, the "x4" should be removed completely
Back from GenCon, fighting off the inevitable Con Crud, and back at work.
Thank you for compiling the errata -- we will be doing an update of the PDF to correct the errors, and those updates will be reflected in the version of TOME which ships to distributors.
A lot more slipped through in the rush to make the GenCon release than I am happy with, and for that I apologize.
On to your questions:
Artificer:
3. (question) Weird science: in the description it says "Spell statistics (casting times, etc.) remain unchanged" however in the 2nd example it says the weird science creates "a weapon which did 5d6 points of electrical damage, 1d8+5 points of additional damage, and bestowed a +4 to the AC of the shooter while in use". This doesn't make sense to me. If the spell statistics stayed the same you would have 'a weapon which does 5d6 electricity damage at 120' range, 1d8+5 points of damage if you use touch attack and bestows +4 shield bonus to AC for 1 min/level'
You're right. The description should have been clearer.
5. (question) Why 5 skill points per level? Just because it feels right (like full BAB and 1d6 hit die?)
The skill points per level (slightly less than that of a Bard) is intended to represent the Artificers' academic nature -- their wide-ranging education. In practice, I'd expect most of those points to be spent on Knowledge, Linguistics, etc.
Knight:
1. (question): Mounted Combat: Bonus to "defence rolls" What are defence rolls?
A reference to the original Open Content source of that ability, which used the Defence Roll option from the old DMG. That should now read "bonus to melee attack and armor class while mounted."
Warlock:
2. (question) Why are the number of cantrips based on INT rather than CHA, bit MAD isn't it?
That should be CHA, not INT.
3. (question) Maybe this will be answered when I get the Core Book, but I guess that the School Abilities don't suffer from spell fail, so no real reason for a low INT Warlock to go for armour prof feats...?
The Warlock's magical abilities are subject to spell failure.
4. (Errata) Arcane Bolt has no range, maybe irrelevant if you have the Core Book in hand?
Range on the Arcane Bolt should be medium (100ft + 10/level).
Warlord:
2. (question) Under armour prof "all shields" does this include tower shields?
It includes tower shields, yes.
Stunt Final Example (errata) In the example the PC takes a 10 penalty to get a 20 bonus to damage, Power Attack does not work that way in PFRPG
Temporary Enchantments (errata AFAIK, PF rule picked up from forums!) Ghost Touch uses the old 3.5 rules, rather than PFRPG (50% miss vs 50% damage)
You're correct -- these are instances of the older rules slipping through editing.
Back from GenCon, fighting off the inevitable Con Crud, and back at work.
Thank you for compiling the errata -- we will be doing an update of the PDF to correct the errors, and those updates will be reflected in the version of TOME which ships to distributors.
...
Gareth,
I have three questions:
1. When can we have the updated PDF?
3. Could you also give us a summary of all the changes (in a Pdf format) for us to print and attach to our hard copy ?( I preorder it before August 9th)
2. Is there a way we could have both PDF (The Updated Tome and the Summary) it the paizo.com download page instead of rpgnow??...It will really be great for me!!!!
Thanks,
Gareth,
I have another question (this time game related):
Back in 3.5 Eldritch bast was a (Sp) ability and now Arcane Bolt is a (Su) ability, is this correct?
Thanks
|
Gareth,
I have another question (this time game related):
Back in 3.5 Eldritch bast was a (Sp) ability and now Arcane Bolt is a (Su) ability, is this correct?
Thanks
The 3.5 Warlock was a WotC design. The Warlock in the Tome of Secrets is totally different and has no design ties to the 3.5 one except for general theme. It doesn't matter if it was (Sp), (Ps), (Su), or (Ex), the Complete Arcane class is gone and buried.
As far as any official print publication is concerned. The WotC one was not open content, and thus no officially connected update can exist for Pathfinder.
1. When can we have the updated PDF?
3. Could you also give us a summary of all the changes (in a Pdf format) for us to print and attach to our hard copy ?( I preorder it before August 9th)
2. Is there a way we could have both PDF (The Updated Tome and the Summary) it the paizo.com download page instead of rpgnow??...It will really be great for me!!!!
The PDF will be updated before the end of the week, and available via RPGNow, DriveThru, and here at Paizo.
Rather than doing a summary PDF, we'll post a summary here.
Hey Gareth, hope Gen Con went well :-)
Those of us who pre-ordered, will we get the edited version of the book or pre-errata? Personally, 'cos I am anal, I would prefer to wait til the errata'd book is out rather than have one that I have to add in heaps of pen to fix.
Hey Gareth, hope Gen Con went well :-)
Those of us who pre-ordered, will we get the edited version of the book or pre-errata? Personally, 'cos I am anal, I would prefer to wait til the errata'd book is out rather than have one that I have to add in heaps of pen to fix.
Ditto, very much so.
Unfortunately the pre-orders came from the initial printing batch, and are on the way.
Pre-order customers (or anyone else) can print off the following single-page PDF summarizing the corrections: http://www.adamantentertainment.com/support/ToS_errata.pdf
The full summary of changes:
p.12: Artificer Table -- Artificer’s BAB has changed, and now matches the BAB of the Bard in The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. In addition, At level 1, Fort Save is now +2.
p. 13: In Class Features, the following information has been added: “Weapon and Armor Proficiency: An artificer is proficient with all simple weapons, with light armor, and with shields (except tower shields).”
p.13: Third paragraph -- second example description now reads “a weapon which does 5d6 electricity damage at 120’ range, 1d8+5 points of damage if you use touch attack and bestows +4 shield bonus to AC for 1 min/level”
p.17: Mounted Combat now reads: “the knight receives a bonus to his melee attack and armor class while mounted.”
p.28: Spellblade Table -- Spellblade’s BAB has changed, and now matches the BAB of the Cleric in The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game.
p.30: Second paragraph now reads “At fourth level and every four levels thereafter”
p.36 Delete from “Skill Points at 1st Level” through the end of the paragraph, and replace with “Skill Points Per Level: 2 + Int Modifier.”
p.36: Cantrips now reads: “At 1st level, the warlock learns a number of cantrips equal to their CHA modifier.”
p.36: School Abilities -- added to the fifth paragraph: “Using a school ability is a standard action.”
p.37: Warlock table: 1st level Special now reads Arcane Armor Mastery (Light).
p.38: The range on an Arcane Bolt is 100ft. + 10ft./level.
p.41: Replace all references to “knight” with “warlord.”
p. 41: Weapons and Armor Proficiency -- add the phrase “(including tower shields)”
p.50: Paragraph 5 remove all references to “cross class” and “permanent class skills” -- replace with “class skills”.
p.51: Third paragraph delete “permanent class skills” and replace with “class skills”
p.85: Final example used earlier version of Power Attack in description.
Second paragraph now reads “He considers a power attack lowering his to hit bonus by -2, this will give him +6 to his damage, but his second and third attacks are very unlikely to hit.”
p.88: Ghost Touch now reads: “An incorporeal creature’s 50% reduction of damage does not apply to attacks with ghost touch weapons.”
Again, if you want the summary of these changes in PDF form, it can be downloaded from http://www.adamantentertainment.com/support/ToS_errata.pdf
Ah well thought that would be the case.
I am very excited though, I am published for the first time! A lot of that errata is 'copy and paste' from my posts in the thread ;-)
I'll be pointing that out to my players.....
.....continuously....
.....add infinitum....
til they are bored of it :p
EDIT: even to the point of using my poor english LOL "'a weapon which does 5d6 electricity damage at 120' range, 1d8+5 points of damage if you use touch attack and bestows +4 shield bonus to AC for 1 min/level'"
maybe: '...if you use a touch attack...'?
or '...with a touch attack..'?
Unfortunately the pre-orders came from the initial printing batch, and are on the way.
It appears I spoke too soon.
Apparently, we sold far more copies at GenCon than we had expected, and so we needed to run another batch of TOMEs for the pre-order customers -- which means that the Pre-orders WILL be filled with the revised version after all!
Um, I'm seeing a huge issue with the shaman spells know table. Each time you gain access to a new level of spells you're marked as having 0 spells known. My original assumption was that you also got domain spells as a bonus and thus would only know the domain spell appropriate to that level, yet it explicitly states that you DON'T automatically get domain spells, though you can choose them.
Is this a goof, or were you trying to trick us into thinking we had the Spirit Shaman's progression when really we only have a bit of metamagic flexibility?
I was also hoping the errata would provide some more information on how to interpret the Weird Science Inventions table for the Artificer. There isn't any at present. It appears that at a first level Artificer can only have one device at any time, but there's no clear explanation of what the 4 columns mean.
We thought it was fairly clear -- just like any other spell list. That would be the number of spells at that level the character can "cast." So, yes -- a first level Artificer has access to a single 1st-level spell -- and hence, a single invention. At second level, they have access to two 1st-level spells -- which could be two inventions, or combined into a single invention, etc.
Also, it appears that all the Artificer needs to embue the device with spell equivalents is the requisite multiple of 4 hours (i.e., no skill check is necessary). Is this correct?
That is correct.
Um, I'm seeing a huge issue with the shaman spells know table. Each time you gain access to a new level of spells you're marked as having 0 spells known. My original assumption was that you also got domain spells as a bonus and thus would only know the domain spell appropriate to that level, yet it explicitly states that you DON'T automatically get domain spells, though you can choose them.
A zero entry means that you have access to that level, but only receive spells in it with bonus spells due to high Wisdom, certain feats and magic items.
Yeah, I'm having some trouble following the whole weird science process myself. There's probably some really simple thing I'm overlooking.
Assume a 1st L Artificer; he can have 1 device. On Day One of the campaign he's in, he spends 4 hrs crafting a new Cure Light Wounds device. His total effort to make this device is: 4 hrs, plus a materials cost covered by the number of gp that would be required to create a magic item that duplicates a 1st L spell effect, usable four times per day?
If that's correct so far, he spends the next 6 days doing exactly the same thing. At the end of a week, he has 7 identical devices, each reliably usable 4x/day, so that he can effectively cast 28 cure lights per day?
That can't be right. At what point -- no, at how many points -- did I go wrong there?
A zero entry means that you have access to that level, but only receive spells in it with bonus spells due to high Wisdom, certain feats and magic items.
I would quickly like to point out that you don't get bonus spells known for a high wisdom.
So what I'm understanding is that you give shamans spells per day based on the wizard progression, but she can't actually use her spells until the delay catches up on the sorcerer progression. This, to me, translates to "have a few extra 1st level spells at 3rd level," or if you invested in +1 metamagic feats you can now use them.
This strikes me as sloppy class design. Any explanation on y'all's part would be awesome in helping me understand this.
@Charles Tolliver, and @Damon Griffin:
The part where you're making the mistake is in thinking that the "spell list" on the table is per day -- it isn't. That table entry is labeled Weird Science Inventions -- which means that at any given time, an Artificer may only have inventions that total the number of spell effects listed.
For example: A 4th level artificer may only invent Weird Science that emulate the effects of 3 different 1st level spells, and 1 2nd level spell. Whether that is 4 different inventions, or fewer inventions combining spell effects -- that's all they get. They cannot "swap out" spells -- what they invent is all they have. They cannot "mass produce" items by cranking out Cure Light devices every 4 hours, for example. They make one, and that's it.
If a device becomes unusable, they can build another (replicating the same effect), or invent a new one (choosing a different spell effect).
They do not expend GP to do this -- it's "MacGyvered" as Charles noted.
1. How do warlocks work with the school abilities that explicitly state they only have so many uses a day? In the first paragraph of 'school ability" it states that "he is infused with supernatural energy that allows him to perform magical powers at will" This seems to be more flavor text then rules though. If they can do all there abilities at will how far can they teleport using the conjurations schools demensional steps ability.
Yes, that was just flavor -- we didn't mean the 4th Edition definition of "At Will" -- we just meant that the effect wasn't a spell, and could be done without verbal, material or somatic components.
2. According to how this is all worded warlocks wouldn't really ever want to move into a Prestege Class as even if there caster level goes up they wouldn't gain any new school abilities. Was this intentional? Because if so its kinda lame and one of the original warlocks weakest facets.
It was intentional, and keeping with the Pathfinder design philosophy of encouraging players to stick with a single class.
3. Alot of the warlock school abilities from the pathfinder rules level up a bit with you making them more useful. Yours don't really. Was this intentional? Or maybe we have to take the power again when we reach that level to 'unlock' the higher level benifits. for instance if I take "change shape" at 8th level is it supposed to grant me more powerful abilities as I raise levels or will I need to take it again at 12th level for the greater range of shapes?
Some school abilities level up, others don't. We intended that they be used as written -- in the example you cited, you could take the Change Shape at 8th level, and when you reached 12th, you'd get the greater range of shapes (since you already had access to the power).
4. There are a few school abilities that effect the spells you cast such as 'intense spells'. As the warlocks abilities are not spells is there any benefit from taking this school power. For instance would it apply to scrolls the warlock uses?
Yes, those would work with Spell Trigger and Spell Completion magic items
5. The wierd science ability of the artificer doesnt seem to require any sort of money or materails to use. It seems that he jsut goes off by himself for several hours or days and then comes back with a gadget made out of nothing. Was this intentionally done to ease bookkeeping or was something left out?
It was intentional. We didn't feel that a core ability should penalize the PC by requiring that they spend money or materials -- plus, it fit with the "steampunk MacGuyver" image that we had for the Artificer.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
I have yet to email my receipt (I was going to forward the one Paizo emailed to me) to get the free pdf because of the changes being made to it. Will the free copy of the pdf be on Paizo.com, DriveThruRPG or another provider? And will we have access to updated versions down the road if there continue to be changes to the document?
I have yet to email my receipt (I was going to forward the one Paizo emailed to me) to get the free pdf because of the changes being made to it. Will the free copy of the pdf be on Paizo.com, DriveThruRPG or another provider? And will we have access to updated versions down the road if there continue to be changes to the document?
The free PDF link uses RPGNow/DriveThruRPG.
It is the revised PDF, and no further revisions are forthcoming.
GMS: Thanks for clearing up the Artificer. Now that I understand the intent behind the mechanic. I think non-'casters creating spell effects out of thin air with no cost is a little too weird for me, plus the available effects seem likely to be too limiting for the first few levels, bringing to mind Lawrence Watt-Evans book "With a Single Spell."
Plenty of useful stuff in the Tome, but it looks like the Artificer won't be making it into my campaign.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I have yet to email my receipt (I was going to forward the one Paizo emailed to me) to get the free pdf because of the changes being made to it. Will the free copy of the pdf be on Paizo.com, DriveThruRPG or another provider? And will we have access to updated versions down the road if there continue to be changes to the document?The free PDF link uses RPGNow/DriveThruRPG.
It is the revised PDF, and no further revisions are forthcoming.
Not to pick on your phrasing, after the confusion about pre-orders, but I'd hope if more errors are found (like the Shaman bonus-wisdom spells) additional corrections would be made. That is a strength in PDF/online publishing.
Given this dynamic, I would suggest the following change to the description of the artificer in Tome of Secrets:
An artificer has access to a limited number of spells from both arcane and divine spell lists, but only up to 4th level. Once a spell is chosen from the spell lists, that spell goes into the artificer's known spell list. The known spell table is identical to the Weird Science Inventions table (that is, at first level, the artificer has access to one first-level spell, at second level, the artificer can has access to two first-level spells, and so on). Except as set forth in the table, the artificer does not gain access to additional spells for purposes of Weird Science devices. Any number of spells on the artificer's known spell list can be combined into a single device. Once a device is made using a spell, the artificer cannot make additional devices for that spell unless the device is destroyed or ceases to function, or she has access to additional spells which she decides not to incorporate into a device.
I probably shouldn't comment, having already decided not to use Artificers, but the above doesn't sound like what I'd understood GMS to say. Charles' description sounds like the limit equates to "spells known", but I'd understood that it was more akin to "spells prepared."
Do swashbucklers get weapon training or not? It's listed in their class abilities, but not on the table.
ARGH!
Yes, as stated in the class abilities, swashbucklers get weapon training at 5th level.
not on the class table, even in the revised PDF
Hence my "ARGH!" :)
A line was omitted that said that Shamans get extra spells per day for high Wisdom scores.
Hey Gareth/Walt can you clear up the question from above about Shaman. The '0' spells is on the Spells known not the spells per day table. There is no current 3E mechanic that adds to spells known for high ability scores. How would you suggest we correct this for our games? Swap the tables, just make it 1 spell known or give Shamans a bonus spell per and AND a bonus spell known using the ability score table?
Also this is under the Shaman table "1
In addition to the stated number of spells per day for 1st- through 9th-level spells, a priest gets a domain spell for each spell level, starting at 1st.
The “+2” in the entries on this table represents that spell. Domain spells are in addition to any bonus spells the priest may receive for having a high Wisdom score." which is obviously for the Priest :-)
Seems like a holdout for an expanded errata is wise here, and probably forthcoming. As I don't intend to use Tome of Secrets for a few weeks, I'm happy to wait for this.
Thanks for clearing that up Walt :-)
Could we get height, weight and age tables for the new races?
Also starting age (by race) and starting money for the new classes?
I'm pretty confused about your wording on the Artificer (even after the errata). I've got a few questions:
1) The Artificer doesn't seem to have a primary ability score. You could argue that it's intelligence, due to their focus on crafting and the craft skills, but really, it's never mentioned.
1b) Extending from that, what ability score does an artificer use when using her Weird Science abilities? Is it like a magic item, which uses the lowest possible DC? Do you have to rely on multiple ability scores (Wisdom/Charisma/Intelligence) depending on where you took the spell? Can you rely on a single attribute chosen at 1st level?
2) Weird science items rely on the artificer's "caster level" when activating them, but is that set when you USE the item, or when the item is created?
2b) If it's when you use the item, how can another character activate and effectively use your ability? That doesn't seem to make sense, especially if the item is directly keyed to your character (and not an independent magic item).
3) Do artificers suffer any failure related consequences from working in armor heavier than light? If not, then why aren't they granted higher proficiencies? It seems that an artificer would have a lot to gain from dipping into a class like Fighter.
4) You stated that you didn't want to have a core class reliant on spending GP to gain uses of their class abilities. I understand giving the characters free access to Master Craftsman and every magic item creation feat in the PHB, but they gain no discount to using any of them (also fine, but it makes me wonder). Plus, they gain metamagic feats and zero ability to utilize them beyond spending spell charges (again with the GP). What's the deal here? Why weren't artificers given the ability to utilize their metamagic feats in their weird science ability?
5) Many spells appear on multiple spell lists, sometimes at differing levels (the Ranger and Paladin jump to mind). Is it up to the DM to decide if this is ok, or should the player automatically use the lowest/highest version available?
First ff, nice work on the book, the Warlock is going to see some use in my games for sure, and the Swashbuckler is giving me a lot of food for thought. Still familiarising myself with the rest. Will definitely be picking up the print book when that time arrives.
I have more of a 'design' question... Did you ever consider allowing warlocks to also pick from the sorcerer bloodline abilities? Allowing a warlock to pick from a single bloodline would seem to tie in well with the fluff as well as give them access to a few more alternative 'capstone' abilities... Was this never considered or would there be balance issues?
It's just something that jumped at me when browsing the books, but I haven't really had the time for an in-depth look at anything, with all the sweetness I've bought over the past few weeks :)
Hey there-- I've been laid low by the con crud, but I'll drag myself to the keyboard long enough to answer. :)
1) The Artificer doesn't seem to have a primary ability score. You could argue that it's intelligence, due to their focus on crafting and the craft skills, but really, it's never mentioned.
I envisioned them as a sort of Jack of All Trades -- but yes, with the concentration on Craft, Intelligence makes the most sense.
1b) Extending from that, what ability score does an artificer use when using her Weird Science abilities? Is it like a magic item, which uses the lowest possible DC? Do you have to rely on multiple ability scores (Wisdom/Charisma/Intelligence) depending on where you took the spell? Can you rely on a single attribute chosen at 1st level?
It's handled like a magic item, using the lowest possible DC.
2) Weird science items rely on the artificer's "caster level" when activating them, but is that set when you USE the item, or when the item is created?
2b) If it's when you use the item, how can another character activate and effectively use your ability? That doesn't seem to make sense, especially if the item is directly keyed to your character (and not an independent magic item).
The caster level is determined when the item is created, not when used.
3) Do artificers suffer any failure related consequences from working in armor heavier than light? If not, then why aren't they granted higher proficiencies? It seems that an artificer would have a lot to gain from dipping into a class like Fighter.
No, they don't suffer from failure-related consequences in armor -- but they weren't granted more proficiencies as a reflection of their academic nature. (So yes, an artificer/fighter combination would be a good one.)
4) You stated that you didn't want to have a core class reliant on spending GP to gain uses of their class abilities. I understand giving the characters free access to Master Craftsman and every magic item creation feat in the PHB, but they gain no discount to using any of them (also fine, but it makes me wonder). Plus, they gain metamagic feats and zero ability to utilize them beyond spending spell charges (again with the GP). What's the deal here? Why weren't artificers given the ability to utilize their metamagic feats in their weird science ability?
I felt that adding metamagic feats to weird science items would make them too overpowering (since they don't use charges, and the balancing factor of those feats are that they burn through multiple charges in use).
5) Many spells appear on multiple spell lists, sometimes at differing levels (the Ranger and Paladin jump to mind). Is it up to the DM to decide if this is ok, or should the player automatically use the lowest/highest version available?
The artificer can use a spell at whatever level it appears, even if it appears at a higher level on another list -- that's a reflection of their versitility.
One thing I was confused about is which spells the Artificer has access to. Does he automatically have access to all spells of each level (from all classes)? Does he have to collect them like a wizard, or does he know a fixed number like a bard/sorcerer?
One thing I was confused about is which spells the Artificer has access to. Does he automatically have access to all spells of each level (from all classes)? Does he have to collect them like a wizard, or does he know a fixed number like a bard/sorcerer?
The Artificer creates inventions that emulate the effect of spells of the appropriate level, as per the Class Table.
For more detail, see my earlier response in this thread to Charles Tolliver and Damon Griffin.