In the Spells chapter, blight is in the wrong spot alphabetically. Likewise, later in the chapter, prying eyes and greater prying eyes are in the wrong spot alphabetically.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Page 45
Knowledge Domain - Remote Viewing:
"... can use clairvoyance/clairaudience at will as a spell-like ability..."
"... can use this ability for a number of rounds equal to ..."If it is round-based, it's not "at will".
I'm confused. "At Will" means "no limit to the number of times the spell like can be used per day." What do you mean "if it is round based?"
My page numbers are the book pages numbers, not the pdf page numbers.
Consider that an errata, the PDF page numbers should be the same as the book page numbers. The cover etc shouldn't be a "page", I think you can do this in PDF files by making their page numbers text like "cover" etc.
|
Not sure if this is an error, just something a little weird, or intentional.
The DC vs. feint is 10+BAB+Wis bonus, unless the opponent has Sense Motive, in which case the DC is 10+Sense Motive bonus. So the Sense Motive bonus picks up the Wis bonus from the original formula, which makes sense because a Sense Motive check w/o ranks is just a Wis check. But what happened to BAB? It seems strange to give up BAB. Or maybe it's strange to have BAB in the original. Just seems like BAB ought to be in both or neither.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
The Pathfinder Chronicler is still build under the assumption of "Daily Uses of Bardic Music".
1) Every occurence of Bardic Music should be replaced with Bardic Perfomance.
2) The "Epic Tales" class feature should use rounds of Bardic Performance (my guess would be 4) instead of 2 daily uses of Baridc Music.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the errata. |
p. 417 magic trap perception DCs. Under the type: Magic, the first bullet point reads "A successful Perception check (DC 15 + spell level)..."
Under perception and disable device DCs, Magic Traps: "The DC for both Perception and Disable Device checks is equal to 25 + the spell level..."
From the rest of the section, I'm guessing that 25 is correct, not 15.
|
The description for elves does not mention that elves do not sleep. I assume that elves in Pathfinder still do not sleep, since they still get immunity to magical sleep effects.That's actually correct, the elves in PFRPG are sleepy-sleepy !
Not sure this was intentional. "Elves of Golarion" still talks about 4 hours trance, though that's a 3.5 book.
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure this was intentional. "Elves of Golarion" still talks about 4 hours trance, though that's a 3.5 book.The description for elves does not mention that elves do not sleep. I assume that elves in Pathfinder still do not sleep, since they still get immunity to magical sleep effects.That's actually correct, the elves in PFRPG are sleepy-sleepy !
This is a great example of false errata, actually. The concept of elves not sleeping is, in fact, a Forgotten Realms campaign-specific thing, one that's sort of virally spread to other campaigns. As a result, we'll be downplaying this facet of elves in Pathfinder RPG products. Elves not sleeping is more on the side of a campaign specific bit of flavor, in any event, so we didn't mention it in the Core Rules. Note that we also don't mention that they DO sleep—that bit of flavor is up to the GM, basically.
|
|
Not sure if this is an error, just something a little weird, or intentional.
The DC vs. feint is 10+BAB+Wis bonus, unless the opponent has Sense Motive, in which case the DC is 10+Sense Motive bonus. So the Sense Motive bonus picks up the Wis bonus from the original formula, which makes sense because a Sense Motive check w/o ranks is just a Wis check. But what happened to BAB? It seems strange to give up BAB. Or maybe it's strange to have BAB in the original. Just seems like BAB ought to be in both or neither.
I believe that the option is there because if you aren't a full BaB class, but you have maxed out your sense motive, your sense motive check will be higher then your BaB + wis. Either way you are using your wisdom, but you can basically use either your BaB or the number of ranks you have in sense motive, whichever is higher.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I'm not 100% sure if this is an error or not, but on p. 466, the entry for elven chain specifically says that it counts as light armor, even for proficeincy, which does not follow the new mithral rules. Immediately after this, the Mithral Full Plate of speed does mention that it still counts as heavy armor for proficiency, so it's wasn't a blanket case of not updating the rules for specific armors.
Also, p. 476, the Sun Blade is mentioned to be good, but it does not have [Good] listed under it's aura the way other items do.
Not sure if this is an error, just something a little weird, or intentional.
The DC vs. feint is 10+BAB+Wis bonus, unless the opponent has Sense Motive, in which case the DC is 10+Sense Motive bonus. So the Sense Motive bonus picks up the Wis bonus from the original formula, which makes sense because a Sense Motive check w/o ranks is just a Wis check. But what happened to BAB? It seems strange to give up BAB. Or maybe it's strange to have BAB in the original. Just seems like BAB ought to be in both or neither.
Sense Motive's benefits from any Feats (Skill Focus, +2/+2) or other bonuses to Sense Motive, and if your Sense Motive (Ranks +3 for Class Skill) > BAB. Game-play wise, if a PC/NPC has signifigant investment (Ranks/Feats) in Sense Motive, that will likely be what they use, BAB is for everybody else. If nobody takes Sense Motive in your game, you can ignore that aspect.
Alternatively, taking away the BAB option for everybody (as a houserule) makes Sense Motive crucial for anybody to avoid Feints... I think this is sortof Paizo's way of throwing a bone to low Skill Rank Fighters.
|
I'm not 100% sure if this is an error or not, but on p. 466, the entry for elven chain specifically says that it counts as light armor, even for proficeincy, which does not follow the new mithral rules.
I think this is because it is specifically designed for the "gish", or for arcane characters to wear and still cast. If it worked like other mithral armor, (and I think it should, too), that means those gish's would have to buy two feats to use it, (if they don't multiclass).
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I'm confused. "At Will" means "no limit to the number of times the spell like can be used per day." What do you mean "if it is round based?"Page 45
Knowledge Domain - Remote Viewing:
"... can use clairvoyance/clairaudience at will as a spell-like ability..."
"... can use this ability for a number of rounds equal to ..."If it is round-based, it's not "at will".
Correct, "At Will" means "unlimited use". This ability limits its use to 1 round / cleric level. Since its use is based on rounds (round-based), it is limited, and therefore not "At Will".
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I'm not 100% sure if this is an error or not, but on p. 466, the entry for elven chain specifically says that it counts as light armor, even for proficeincy, which does not follow the new mithral rules.I think this is because it is specifically designed for the "gish", or for arcane characters to wear and still cast. If it worked like other mithral armor, (and I think it should, too), that means those gish's would have to buy two feats to use it, (if they don't multiclass).
I see that, but my concern is that it is a backdoor way around the new mithral rules if intentional. I like that the new mithral rules have some requirements to wear medium or heavy mithral armor beyond just the price and have no issues with wearing armor heavier than you could normally. If elven chain lets you get around that (and celestial armor to a lesser extent - at least that has a significantly higher price), then suddenly, every bard or rogue starts wearing elven chain instead of the mithral breastplate that they used in 3.5. So, I'm hoping it's errata.
|
I see that, but my concern is that it is a backdoor way around the new mithral rules if intentional. I like that the new mithral rules have some requirements to wear medium or heavy mithral armor beyond just the price and have no issues with wearing armor heavier than you could normally. If elven chain lets you get around that (and celestial armor to a lesser extent - at least that has a significantly higher price), then suddenly, every bard or rogue starts wearing elven chain instead of the mithral breastplate that they used in 3.5. So, I'm hoping it's errata.
I see Celestial as a totally different circumstance though, as it specifically says within the description that it "is so fine and light that it can be worn under normal clothing without betraying its presence."
That is, of course, nothing like regular chainmail.
The elven chainmail is similar. Those crazy elven armorsmiths have delicate fingers and can make fantastically small chain links. They're kind of obsessively compulsive when it comes to fine detail that only their heightened senses can see... (no offense to any elves intended)
Now a regular made set of chainmail that happens to be made out of mithril should still count as medium, albeit weigh a good chunk less.
Hm. Dismissing the mount was free action in 3.5, but since there is nothing about it in these rules, it must be standard action like with spells?
You can't dismiss the mount, because it's not an effect. It's an animal companion, nearly identical to a druid's. You have a spell-like ability to call it to your side; that ability's duration is instantaneous.
I find the phrase "all attacks made against targets in the aura" to be quite confusing. Does the enemy have to be in aura? Is the reference to targets for allies or enemies?
It means exactly what it says. Chaos is chaos, it does not discern friend from foe. Any attack made against any target inside your aura, whether the attacker is inside the aura or not and whether the target is an ally or an enemy or you, is affected.
The spellcasting classes list several spell-like abilities as part of the 1st level of domains/bloodlines/schools (Example: artificer's touch from the Artifice domain.) I cannot find mention of what their spell level would be for the purposes making of concentration checks.
Safe to assume: 1/2 Class Level + Key Modifier (i.e. Wisdom).
What does this the powers gained from his bloodline and bloodline powers refer to? Only Bloodline Powers from the draconic bloodline sorcerer, or Bonus Spells in addition to the Bloodline Powers, or Bonus Feats and Bonus Spells in addition to the Bloodline Powers.
Already answered officially, but I should point out that the official answer itself points to necessary errata. As I would naturally read this, you look at the Sorcerer class progression and get the Bloodline Power entries as part of your Dragon Disciple advancement; well and good. The text then describes situations in which you won't get Bloodline bonus spells. Common sense and the word of the almighty is that you otherwise do get them, but this doesn't follow from the text... if the bonus spells were listed as part of the Spells feature of a sorcerer, or if it were called out in the Bloodline feature that you gain them from prestige classes which grant spellcasting advancement, sure; but they're listed in the table as an explicit class feature, and you don't get those from prestige caster advancement. So while there are additional situations in which you don't get them, there are already no situations in which you do! The explicit mention of sorcerers seems to indicate that Dragon Disciple Bards won't ever get bonus spells, but on that point I'm curious why not.
The elven chainmail is similar. Those crazy elven armorsmiths have delicate fingers and can make fantastically small chain links. They're kind of obsessively compulsive when it comes to fine detail that only their heightened senses can see... (no offense to any elves intended)
Now a regular made set of chainmail that happens to be made out of mithril should still count as medium, albeit weigh a good chunk less.
The Elven chain costs 1000gp more than mithril, so I think this is right. (Though I'm also not convinced a ~25% increase is enough.)
Not quoted, but I have to say that I too went on a wild goose chase searching for starting hit points. :P
Is it actually stated somewhere when during a round an effect ends? It's not under Duration in the Magic chapter. Pretty important... end of a round lets many 1-round cleric domain powers target the caster; beginning of the round makes them useless for solo play.
What is the point of the Finesse Rogue and Weapon Training special abilities, considering that those are both available as combat feats? They should either be stricken, or given some small additional bonus. I suppose an odd reading could assume that prerequisites are waived, which... allows Weapon Focus without proficiency in the weapon? I fail to see the allure. ;)
Just for clarification, because cantrips/orisons use different rules now but are still called 0-level spells: how do they interact with metamagic? Can I still cast an extended Daze from a level 1 slot? (And hey, the index entry for 0-level has a sub-entry for "in a spellbook" but not "item creation costs?")
Edit: And to address munchkin junk I'm seeing in other threads, I'm guessing both Vital Strike and Spring Attack should specify that their use constitutes a special standard action?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the errata. |
I mentioned confusion about the Invisibility Table in the Glossary in this thread, and even though people were nice enough to offer explanations, there were still some doubts about a few of the numbers and how/when they are applied/stacked. That section might need another review.
What is the point of the Finesse Rogue and Weapon Training special abilities, considering that those are both available as combat feats?
Because you can't take a rogue talent (i.e. Combat Trick) more than once.
Because you can't take a rogue talent (i.e. Combat Trick) more than once.
...oh, duh...
Well that's going to revise a lot of builds around here. :D
Oops, Hogarth, somehow that quote got attributed to me...
Oops...
...oh, duh...
Well that's going to revise a lot of builds around here. :D
I wondered the same thing at first, but I eventually figured it out. :-)
I suspect this is an errata.
Spring Attack seem to indicate you don't have to use Acrobatics ever again if you move through a threatened area so long as you attack the foe, even if you start adjacent to the foe or even if you move into or out of a large or huge creature's threatened area. No AoO, neither when entering nor when you leave the threatened area.
The text states "You cannot use this ability to attack a foe that is adjacent to you at the start of your turn." My bad.
But questions still remain.A) Can you move up to a foe with (or without) reach, hit him and move around him without having to use acrobatics?
B) Can you move move through a threatened area and hit the foe in the back without having to use acrobatics?
C) etc.
Is spring attack this good or is the wording wrong?
Not sure if this is an error, just something a little weird, or intentional.
The DC vs. feint is 10+BAB+Wis bonus, unless the opponent has Sense Motive, in which case the DC is 10+Sense Motive bonus. So the Sense Motive bonus picks up the Wis bonus from the original formula, which makes sense because a Sense Motive check w/o ranks is just a Wis check. But what happened to BAB? It seems strange to give up BAB. Or maybe it's strange to have BAB in the original. Just seems like BAB ought to be in both or neither.
Nope you are missing a point or two. Not all classes have full BAB and Sence motive is as skill. So one skill point = one rank.
If it's a class skill and you get +3 to the skill if you add ranks. If you have skill focus etc.So a 10:th level Bard with wisdom 7 would have DC: 15 (10 + 7 BAB - 2 wis.)
If he max out Sence motive the DC would be 21 (10 + 10 + 3 - 2). With skill focus it would be 27.
10:th level wizard wisdom 7 the DC is 13.
Sence motive DC: 17 (10 + 10 -2) with skill focus it's 23.
The system helps out those who:
- have low BAB (low BAB = less hit points)and who max out sence motive
- pick skill focus
- have sence motive as a class skill (the only full BAB class with sence motive as a class skill is the paladin but they have wis as a dump stat now).
re: Spring Attack - I think you're reading it right. It does all the things you're asking about. Keep in mind, though, that only the target of your attack is affected. Anyone else threatening those squares is not evaded, so it doesn't outright negate the need for tumbling. You still can't move through the enemy's square without an acrobatics check. You can't use it to bull rush, etc.
It doesn't say anything about requiring movement after the attack, so you can use it to move up to your full speed and end adjacent to an enemy with reach, evading their AoO as you approach. Since it's a standard action, you can take another move before that; so basically this allows a non-straight-line charge with no terrain restrictions and one free tumble which applies no attack or AC modifiers. Not exactly a "spring" in that case (unless they mean "spring forth?") but I'm pretty sure it's intended.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the errata. |
Magic item creation DC
page 548, last line:
"The DC to create a magic item is 5 + the caster level for the item."
page 112, "Skill Check" section:
"Successfully creating a magic item requires a Spellcraft check with a DC equal to 10 + the item’s caster level.
@above - yeah, and both of those seem really low. Can't you just take 10? Though apparently one can now create items with a caster level higher than one's own:
"The DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet. The only exception to this is the requisite item creation feat, which is mandatory."
So... let's say you're a 5th level wizard. (And let's say the correct base DC is 10.) You've just picked up Craft Magic Arms and Armor. You can create a +1 light shield with a DC 13 skill check (caster level 3x enhancement bonus). Or, you can try to make a +2 light shield at DC 21: 10 (base) + 6 (caster level) + 5 (lacking prerequisite: actually being that level).
If this is correct... well, sweet. :D Still a low DC, tho. Five ranks and a +3 class bonus means you only need a +3 Intelligence bonus (or Skill Focus) to take 10 on the check. Maybe the correct base is 15? That would explain both the 10 and the 5 as typos, while still allowing any competent wizard to take 10 on Scribe Scroll for spells he knows.
|
|
@above - yeah, and both of those seem really low. Can't you just take 10? Though apparently one can now create items with a caster level higher than one's own:
"The DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet. The only exception to this is the requisite item creation feat, which is mandatory."
So... let's say you're a 5th level wizard. (And let's say the correct base DC is 10.) You've just picked up Craft Magic Arms and Armor. You can create a +1 light shield with a DC 13 skill check (caster level 3x enhancement bonus). Or, you can try to make a +2 light shield at DC 21: 10 (base) + 6 (caster level) + 5 (lacking prerequisite: actually being that level).
If this is correct... well, sweet. :D Still a low DC, tho. Five ranks and a +3 class bonus means you only need a +3 Intelligence bonus (or Skill Focus) to take 10 on the check. Maybe the correct base is 15? That would explain both the 10 and the 5 as typos, while still allowing any competent wizard to take 10 on Scribe Scroll for spells he knows.
For some reason I'm thinking you can't take 10 when creating a magic item.
For some reason I'm thinking you can't take 10 when creating a magic item.
I see no reason you shouldn't be able to (and I actually looked for one). But even if you can't, DC 10+CL is passed for items of your level by taking 1 if you have Skill Focus: Spellcraft, full ranks, and a 16+ Intelligence. It's a joke.
DC 15+CL lets any reasonably dedicated wizard (14+ Int, full ranks) make an item for which he has all the prerequisites by taking 10, while forcing the average non-wizard to roll the check due to insufficient Intelligence (but this gap can be closed with Skill Focus); items for which the wizard lacks some prerequisites are still within reach, and a true specialist (Skill Focus, perhaps Magical Aptitude) can make them reliably, or squeeze even more power out of his creations at some risk.
I think that's fair front to back, and I'm hoping it really was a highly unlikely pair of typos that went to print!
|
|
For some reason I'm thinking you can't take 10 when creating a magic item.I see no reason you shouldn't be able to (and I actually looked for one). But even if you can't, DC 10+CL is passed for items of your level by taking 1 if you have Skill Focus: Spellcraft, full ranks, and a 16+ Intelligence. It's a joke.
DC 15+CL lets any reasonably dedicated wizard (14+ Int, full ranks) make an item for which he has all the prerequisites by taking 10, while forcing the average non-wizard to roll the check due to insufficient Intelligence (but this gap can be closed with Skill Focus); items for which the wizard lacks some prerequisites are still within reach, and a true specialist (Skill Focus, perhaps Magical Aptitude) can make them reliably, or squeeze even more power out of his creations at some risk.
I think that's fair front to back, and I'm hoping it really was a highly unlikely pair of typos that went to print!
You have a point, unless the spellcraft/craft check are meant to be caster level checks in which case you cannot take 10 or 20. That is actually how I would rule it until errata comes out for it. Either way works.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
p. 515, golem manual. The Stone Golem Manual contains the spells geas/quest, limited wish, polymorph any object, and slow. The requirements however list: antimagic field, geas/quest, limited wish, and symbol of stunning. Considering that all of the other varieties of golem manual have requirements identical to the spells contained, I would think the Stone Golem version should as well.
p. 504 & 518, boots of teleportation and helm of teleportation. Both are described as "any character wearing...may teleport three times per day, exactly as if he had cast the spell of the same name." Both have caster level 9th, but the boots have a price of 49,000 gp and the helm has a price of 73,500 gp. I don't think a helm is more desireable than the boots, and that either the boots should be twice per day, or the prices need adjustment.
p. 504 & 518, boots of teleportation and helm of teleportation. Both are described as "any character wearing...may teleport three times per day, exactly as if he had cast the spell of the same name." Both have caster level 9th, but the boots have a price of 49,000 gp and the helm has a price of 73,500 gp. I don't think a helm is more desireable than the boots, and that either the boots should be twice per day, or the prices need adjustment.
The helm has a +50% surcharge for being the "wrong" slot for a movement item.
|
|
I'm confused. "At Will" means "no limit to the number of times the spell like can be used per day." What do you mean "if it is round based?"Page 45
Knowledge Domain - Remote Viewing:
"... can use clairvoyance/clairaudience at will as a spell-like ability..."
"... can use this ability for a number of rounds equal to ..."If it is round-based, it's not "at will".
Correct, "At Will" means "unlimited use". This ability limits its use to 1 round / cleric level. Since its use is based on rounds (round-based), it is limited, and therefore not "At Will".
The deal with having a duration on an At-will ability is that, since it's a spell-like ability, it takes a standard action to activate. Hence, if it didn't have a duration and you wanted to keep it up for multiple rounds, you'd have to spend your standard action to activate it each round. With the rules as written, you can activate the ability and have it up while doing other things (like fighting) for 1/round per level thereafter.
The deal with having a duration on an At-will ability is that, since it's a spell-like ability, it takes a standard action to activate. Hence, if it didn't have a duration and you wanted to keep it up for multiple rounds, you'd have to spend your standard action to activate it each round. With the rules as written, you can activate the ability and have it up while doing other things (like fighting) for 1/round per level thereafter.
You might want to re-read the rules as written. ;)
|
|
The deal with having a duration on an At-will ability is that, since it's a spell-like ability, it takes a standard action to activate. Hence, if it didn't have a duration and you wanted to keep it up for multiple rounds, you'd have to spend your standard action to activate it each round. With the rules as written, you can activate the ability and have it up while doing other things (like fighting) for 1/round per level thereafter.You might want to re-read the rules as written. ;)
Hmm, ok I see what you're saying... the description of Remote Viewing on page 45 has a number of rounds/day as well as being at-will. My bad, I guess I missed the original post on this.
Hmm, ok I see what you're saying... the description of Remote Viewing on page 45 has a number of rounds/day as well as being at-will. My bad, I guess I missed the original post on this.The deal with having a duration on an At-will ability is that, since it's a spell-like ability, it takes a standard action to activate. Hence, if it didn't have a duration and you wanted to keep it up for multiple rounds, you'd have to spend your standard action to activate it each round. With the rules as written, you can activate the ability and have it up while doing other things (like fighting) for 1/round per level thereafter.You might want to re-read the rules as written. ;)
Its partially my fault. When I was trying to explain why it was not an "at will" ability, my reference to it being "round-based" should have included that it is rounds per day. Apparently my attempt to clarify the matter just ended being equally confusing :)
wrote stuff
It's not your fault. I think your point is clear. "a number of rounds per day equal to your cleric level" (Limited use) does not equal "at will"
[Edit] One thing about the final that has really made me irritated is the sloppy wording. If something is an errata or not is sometimes hard so say due to the sloppy wording. Also some stuff is really hard to know if they are correct because they seem odd. That is, if A is an errata then B might just as well be one.
Paizo need to create an official FAQ/errata thread. Because lot of the time you don't know if something is an errata or just unclear.
Stuff that comes into mind are: spring attack, Vital strike, Some of the cleric domian powers, charge, some bard stuff, etc.
Some stuff are clear but might still be read as errata beacause "that was wrong so perhaps this is wrong too"? That is, are they deliberate changes from the Beta/3.x or just misstakes? Suff like: some of the racial traits, the Appraise DC, Mithral armor, Some bard stuff, etc.
The grappling entry in magic chapter if its not been mentioned.
In terms of spellcasting whilst grappling it conflicts with the fully fleshed out rules in combat and the condition "grappling" in terms of somantic spellcasting.
Whilst I myself know how to handle this (its quite obvious its just a slight error in the magic section and the combat section tells you everything you need to know), some people like official clarification to offset problem players.
In regards to Dragon Disciple PrC:
... you gain the bloodline spells if you have levels of sorcerer and the appropriate slots available to you. You gain the feats at the rate indicated by the pclass.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
So... if a bard takes levels in Dragon Disciple, does he gain the sorcerer spells?
(At first I thought it would be obvious that bards can't add sorcerer spells to their spell list, but I just noticed that, according to the Draconic bloodline, a sorcerer gets 'Spell Resistance', which is a cleric spell, at 11th level. So if it works for one...)
In regards to Dragon Disciple PrC:
... you gain the bloodline spells if you have levels of sorcerer and the appropriate slots available to you. You gain the feats at the rate indicated by the pclass.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo PublishingSo... if a bard takes levels in Dragon Disciple, does he gain the sorcerer spells?
(At first I thought it would be obvious that bards can't add sorcerer spells to their spell list, but I just noticed that, according to the Draconic bloodline, a sorcerer gets 'Spell Resistance', which is a cleric spell, at 11th level. So if it works for one...)
No, levels of Sorcerer means levels of Sorcerer.
It doesn't matter if a spell in the Bloodline is not usually in the Sorcerer list (some Clerical Domains work in the same way - Fire Domain gives Clerics the Fireball spell, for example), they are considered Sorcerer spell specifically gained from the Bloodline anyway (another example is the 'Electrical' Burning Hands an Air Elemental Sorcerer gains; it's a spell which even doesn't exist). A Bard who doesn't have Sorcerer levels never gains the Bloodline spells of a Draconic Sorcerer.
To gain Mage Armor, a Bard/Dragon Disciple would need at least 1 level of Sorcerer (in order to have 1st-level Sorcerer slots, because it's from that pool of slots that our Dragon Disciple can cast the Bloodline spells), to gain Fly he would need 6 levels of Sorcerer (to have 3rd-level Sorcerer slots), and so on.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
It doesn't matter if a spell in the Bloodline is not usually in the Sorcerer list (some Clerical Domains work in the same way - Fire Domain gives Clerics the Fireball spell, for example), they are considered Sorcerer spell specifically gained from the Bloodline anyway (another example is the 'Electrical' Burning Hands an Air Elemental Sorcerer gains; it's a spell which even doesn't exist).
Ah, good point. I forgot about that.
No, levels of Sorcerer means levels of Sorcerer... A Bard who doesn't have Sorcerer levels never gains the Bloodline spells of a Draconic Sorcerer.
Hmm, I'm not so sure about that:
"If the dragon disciple does not have levels of sorcerer, he instead gains bloodline powers of the draconic bloodline using his dragon disciple level as his sorcerer level to determine the bonuses gained." [page 381]In effect, a bard dragon disciple does indeed have levels of sorcerer for purposes of the bloodline powers gained. Since the additional spells are gained through the bloodline and not simply as an innate part of being a sorcerer, I would have to argue that a bard dragon disciple can still get those spells.
To gain Mage Armor, a Bard/Dragon Disciple would need at least 1 level of Sorcerer (in order to have 1st-level Sorcerer slots, because it's from that pool of slots that our Dragon Disciple can cast the Bloodline spells), to gain Fly he would need 6 levels of Sorcerer (to have 3rd-level Sorcerer slots), and so on.
Why can't a bard use his own spell slots for those sorcerer spells gained? I've seen no rules as written implying otherwise. After all, spellresistance (a cleric spell) is gained from the bloodline power yet can be cast by using a sorcerer spell slot. Why can't a bard do the same?
Admittedly, this kinda sucks since bards get far fewer spell slots (and at a much slower rate) than sorcerers, but that's beside the point.
Since the additional spells are gained through the bloodline and not simply as an innate part of being a sorcerer, I would have to argue that a bard dragon disciple can still get those spells.
Even if the bard in question got a bonus sorcerer spell known, he doesn't have sorcerer spellcasting, so it's a bit moot. The bloodline spell rules specifically say: "These spells are in addition to the number of spells given on Table: Sorcerer Spells Known." not "These spells are in addition to the number of spells given on Table: Bard Spells Known."
|
|
The rules talk about how a creature with immunity to fire also has vulnerability to cold, regardless of creature type. A Balor has immunity to fire but resistance to cold. Does the rule still apply? (I gave him vulnerability to cold just to try out the rule. At that level, a Polar Ray's extra damage is pretty significant).
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
p. 504 & 518, boots of teleportation and helm of teleportation. Both are described as "any character wearing...may teleport three times per day, exactly as if he had cast the spell of the same name." Both have caster level 9th, but the boots have a price of 49,000 gp and the helm has a price of 73,500 gp. I don't think a helm is more desireable than the boots, and that either the boots should be twice per day, or the prices need adjustment.The helm has a +50% surcharge for being the "wrong" slot for a movement item.
I don't buy that. First, teleportation isn't really movement, it's a direct spell effect that changes your location, but it's not tied to a movement type or speeed. Second, even if you define teleportation as movement, and thus tied to the feet slot (though I don't see rules in PRPG about slot affinities), then you would have to apply that cost rule to other teleporation items, such as the cloak of the mountback, which is a 1/day dimension door in the cloak slot and doesn't have the price increase.
The rules talk about how a creature with immunity to fire also has vulnerability to cold, regardless of creature type. A Balor has immunity to fire but resistance to cold. Does the rule still apply? (I gave him vulnerability to cold just to try out the rule. At that level, a Polar Ray's extra damage is pretty significant).
A creature with the fire subtype is also vulnerable to cold. Simply being immune to fire does not make you susceptible to cold.
|
|
A creature with the fire subtype is also vulnerable to cold. Simply being immune to fire does not make you susceptible to cold.
Per the online PRD Glossary:
"A creature with energy immunity never takes damage from that energy type. If a creature has fire immunity, it also has vulnerability to cold. If a creature has cold immunity, it also has vulnerability to fire. Vulnerability means the creature takes half again as much (+50%) damage as normal from that energy type, regardless of whether a saving throw is allowed or if the save is a success or failure."
No mention of being a creature of the fire subtype there.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
p. 562 Death Attacks - "...if the save fails, the character dies instantly." Since death effects now mostly do 10 hp/caster level, they don't cause the subject to simply die instantly. This glossary entry should be re-worded to mention that if the damage dealt is enough to bring the target to negative their constitution score, then they die instantly and suffer the effects indicated in the bullet points below it.
The bookmark "Table 3-1: Character Advancement and Level-Dependent Bonuses" in the single file core book (PDF) is pointing to the wrong location. I do have the updated core book.
Simple typo: on P83, under Empathic Link- currently reads "The master can communicate emphatically with the familiar, ..." instead of empathically. (Or maybe "telepathically" would be a better word choice, since spellcheck is saying that "empathically" is not a word.)