| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
Lance. PRD: "While mounted, you can wield a lance with one hand.
" What does this mean?:
1) That it is wielded AS a one-handed weapon. Then you would apply your STR to damage. Then the text should be changed to:
"While mounted, you can use the lance as a one-handed weapon" or
"While mounted, the lance is a one-handed weapon, if you decide so".
2) That it is still a two handed weapon but you can wield it in one hand. Then you would apply 1.5x your STR, and 150% in power attack.
The problem comes from 3.5: is the category of the weapon what determines the damage in bonus or it is the way you handle the weapon?.
Notice that the Bastard Sword has not this problem, as it can be wielded two-handed while it is a one-handed weapon, and anyway you would apply 1.5x Str.
Ride-By Attack
SRD: "Benefit: When you are mounted and use the charge action, you may move and attack as if with a standard charge and then move again (continuing the straight line of the charge). "
Problems:
1) If you charge, you must move to the closest space from which you can
attack. That means that most of the time, if you continue your Ride-By
movement, you are moving THROUGH the space occupied by your enemy. Is this feat supposed to allow a free Overrun, with your enemy choosing always to avoid you, or it should be treated as a separated manuever, required if you want to continue moving? Or (as in the 3.5 FAQ):
"When using the Ride-By attack feat, you must conduct your charge so that you move in a straight line toward the closest square from which it is possible to attack your chosen foe, so long as it is a square that allows you to attack and then continue on in the straight line of the charge. You still must attack your foe the moment you reach that square. (Although the feat description doesn’t say so, you and your mount also must move at least 5 feet after you make your attack to get the benefit of the feat.) This is a special rule for charging when using the Ride-By Attack feat."
Anyway, the feat text should explain it right.
2) The Feat does not explain if your mount can make its own attack.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
table : estimating magic item gp values
Base price of "use-activated or continuous spell effect" is :
SL x CL x 2,000 gp² (ex: lantern of revealing).This item use "invisibility purge" (SL=3 ,CL=5 ,duration : 1min/lvl),base price in the book is 30,000 gp ,but in the table ,it's :
3 x 5 x 2,000 x 2(1min/lvl)= 60,000 gp.Where is the error (typo) in the "x2,000" (it should be x 1,000) or in the "² multiply cost by 2" (it should be x1 ,and divised all multiply cost by 2 : round x2 , min x1 , 10 min x5 ,24 hours and more /4 ) ?
I would say that the lantern has a x1/2 factor in there to account for it only working "when it is lit", which makes it not as effective as something that can't be turned off by your enemies or the environment, and that the formulas are correct. The other option is that the factor based on spell duration mutiplier was simply forgotten for this item.
|
Please excuse me if this has already been posted or explained, but on page 65 in the section on Combat Style it speaks of being able to acquire "Greater Two Weapon Fighting" at level 10. However, the feat section has the prerequisite for "Greater Two Weapon Fighting" as requiring a BAB of +11. In thinking about this, a BAB of +10 (which for the Ranger is level 10) only allows two attacks as Full-Round actions. Does it seem right that a Ranger would be allowed to get three attacks with his off-hand and two attacks with his Primary hand?
Just my 2 cp.
P.65, 1st para of "Combat Style Feat (Ex)", last sentence:
He can choose feats from his selected combat style, even if he does not have the normal prerequisites.
Lack of prerequisites means the Ranger doesn't have to bother with prerequisite Feats, but it also means bypassing BAB and Level/Class requirements.
As for the number of attacks - yes it seems quirky, but fortunately a dose of XP will solve the problem by raising him to L11 and 3/3 attacks!
There are still 2 mentions of "prohibited" wizard schools, as opposed to "opposed".
These are at:
Page 79
Wizard - Cantrips
1st paragraph, 2nd sentence.
Page 79
Wizard - Spellbooks
2nd paragraph, 1st sentence.
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the errata. |
Page 80
Conjuration School - Summoner's Charm
There is no indication whether this ability would or wouldn't stack with the metamagic feat Extend Spell.
Page 81
Enchantment School - Intense Spells
There is no indication whether this ability would or wouldn't stack with the Empower and Maximize metamagic feats.
(Other references for other similar class abilities do have this included, so for consistency I thought this might be worth mentioning).
Sunder:
It's listed as both the infamous "attack action" and "in place of a melee attack".
Pretty damn confusing, not to mention superfluous if the Standard Attack Action is indeed intended.
Per 3.5 this was basically "in place of a melee attack"...
This came up in another thread because the difference is relevant for whether or not Sunder AoO's are allowed. Personally, the Sunder vs. normal Melee Attack distinction seems pretty vague in my mind, and given that few characters will ever take more than one or two Improved Maneuver Feats (much less all the different Pre-Reqs like Power Attack/CombExp/ImpUnarmed) screwing over those who take Improved Sunder by saying they can't use it on AoO's (like Imp Disarm or Trip can be) would simply not seem to add much to the fun of the game.
Entangle spell, page 278:
"Saving Throw: Reflex partial; see text;
(...)
Creatures that make their save can move as normal, but those that remain in the area must save again at the end of your turn."
Shouldn't it be simply '"Saving Throw: Reflex negates; see text;" ? I see that in 3.x, even with a successful save, an Entangle spell halved the movement of creatures caught into the area, but this is no more the case. Isn't this perhaps a 'paste-copy' legacy from the Entangle spell in the SRD ?
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Entangle spell, page 278:
"Saving Throw: Reflex partial; see text;
(...)
Creatures that make their save can move as normal, but those that remain in the area must save again at the end of your turn."Shouldn't it be simply '"Saving Throw: Reflex negates; see text;" ? I see that in 3.x, even with a successful save, an Entangle spell halved the movement of creatures caught into the area, but this is no more the case. Isn't this perhaps a 'paste-copy' legacy from the Entangle spell in the SRD ?
Because, even if you make your save, the spell still makes the area act as difficult terrain, and your save doesn't allow you to ignore that part of the spell effects.
Stand Still:
"When a foe provokes an attack of opportunity due to moving through your adjacent squares, you can make a combat maneuver check as your attack of opportunity. If successful, the enemy cannot move for the rest of his turn. An enemy can still take the rest of his action, but cannot move. This feat also applies to any creature that attempts to move from a square that is adjacent to you if such movement provokes an attack of opportunity."
As far as I can tell, the last sentence does not add ANY information whatsoever...
Saying it "also" applies in that way is inaccurate: that is the ONLY way the feat applies.
I suspect this was an artifact from a previous version of the Feat...
Stand Still:
"When a foe provokes an attack of opportunity due to moving through your adjacent squares, you can make a combat maneuver check as your attack of opportunity. If successful, the enemy cannot move for the rest of his turn. An enemy can still take the rest of his action, but cannot move. This feat also applies to any creature that attempts to move from a square that is adjacent to you if such movement provokes an attack of opportunity."As far as I can tell, the last sentence does not add ANY information whatsoever...
Saying it "also" applies in that way is inaccurate: that is the ONLY way the feat applies.
I suspect this was an artifact from a previous version of the Feat...
Maybe they are talking there about "not regular" movement, as 5' in difficult terrain, crawling, etc. These movements are not made "through" an adjacent square. A bit confusing, it could be worded better as
"When a foe provokes an attack of opportunity due to leaving one your adjacent squares..."Also, the feat text could include a reference to reach weapons, at least to say that they don't allow the use of the feat even if you get an AoO.
Page 80
Abjuration School - Protective Ward
"...create a 10' radius field of protective magic centered on you that lasts for a number of rounds equal to your Intelligence modifier. All allies in this area (including you) receive a +1 deflection bonus to their AC for 1 round.
This ability first mentions that the aura lasts a number of rounds equal to the Int modifier. It then mentions that allies gain this effect for 1 round.
One interpretation is that in order to gain the bonus, you must be in the area at the time the effect is activated to gain the benefits. If this was the case though, then the duration of the effect is in conflict.
Another interpretation would be that you only have to enter the area to gain the benefit of the effect for 1 round. This could allow for an ally who is not in the affected area, to move in and out of the affected area and would gain the effect benefits for 1 round, even if they leave the area.
This ability really is not clearly explained. Please review.
Why would you exclude reach weapons?
"When a foe provokes an attack of opportunity due to moving through your adjacent squares, you can make a combat maneuver check as your attack of opportunity"
Because of the "adjacent squares" part. What I mean is that if you use a reach weapon the squares you are threatening are not adjacent, and the feat would not apply. The text is (rather) specific, but some people could not see that little requirement, or think that it is other way of saying "When a foe provokes an attack of opportunity due to moving through your threatened squares". So I think that the text could benefit from explicitly stating that reach weapons don't apply. It's not an errata, but a way of making it clear.
Of course if what the designers wanted was that reach weapons applied, then it is an errata, and should use "threatened squares" instead "adjacent squares".
Page 82
Necromancy - Life Sight
The blindsight ability is round based, however there is no reference to the rounds not needing to be consecutive. I've noticed that most of the other similar school powers do have the "non-consecutive" qualifier, so I thought I should point this out just in case it was an accidental omission.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I'm not sure if this has been brought up,
but it pertains to both Draconic and Abyssal Bloodline Claws:
They are both listed as "Claws (Ex):" but towards the end of both their descriptions, the prose says "This is a supernatural ability.", which even if it MATCHED the Ability Type would seem superfluous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Also,
I'm not SURE if it's "errata" or not, but I think when the Bloodline Claws were changed from Beta's unlimited usage to limited # of Rounds, that the progression of the ability wasn't fully adjusted for that:
I think when the "Elemental bonus damage" to claws/bite is gained, that the round restriction on claws/bite should be removed (i.e. unlimited claw/bite) but the elemental damage ITSELF could have the 3+Cha Rounds/day limitation.
Otherwise, any reasonable investment (Weapon Focus/ Imp Crit/Fang Amulet) in enhancing the effectiveness of the Claws/Bite (keeping up with expected power level) is thrown away once you use up the 3+Cha Rounds... Which would lead players to just NOT USE the Claws as much and focus on Feats and Enhancements geared to their manufactured weapons (which completely wastes the flavor of the PrC). This is really most critical to the Dragon Disciple PrC, as I don't see full Sorcerors using Claws that much at high level, while it's crucial to the schtick of DD's. Paladins may only be able to manifest their Holy Sword Bond a limited time per day, but the rest of the time it still works like a normal sword with the normal enhancements they put on it.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the errata. |
Spring Attack:
Spring Attack DOESN'T SPECIFY WHAT ACTION IT IS,
it just says "You can move up to your speed and make a single melee attack"
Since it never says Spring Attack is a Full-Round Action (or any type of action) 'containing' a single melee attack (and the movement before and after), I think it's reasonable for players to read the Movement of Spring Attack being a Move Action and the melee attack being a (Standard) Attack Action. Obviously this is crucial to interactions with other Feats/Abilities.
I don't know what Flybay Attack says because I don't have the Bestiary yet.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
Reposted from another thread.
Well if your target is immune to criticals then you can't score that critical hit that's in the first line of the Bleeding Critical feat. Don't forget that a natural 20 is NOT a critical hit, it's just an automatic hit and a critical threat. You have to make that confirmation roll, which is a moot point against a critical-immune target.
I'm not sure, but I think Fortification Armor, for instance, only 'cancels' the multiplied Crit Damage, not special effects triggered by a crit, which would include Bleed, Spell Critical, etc... But I don't know, there may a difference between actual Crit Immunity and things like Armor Fortification...???
Fortification: This suit of armor or shield produces a magical force that protects vital areas of the wearer more effectively. When a critical hit or sneak attack is scored on the wearer, there is a chance that the critical hit or sneak attack is negated and damage is instead rolled normally.To me, negated means negated. Damage is rolled normally, and anything extra on top of the damage that came from that hit is also negated.
Now, I thought I remembered there being text for Burst & Thundering weapons that said the additional damage was still triggered even if the crit was negated somehow, but that's either been removed or I'm misremembering.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I think we need a new thread for this. A thread where each "errata" is audited before being allowed to be added. There are so many in here that are not errors in the text that I doubt Jason is looking at this thread any more (recent examples of the Claws ability and Spring Attack above and more.)
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
In the PRD and Hardback.
The Summon Monster and Summon Nature's Ally series of spells do not give any direction as to how far apart multiple creature summons can be for spells II through IX. All of the spells just say
This spell functions like (summon monster/summon nature's ally I), except that you can summon one creature from the Xth-level list, 1d3 creatures of the same kind from the X-1 level list, or 1d4+1 creatures of the same kind from a lower-level list.
I take this to mean that there is no restriction on how far apart they need to be, simply that all of them must be within range of the spell.
Community Domain, pg. 42: the domain spell list is the one from 3.0, not 3.5. In 3.5 the spell Status went from 4th level to 2nd level (normally), and in the Community domain it moved from 4th to 2nd (displacing Shield Other), with "Status, Greater" taking the 4th place slot.
It may not be an error to omit that spell, as greater status is very powerful - allowing certain spells up to 2nd level (including cures) to be cast through the link, with no range limit.
However Status (2nd level) should *not* be a 4th level domain spell - that makes no sense at all.
|
Community Domain, pg. 42: the domain spell list is the one from 3.0, not 3.5. In 3.5 the spell Status went from 4th level to 2nd level (normally), and in the Community domain it moved from 4th to 2nd (displacing Shield Other), with "Status, Greater" taking the 4th place slot.
It may not be an error to omit that spell, as greater status is very powerful - allowing certain spells up to 2nd level (including cures) to be cast through the link, with no range limit.
However Status (2nd level) should *not* be a 4th level domain spell - that makes no sense at all.
After looking over the SRD it appears that the Community Domain in 3.5 is not open content, nor is the spell "status, greater" (the latter I believe appeared in The Book of Exalted Deeds)
While I do agree that I'm not sure "status" as a 4th level domain spell fits, I do not believe the others are options.
Community Domain, pg. 42: the domain spell list is the one from 3.0, not 3.5. In 3.5 the spell Status went from 4th level to 2nd level (normally), and in the Community domain it moved from 4th to 2nd (displacing Shield Other), with "Status, Greater" taking the 4th place slot.
It may not be an error to omit that spell, as greater status is very powerful - allowing certain spells up to 2nd level (including cures) to be cast through the link, with no range limit.
However Status (2nd level) should *not* be a 4th level domain spell - that makes no sense at all.
After looking over the SRD it appears that the Community Domain in 3.5 is not open content, nor is the spell "status, greater" (the latter I believe appeared in The Book of Exalted Deeds)
While I do agree that I'm not sure "status" as a 4th level domain spell fits, I do not believe the others are options.
Greater Status is in the Divine SRD.
Greater Status is in the Divine SRD.Not according the the actual SRD document.
I stand corrected!
The save for channel energy is based on cleric level and cha mod. The effect is determined by cleric level. The command undead feat allows a use of channel energy to create the effect of the spell control undead. Command undead allows the undead a save based on clerics caster level and cha mod. The effect of how many hit dice may be controlled is based on cleric level. It seems that there is an inconsistancy with the save DC for the feat command undead being based on caster level instead of cleric level.
The amount of damage dealt or healed is equal to 1d6 points of damage plus 1d6 points of damage for every two cleric levels beyond 1st (2d6 at 3rd, 3d6 at 5th, and so on). Creatures that take damage from channeled energy receive a Will save to halve the damage. The DC of this save is equal to 10 + 1/2 the cleric's level + the cleric's Charisma modifier.
As a standard action, you can use one of your uses of channel negative energy to enslave undead within 30 feet. Undead receive a Will save to negate the effect. The DC for this Will save is equal to 10 + 1/2 your caster level + your Charisma modifier.
...
You can control any number of undead, so long as their total Hit Dice do not exceed your cleric level.
You have to stay away from that site, they have a ton of stuff not in the SRD that either comes from them taking closed content or maybe even their own house rules interpretations.Greater Status is in the Divine SRD.
There may well be stuff that's not in the SRD (like the Unearthed Arcana material), but I'm pretty sure that Jans tries to steer away from Closed Content. Do you have any other examples?
|
|
There may well be stuff that's not in the SRD (like the Unearthed Arcana material), but I'm pretty sure that Jans tries to steer away from Closed Content. Do you have any other examples?You have to stay away from that site, they have a ton of stuff not in the SRD that either comes from them taking closed content or maybe even their own house rules interpretations.Greater Status is in the Divine SRD.
Well technically I believe the errata is not open content and he does integrate it. But I know for the most part he was very good at only putting the open stuff there. The UA stuff is open while not part of the SRD. But I do think that discussion should probably be carried out elsewhere as opposed to the errata thread.
hi folks!
is there already an errata for the german pathfinder core rulebook?
the translations are flawless (as usual for translated rpg products) but going once through the book i found 2 mistakes already that have nothing to do with translation <.< .. (also as usual for translatet rpg-products)
first:
Sorcerer Draconic Bloodline Power Claws: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/classes/sorcerer.html#sorcerer
in the PRD it states:
Claws (Ex): Starting at 1st level, you can grow claws ... Each of these attacks deals 1d4 points of damage plus your Strength modifier (1d3 if you are Small). ... At 7th level, the damage increases by one step to 1d6 points of damage (1d4 if you are Small). ...
while in the german pathfinder core rulebook it says
(translated )
Claws (Ex): Starting at 1st level, you can grow claws ... Each of these attacks deals 1d6 points of damage plus your Strength modifier (1d4 if you are Small). ... At 7th level, the damage increases by one step to 1d8 points of damage (1d6 if you are Small). ...
second:
Ray of Frost
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/rayOfFrost.html#ray-of-frost
the PRD states:
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
while in the german translation it stats:
Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
hi folks!
is there already an errata for the german pathfinder core rulebook?
As Paizo didn't translate the books, you probably should post these observations on the Ulisses ( = German publisher) boards.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the errata. |
Reposting this from another thread...
Basically the intent of Vital Strike IS decipherable
Not any more. Here is a quote by Jason from another thread you can find here
The list of things being multiplied is not exhaustive.. as that would have taken up way too much space.
Only the damage dice are multiplied. Nothing else.
I am looking at cleaning up this language.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
In another thread there is debate about whether Elves are still intended to be able to spot secret doors when passing near them. This ability has been removed from the list of racial traits in the front of the book, but is still mentioned on pages 404 (as an example of a type of die roll the GM should make secretly) and 414 (in the writeup on secret doors).
A quote from Joshua. The thread can be found here
Under the elf racial traits on page 22 there are no listings for this trait. The reference later in the rules is an artifact that needs to be removed in a future errata update.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the errata. |
Full-Attack
PRD: "Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks."
The text does not explain which action is the first attack if you chose to take the move action.
If it is still part of a full-attack, you could use Manyshot, as the feat does not require to take all your attacks.
If it is an Attack Action, you could apply Vital Strike. Notice that you could decide, if you fail your first attack, to continue with the rest of your attacks; and if you hit, to apply Vital Strike.
No, you can't make more than one attack if you use Vital strike. here is a quote:
Hey there all,
Couple of notes. Generally speaking, when reading feats, the descriptive sentence at the very beginning is just that, descriptive. It is not generally rules text.
As for the Vital Strike issue... just roll the damage dice for the weapon twice. Everything else is as normal. If you normally deal 1d8+4 with a longsword, you would deal 2d8+4 with a longsword using Vital Strike.
Vital Strike is an attack action, btw, which is a standard action. You cannot use it as part of a full-attack action.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
He's not asking about making multiple/Iterative attacks w/ Vital Strike, but about a SINGLE attack.
...I believe you CAN do what he's asking about: Otherwise, what Action would the first attack BE if you chose to Move (or more specifically, NOT Full Attack)? If it IS an Attack Action, Vital Strike WOULD apply, I see no requirement to "declare" anything. The wording SHOULD be clearer that if you choose not to continue to a Full Attack Action, the first attack is a Standard Attack. (This is assuming it wasn't another special type of attack from the beginning, like a Grapple, Cleave, Whirlwind Attack, etc)
I approach movement the same way, it need not be defined until you reach a threshold which WOULD define it, i.e. if you choose not to provoke an AoO while moving 5', it is fixed as a "5' Step" and precludes other movement; Move your standard movement rate in a straight line: If you now see an Enemy thru an adjacent door way, you can take an Attack Action, OR you can continue the movement either as a Double Move/Run, or a Charge. ...That's just how I approach it.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
If it IS an Attack Action, Vital Strike WOULD apply, I see no requirement to "declare" anything.
So you are saying that someone could say "I am full attacking, but if I hit my first attack I will promote that to a vital strike then move instead of finishing my full attack?"
Really?
I'd say you need to declare either you are Vital Striking or Standard Attacking with option to Promote to Full.
I know nothing in the rules suggests that though.
The problem is that though you're given the option to take a single attack or continue with Full Attack, it doesn't specify the action of the single attack (other than that it's compatable with a Standard Action, since you are allowed to Move as well) - I'm saying it's PRESUMABLE that it is a Attack Action because there is no other action type available to everybody granting a single attack, and if it IS an attack action, then Vital Strike applies. The real problem with this situation IMHO is with Cleave (Standard Action/not attack action): can you decide to continue with Full Attack if you miss, but make that first attack a Cleave if you hit? The rules don't say. Even if this choice is indeed intended, it should be spelled out more, rather than leaving the action type of the first attack (when forgoing Full Attack) completely undefined.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
rather than leaving the action type of the first attack (when forgoing Full Attack) completely undefined.
I think it is sufficiently defined though. I see it as an attack action (which is a standard action.)
I also don't feel comfortable making the choice of whether or not you Vital AFTER you hit, since if you used Attack Action (before promoting to Full Attack) you would be concerned with whether or not you hit.
You may be right that the rules don't go into enough detail to shut down your interpretation, but I think the intent (RAI) and meaning (RAW) of the rules prohibits this. Once you choose between Vital Strike and no-Vital Strike you choose to perform a Standard and prevent yourself from promoting to Full Attack.
The full-attack action is a full-round action. You can declare a full-attack action and abort after one attack, refunding yourself a move action. This is a special feature of the full-attack action, described under its heading. You still took the full-attack action, and cannot apply Vital Strike which only works with the attack action.
If you take the attack action, which is a standard action, there is no inversion of this rule. You cannot declare one attack and then decide to make more.
Most GM want you to declare what you are going to do. A standard action or a full attack action /full round action. It would be a bit odd if GM ask player:
- What are you going to do this round?
Answer from player:
- I tell you when I know if I was successful.
I go with James Risner and tejón on this one.
As for manyshot. I would say if you use Manyshot you must make a "full-attack action with a bow", but I admit I'm not sure I'm right.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned yet--there are a whole lotta entries in this thread!--but can spell-like abilities be counterspelled, or not? I don't have the page numbers on me, sorry, but in the Magic chapter, it says
Spell-like abilities are subject to spell resistance and dispel magic. They do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated. Spell-like abilities cannot be used to counterspell, nor can they be counterspelled.
while in the Glossary it says
Spell-Like Abilities (Sp): Spell-like abilities, as the name implies, are magical abilities that are very much like spells. Spell-like abilities are subject to spell resistance and dispel magic. They do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated (such as an antimagic field). Spell-like abilities can be dispelled and counterspelled as normal.
In the Summon Nature's Ally monster list:
-"Goblin Dog" should be "Goblin dog"
-"Electric Eel" should be "Electric eel"
-"Mastadon" should be "Mastodon"