Therefore CMD = Touch AC + Str + BAB + (-2x Size)
Well, it's what Quandary and I finally proposed during beta after a very long thread. :P Except that the "-2x size" part was pre-calculated so you didn't have to think about it. The actual text would have been along the lines of:
CMD is a modified touch AC. Add your base attack bonus and Strength modifier, and an additional special size modifier: (...), Small -2, Medium +0, Large +2, (...)
This is, of course, mathematically identical to the final system if you assume the same modifiers apply. Which I do, because I designed it that way. Technically this is a house rule, but I don't care. ;)
Thanks Tejon, I can only explain pure simplicity so often :-)
I should point out, the idea is that it's mathematical identical to CMD,
except for 99% percent less "does this apply to CMB/CMD" questions on Paizo's messageboards :-)
It addresses 'simplicity' by *100%* following normal attack/touchAC modifiers = no extra rules to track, just one "maneuver size mod" (which is 0 for Medium characters) you can apply on the fly, which is convenient for 2ndary/iterative attacks. It also needs less word-count to describe vs. re-hashing the modifiers that apply to Touch AC.
I'll readily admit that I haven't hacked through the entirety of the thread, but one thing I noticed:
The Flavor Text for the Xill gets cut off midsentence. I presume that there's only a little more to it, but it stops short somewhere around "militaristic" (I'm away from my book right now). I hope this gets cleaned up in the .pdf and later printings of the book.
Paizo has done such a wonderful job with the new system that I hate coming on here and pointing errors like this out. I know it has to be done, it just makes me feel spoiled and unappreciative. Now I feel like a kiss-ass but does everyone know what I mean?
Creative Director
|
Also, tyrannosaurus is listed as Gargantuan but shouldn't that have been Huge? ACwise it matches to Gargantuan but you advance it from the base and advanced companion rules huge would be right for the stats. Also (I know I've made this point before on here) horizontal creatures calculate size category based on head and body length (ie to the base of the tail) On that basis Tyrannosaurus is squarely size Huge (16-32 ft) 20-24ft head body with a 16-20 ft long tail. Roc is somewhat similar on the ability scores.
The animal companion stat blocks are derived from the monster stat block version of the same animal... but in some cases (particularly for really big animals) the translation isn't perfect. Advancing some of the animal companion stat blocks up to the actual monster's normal size does not always work out as a result.
This is because balancing stats for a monster and stats for an animal companion aren't always 100% in sync.
In other words, there's no error with the tyrannosaurus stat block size.
Any progress with the pre-Bugbear links in the pdf?
This is not a real 'errata', more of a clarification.
The entry for the Lich template (page 189) says that:
"Type: The creature’s type changes to undead. Do not recalculate BAB, saves, or skill ranks."
like in 3.5, and in fact, his skill ranks are calculated as (2 (Wizard)+1 racial (human)+ 6 (Int)) per HD.
The entry for the Vampire template (page 270) says that:
"Type: The creature’s type changes to undead (augmented). Do not recalculate class Hit Dice, BAB, or saves."
which is different from 3.5, and in fact the (lovely) Vampire Human Sorceress has a number of Skill Ranks calculated with the Undead progression (4 per HD): (4 (Undead) + 1 racial (human) + 2 (Int)).
Does this mean that a Vampire Rogue or Vampire Bard ends with less Skill Ranks than when he was living (even with the +2 Int from the Template)? I don't care if I have to recalculate all Skil Ranks (with the Int Increase, even the Lich has to be recalculate in some ways), but it's a bit sad that a Vampire Rogue loses Skills - even the flat racial bonus to some skills is of little consequence at higher levels...
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
The rust monster's rust ability mentions that they're a primary touch attack, but the stat block has them at +1 to hit (compared to the +6 for the bite) and thus as a secondary attack. I'm assuming that it should be +6.
Also, the descriptive text mentions that "any metal touched by the rust monster's delicate antennae or armored hide corrodes..." Should the rust ability work on metal weapons that strike the rust monster, even though it's not mentioned in the special ability, or is this an artifact of a previous version of the monster?
Should the rust ability work on metal weapons that strike the rust monster, even though it's not mentioned in the special ability, or is this an artifact of a previous version of the monster?
I sure hope so. The reactive rust effect led to one of the most awesome moments ever in one of my games... 11th-level character lost his legacy axe to a natural 1 on a save, with the same critical hit that killed the rust monster. Man, he was pissed. :D
The entry for the Vampire template (page 270) says that:
"Type: The creature’s type changes to undead (augmented). Do not recalculate class Hit Dice, BAB, or saves."
which is different from 3.5, and in fact the (lovely) Vampire Human Sorceress has a number of Skill Ranks calculated with the Undead progression (4 per HD): (4 (Undead) + 1 racial (human) + 2 (Int)).Does this mean that a Vampire Rogue or Vampire Bard ends with less Skill Ranks than when he was living (even with the +2 Int from the Template)? I don't care if I have to recalculate all Skil Ranks (with the Int Increase, even the Lich has to be recalculate in some ways), but it's a bit sad that a Vampire Rogue loses Skills - even the flat racial bonus to some skills is of little consequence at higher levels...
I personally would treat it as take whichever is higher, the vampire's undead skill points, or the class skillpoints (then again, I'd do the same for the lich). But I agree, it would be nice to have a clarification since we have two different undead being treated two different ways. I hope personally that the 'undead skills' is a minimum, and not a fixed amount (IE: Use 4 or class/racial hit die skills, whichever is greater).
Also, the descriptive text mentions that "any metal touched by the rust monster's delicate antennae or armored hide corrodes..." Should the rust ability work on metal weapons that strike the rust monster, even though it's not mentioned in the special ability, or is this an artifact of a previous version of the monster?
I'm not sure how you would hit a rust monster with a metal weapon without touching its armored hide.
In other words, there's no error with the tyrannosaurus stat block size.
Oh no, my Fiendish Tyrannosaurus mini just acquired the Young Creature template!
Weirdly, I'm a little envious of him.
In other words, there's no error with the tyrannosaurus stat block size.Oh no, my Fiendish Tyrannosaurus mini just acquired the Young Creature template!
Weirdly, I'm a little envious of him.
Hmm James said his piece and it is fair there aren't errors with the stat block. I guess I'm just puzzled that tyrannosaurus is listed as Gargantuan when:
-it is described as being 40 ft long about 1/2 of which is tail so a head body length of approximately 20 ft which is solidly in Huge territory by the size category rules for long creatures
-The SRD tyrannosaurus (which was probably the start point for the bestiary one) is Huge and
-Drakli pointed out the fiendish tyrannosaurus mini (which coincidentally or not James is using as his avatar) is Huge-if it were Gargantuan it would have needed to be part of the D&D Icons line
Just puzzled mind you not trying to be confrontational and if it came across that way I apologize.
|
Creative Director
|
A Gargantuan T-Rex, for one thing, allows for a wider range of T-rex like dinosaur variety when you apply the young or giant simple templates, for one. When you include the deinonychus, that gives you a range of Small to Colossal for dinos of this shape, pretty easy.
Further, the spread of dino sizes made it more desirable to have two Gargantuan creatures in the book; there's already plenty of Huge ones.
And as for the dinosaur itself... going by the basic guidelines for creature size, the tyrannosaurus DOES fit into a gargantuan mode better than Huge. Large covers lengths of up to 16 feet, while Huge goes up to 32 feet. The tyrannosaurus, being 40 feet long, is by that reading, Gargantuan. (Might not be the most accurate way to look at things, but It doesn't matter to me if a fair amount of that is tail length.)
Also... the tyrannosaurus has no real ranged attack capability to speak of. By making him Gargantuan, we extend the amount of area that he takes up and can reach into, making it a bit more difficult to, say, climb a tree to escape him.
The tyrannosaurus is the most famous dinosaur. It's bigger than life in a lot of ways. And making it Gargantuan is a good way to capture this.
As for the D&D miniatures line... while it certainly is neat to be able to use these minis in Pathfinder games, they are the result of a different company. The Pathfinder tyrannosaurus is not the same as the D&D tyrannosaurus. Limiting the development and evolution of Pathfinder to the limitations set by another company is not something I'm interested in doing.
|
|
This is not a real 'errata', more of a clarification.
The entry for the Lich template (page 189) says that:
"Type: The creature’s type changes to undead. Do not recalculate BAB, saves, or skill ranks."
like in 3.5, and in fact, his skill ranks are calculated as (2 (Wizard)+1 racial (human)+ 6 (Int)) per HD.The entry for the Vampire template (page 270) says that:
"Type: The creature’s type changes to undead (augmented). Do not recalculate class Hit Dice, BAB, or saves."
which is different from 3.5, and in fact the (lovely) Vampire Human Sorceress has a number of Skill Ranks calculated with the Undead progression (4 per HD): (4 (Undead) + 1 racial (human) + 2 (Int)).Does this mean that a Vampire Rogue or Vampire Bard ends with less Skill Ranks than when he was living (even with the +2 Int from the Template)? I don't care if I have to recalculate all Skil Ranks (with the Int Increase, even the Lich has to be recalculate in some ways), but it's a bit sad that a Vampire Rogue loses Skills - even the flat racial bonus to some skills is of little consequence at higher levels...
I think you need to check your math on the vampire. She only has ranks in 5 skills, which I am calculating as 2 (class) + 1 (favored class) + 2 (Int). Her ranks in Perception, Sense Motive and Stealth are solely the result of her ability scores, feat bonuses and racial skill bonuses.
I think you need to check your math on the vampire. She only has ranks in 5 skills, which I am calculating as 2 (class) + 1 (favored class) + 2 (Int). Her ranks in Perception, Sense Motive and Stealth are solely the result of her ability scores, feat bonuses and racial skill bonuses.
Actually, that +1 is from Human, not favored class. If you look at the bonus hit points beyond the hit dice (+72) that is calculated from the 8 levels * (Cha [+8] + 1 [Favored Class]) = 8 * 9 = 72. This follows the listed default in the Conversion Guide and the Core Rulebook of NPC's using the Favored Class towards HP, not skills.
|
|
Actually, that +1 is from Human, not favored class. If you look at the bonus hit points beyond the hit dice (+72) that is calculated from the 8 levels * (Cha [+8] + 1 [Favored Class]) = 8 * 9 = 72. This follows the listed default in the Conversion Guide and the Core Rulebook of NPC's using the Favored Class towards HP, not skills.
I think you need to check your math on the vampire. She only has ranks in 5 skills, which I am calculating as 2 (class) + 1 (favored class) + 2 (Int). Her ranks in Perception, Sense Motive and Stealth are solely the result of her ability scores, feat bonuses and racial skill bonuses.
Check the feats. She's got Toughness.
Check the feats. She's got Toughness.Actually, that +1 is from Human, not favored class. If you look at the bonus hit points beyond the hit dice (+72) that is calculated from the 8 levels * (Cha [+8] + 1 [Favored Class]) = 8 * 9 = 72. This follows the listed default in the Conversion Guide and the Core Rulebook of NPC's using the Favored Class towards HP, not skills.
I think you need to check your math on the vampire. She only has ranks in 5 skills, which I am calculating as 2 (class) + 1 (favored class) + 2 (Int). Her ranks in Perception, Sense Motive and Stealth are solely the result of her ability scores, feat bonuses and racial skill bonuses.
Ah, dang, you're right, my bad. But I still think it is from Human, not Favored Class. Looking at the Noble Drow (which has 3 PC class levels and is not Human) it does not appear to have a Favored Class bonus in either its hit points or the skills.
|
Question: why do most Huge (4-legged) dinos have a reach of 15 feet??? (I'm guessing long necks or tails, but in the case of the triceratops, this guy's got no neck! :P ...although a case could be made that his horns are freaggin' long)
PS: the more I read about dinos, the more I think they're the ultimate choice for druid wildshape and/or animal companion...
Question: why do most Huge (4-legged) dinos have a reach of 15 feet???
I'd imagine it has a little to do with James description for the Tyrannosaur a few posts above.
Pesky climbing adventurer's, Besides a lot of the Dinosaur's attack with either long tails or necks, so could be another reason?
I think you need to check your math on the vampire. She only has ranks in 5 skills, which I am calculating as 2 (class) + 1 (favored class) + 2 (Int). Her ranks in Perception, Sense Motive and Stealth are solely the result of her ability scores, feat bonuses and racial skill bonuses.
You are right, she has only 40 skill ranks (I didn't 'split' her skill progression). Which basically means two things:
1) the entry for the Vampire Template has an omission, because it should read "Type: The creature’s type changes to undead (augmented).
Do not recalculate class Hit Dice, BAB, skill ranks, or saves."
2) Undead lose their 'extra skill rank' for being (formerly) human in Pathfinder (or this is another errata)
Lich Human Wizard 11: he has extra hit points both from the Favored Class and the Toughness feat (Cha +3, Toughness +1, Favored Class +1 = +5 hp per HD; 11d6 +55 hp)
Craft (Alchemy): 11 ranks, +3 class, +6 Int = +20
Intimidate: 11 ranks, +3 Cha, +3 racial skill = +17
Knowledge (arcana): 11 ranks, +3 class, +6 Int = +20
Knowledge (planes): 11 ranks, +3 class, +6 Int = +20
Linguistic: 11 ranks, +3 class, +6 Int = +20
Perception: 11 ranks, +8 racial, +2 Wis, +3 racial skill= +24
Sense Motive: 11 ranks, +8 racial, +2 Wis, +3 racial skill = +24
Stealth: 11 ranks, +8 racial, +2 Wis, +3 racial skill= +24
Total Skill Ranks: 88 (+6 Int and +2 Wizard per HD, no more Human racial skill point per HD)
Vampire Human Sorcerer 8: she has extra hp only from the Toughness feat (Cha+8, Toughness +1 = +9 hp per HD; 8d6+72 hp)
Bluff: 8 ranks, +3 class, +8 racial, +8 Cha = +27
Knowledge (arcana): 8 ranks, +3 class, +2 Int = +13
Knowledge (religion): 8 ranks, +3 bloodline skill, +2 Int = +13
Perception: 0 ranks, +8 racial, +3 Wis, +2 Alertness = +13
Sense Motive: 0 ranks, +8 racial, +3 Wis, +2 Alertness = +13
Spellcraft: 8 ranks, +3 class, +2 Int = +13
Stealth: 0 ranks, +8 racial, +4 Dex = +12
Use Magic Device: 8 ranks, +3 class, +8 Cha = +19
Total Skill Ranks: 40 (+2 Int, +2 Sorcerer, and +1 Favored Class per HD; no more Human racial skill point per HD)
|
|
A Gargantuan T-Rex, for one thing, allows for a wider range of T-rex like dinosaur variety when you apply the young or giant simple templates, for one. When you include the deinonychus, that gives you a range of Small to Colossal for dinos of this shape, pretty easy.
Further, the spread of dino sizes made it more desirable to have two Gargantuan creatures in the book; there's already plenty of Huge ones.
And as for the dinosaur itself... going by the basic guidelines for creature size, the tyrannosaurus DOES fit into a gargantuan mode better than Huge. Large covers lengths of up to 16 feet, while Huge goes up to 32 feet. The tyrannosaurus, being 40 feet long, is by that reading, Gargantuan. (Might not be the most accurate way to look at things, but It doesn't matter to me if a fair amount of that is tail length.)
Also... the tyrannosaurus has no real ranged attack capability to speak of. By making him Gargantuan, we extend the amount of area that he takes up and can reach into, making it a bit more difficult to, say, climb a tree to escape him.
The tyrannosaurus is the most famous dinosaur. It's bigger than life in a lot of ways. And making it Gargantuan is a good way to capture this.
As for the D&D miniatures line... while it certainly is neat to be able to use these minis in Pathfinder games, they are the result of a different company. The Pathfinder tyrannosaurus is not the same as the D&D tyrannosaurus. Limiting the development and evolution of Pathfinder to the limitations set by another company is not something I'm interested in doing.
...and according to this picture http://www.pepperspollywogs.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/ice-age-dinosaurs-p oster.jpg , the T-Rex is definitely Gargantuan... :P
I mean, his head is bigger than the woolly mammoth, which is Huge to start with... :P
Also... the tyrannosaurus has no real ranged attack capability to speak of. By making him Gargantuan, we extend the amount of area that he takes up and can reach into, making it a bit more difficult to, say, climb a tree to escape him.
Though this is an extremely good point, by far the best element of the change is that now I can mount my Cloud Giant calvary on them!
|
|
Though this is an extremely good point, by far the best element of the change is that now I can mount my Cloud Giant calvary on them!
Also... the tyrannosaurus has no real ranged attack capability to speak of. By making him Gargantuan, we extend the amount of area that he takes up and can reach into, making it a bit more difficult to, say, climb a tree to escape him.
Nice! :)
Though this is an extremely good point, by far the best element of the change is that now I can mount my Cloud Giant calvary on them!
Also... the tyrannosaurus has no real ranged attack capability to speak of. By making him Gargantuan, we extend the amount of area that he takes up and can reach into, making it a bit more difficult to, say, climb a tree to escape him.
See, and my first thought was :
Goblin Tyrannocavalry!
Imagine a dozen on the back of a fully armored t-rex, inside a carriage mounted on the things back with arrow slits. The reins reaching up through the side of the carriage. :)
Kind of like the mammoths in LOTR. ;)
No one expects the Goblin Tyrannocavalry!
Works better with lizardmen:
Works better with lizardmen:
Nice. I think it works better with lizardmen, but goblins are funnier. :) Imagine them screaming and crawling over it, one falling off every once in awhile to be stomped flat by a foot. ;)
Nope. Screw lizardfolk. You want kinda greenish frog/snake aliens with laser guns. Like this. Oh the fond memories I have of that show...
-----------------------------------
One thing that may need some errata is Rake. As writ, it only works on a pouncing charge. The other use - using it in a grapple - is impossible, because grappling is a standard action, so you can't full attack with your rakes. So unless you pounce charge, your rake attack will never be used. I don't know how many monsters have rakes and don't have pounces, but it seems like they should have just rewritten Rake to just say "extra attacks on a pounce" or actually fixed the grapple/pounce interaction.
One thing that may need some errata is Rake. As writ, it only works on a pouncing charge. The other use - using it in a grapple - is impossible, because grappling is a standard action, so you can't full attack with your rakes.
My understanding was that the rake attacks came for free as long as you're grappling (i.e., as long as you successfully keep grappling, you can make two rake attacks as part of that action).
|
|
Ah, dang, you're right, my bad. But I still think it is from Human, not Favored Class. Looking at the Noble Drow (which has 3 PC class levels and is not Human) it does not appear to have a Favored Class bonus in either its hit points or the skills.
The drow noble has ranks in three skills and no Int bonus. That means she has 2 (class) + 1 (favored).
My understanding was that the rake attacks came for free as long as you're grappling (i.e., as long as you successfully keep grappling, you can make two rake attacks as part of that action).
One thing that may need some errata is Rake. As writ, it only works on a pouncing charge. The other use - using it in a grapple - is impossible, because grappling is a standard action, so you can't full attack with your rakes.
I'm not seeing anything in Rake that says that, though.
A creature with this special attack gains extra natural attacks under certain conditions, typically when it grapples its foe. In addition to the options available to all grapplers, a monster with the rake ability gains two additional claw attacks that it can use only against a grappled foe. The bonus and damage caused by these attacks is included in the creature's description. A monster with the rake ability must begin its turn already grappling to use its rake—it can't begin a grapple and rake in the same turn.
Nothing about free attacks. It says rakes are extra natural attacks, but you don't get to make any natural attacks in a grapple necessarily, because grappling is a standard action, which therefore prohibits full attacks.
I'm not seeing anything in Rake that says that, though.
A creature with this special attack gains extra natural attacks under certain conditions, typically when it grapples its foe. In addition to the options available to all grapplers, a monster with the rake ability gains two additional claw attacks that it can use only against a grappled foe. The bonus and damage caused by these attacks is included in the creature's description. A monster with the rake ability must begin its turn already grappling to use its rake—it can't begin a grapple and rake in the same turn.Nothing about free attacks. It says rakes are extra natural attacks, but you don't get to make any natural attacks in a grapple necessarily, because grappling is a standard action, which therefore prohibits full attacks.
Well, on a successful grapple check you do get to deal natural weapon damage to your target (if you so choose). At any rate, I think "extra" attacks means free attacks. As you point out, otherwise it's impossible to use them.
|
|
No.
First, someone with pounce/rake usually has grab as well, which means they get to initiate a grapple as a free action. If successful, they establish a hold.
Grab, PRD: The creature has the option to conduct the
grapple normally, or simply use the part of its body it
used in the grab to hold the opponent. If it chooses to
do the latter, it takes a –20 penalty on its CMB check
to make and maintain the grapple, but does not gain
the grappled condition itself.
Also, Grab, PRD: Creatures with the grab special attack receive a +4
bonus on combat maneuver checks made to start and
maintain a grapple.
In the above example, let's assume the creature does not take -20 and decides to gain the grappled condition, we have:
Grappled, PRD: A grappled creature is restrained by a creature,
trap, or effect. Grappled creatures cannot move and take a –4
penalty to Dexterity. A grappled creature takes a –2 penalty
on all attack rolls and combat maneuver checks, except
those made to grapple or escape a grapple. In addition,
grappled creatures
can take no action that requires two
hands to perform. A grappled character who attempts to cast
a spell must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler’s
CMB + spell level, see page 206), or lose the spell. Grappled
creatures cannot make attacks of opportunity.
A grappled creature cannot use Stealth to hide from
the creature grappling it, even if a special ability, such as
hide in plain sight, would normally allow it to do so. If
a grappled creature becomes invisible, through a spell or
other ability, it gains a +2 circumstance bonus on its CMD
to avoid being grappled, but receives no other benefit.
Finally, we have a pretty clear statement here: (bold emphasis mine)
Rake, PRD: In addition to the options
available to all grapplers, a monster with the rake ability
gains two additional claw attacks that it can use only
against a grappled foe.
So, the lion can do the following with a grappled foe:
--> If he does not release the grapple, he must continue to make a check each round, as a standard action, to maintain the hold (+5 to maintain, +4 because he has the Grab ability = +9 to maintain). Because he maintains, he gets to apply bite damage each time, AND can make two rake attacks at -2 to hit (yes, these appear to be made as a free action). Basically, while maintaining a grapple, a lion loses his two claw attacks. That is, of course, only if the lion is considered grappled and has not taken the -20 to establish the hold; if takes the -20 (-20 + 5 + 4 = -11 by the way...) and manages to still maintain his hold, he applies bite damage and then can move or otherwise make two claw and two rake attacks without the -2 penalty. The trick is in the wording of the grab ability: "The creature has the option to conduct the grapple normally, or simply use the part of its body it used in the grab to hold the opponent. If it chooses to do the latter, it takes a –20 penalty on its CMB check to make and maintain the grapple, but does not gain the grappled condition itself." I believe this statement should be errated to say "The creature has the option to conduct the grapple normally, or simply use the part of its body it used in the grab to hold the opponent. If it chooses to do the latter, it takes a –20 penalty on its CMB check to make and maintain the grapple, but does not gain the grappled condition itself and can also maintain the grapple as a free action, thus allowing the creature to act normally with any other available limbs. Thus, a creature with the grab ability who maintains a hold with the above-mentioned -20 penalty could also move and attack another creature if it can normally attack with more than one part of its body, or conduct the rest of its attacks against his grappled opponent(s)."
This errata would allow a creature to use his other limbs, as per the original intent of the ability...
So many errors in the book! It's a a shame. With so much delay I was expecting more rigor, it looks like the errata is going to have as many pages as the book itself...
I must say that I am disappointed by the Bestiary, I was expecting a lot better than that in terms of quality: less errors, more flavor text (some monsters are just really a stat block, not inspiring at all) and especially better artwork.
I know this is personal opinion and everyone has different taste about artwork but I find some of the monsters art really crap, especially the goblin family. I wan't a big fan of the new goblin to start with but the other family members are just wrong: the bugbear, the hobgoblin who looks like Shrek, the bargheist, ...
The worse of all being the troll IMHO.
Sorry for the rant, not a specific problem about rules but more a general disappointment about the product.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
So many errors in the book! It's a a shame. With so much delay I was expecting more rigor, it looks like the errata is going to have as many pages as the book itself...
It's a monster book - it has far more stat blocks and possibilities for error than any other kind of book. Bearing that in mind, I don't think it has that many errors at all.
I think the big difference is that if you compare it to a previous monster book is that you've never before had a monster book published by a company that a) has such an active message board, b) is immediately involved with providing comment and feedback on fan response, and c) will update the PDF with all of the fixes for these errors that have been identified.
In combination, these reasons have likely caused a much stronger fan effort to identify the errors in the book, so that we can get an updated PDF with all of them fixed, than other monster books (or game books in general for that matter) from other companies.
I think the big difference is that if you compare it to a previous monster book is that you've never before had a monster book published by a company that a) has such an active message board, b) is immediately involved with providing comment and feedback on fan response, and c) will update the PDF with all of the fixes for these errors that have been identified.In combination, these reasons have likely caused a much stronger fan effort to identify the errors in the book, so that we can get an updated PDF with all of them fixed, than other monster books (or game books in general for that matter) from other companies.
Sorry I bought the book not the PDF and it will never get updated so I'll have to remember all the errors for each monster and carry the sheets of papers. Reactivity is ok but I would prefer the quality to be better in the first place. I didn't pay to buy a beta version of the book. I definitely feel like the work wasn't done correctly.
WotC boards also has an active message board and the number of errors in the 3.5 MM seemed much lower that what we see here: 3.5 MM errata. Sorry but it's just a shame, it seems that there are mistakes every other monster.
Page 268: Omission error. The troll entry makes no mention of anyone named Faenor.
Hehe. You may be right it can sound like a troll which is not in my habits but it's the Product board right? And the thread is about the problems of the Bestiary product right? So I apologize (sic) if I'm not satisfied with the product and let it know to the editors, publishers, designers, etc. with the hope they will do better next time. Now if you're fine with buying an unfinished product, recalculating the stats of each monster (stats being almost the only feature of the book) and hearing critics about it then that's good for you. I'm not a fanboy like you apparently and I expect better quality in the products I buy (and I like to think I'm not the only one).
Regards
Ah, dang, you're right, my bad. But I still think it is from Human, not Favored Class. Looking at the Noble Drow (which has 3 PC class levels and is not Human) it does not appear to have a Favored Class bonus in either its hit points or the skills.The drow noble has ranks in three skills and no Int bonus. That means she has 2 (class) + 1 (favored).
RRk, I swear, I can't get anything right anymore!
it looks like I was wrong on all counts. Favored Class it is!
WotC boards also has an active message board and the number of errors in the 3.5 MM seemed much lower that what we see here: 3.5 MM errata. Sorry but it's just a shame, it seems that there are mistakes every other monster.
Faenor, that WotC errata list is just a small fraction of the many small errors in the 3.5 Monster Manual. Getting the number of skill ranks exactly right is particularly tricky (in both the Monster Manual and the Bestiary).
WotC boards also has an active message board and the number of errors in the 3.5 MM seemed much lower that what we see here: 3.5 MM errata. Sorry but it's just a shame, it seems that there are mistakes every other monster.Faenor, that WotC errata list is just a small fraction of the many small errors in the 3.5 Monster Manual. Getting the number of skill ranks exactly right is particularly tricky (in both the Monster Manual and the Bestiary).
Exactly, you can for example look at the Mind Flayer in the Monster Manual 3.5 to see that the skill points are wrong (and the Official Errata never mentioned errors in the skill points).
I included a little calculation below, without mentioning actual numbers (in order to avoid IP issues):
A Mind Flayer should have 66 skill points in 3.5 (Aberration, Int +4); now, if you calculate its skill points deducting the Ability Score bonuses and the Synergy bonuses (+2 on Diplomacy, +2 conditional on Disguise, and +2 on Intimidate), and remember to double the skill points spent on Diplomacy and Sense Motive (which are not Racial Skills, according to the 'Mind Flayers as Characters' text), you end with 73 skill points. Even if you deduct 4 skill points to this calculation from Concentration (due to Combat Casting), you end with 69 points. 66 skill points is not matched in either way.
Or maybe did they intend to give to it a +4 Synergy bonus on Diplomacy (an error, since Sense Motive has not 5 ranks, and so it cannot grant another +2 to Diplomacy)? Same here, you subtract 2 ranks (4 skill points) from Diplomacy and end with either 69 skill points (Combat Casting excluded) or 65 skill points (Combat Casting included).
Still no 66 skill points.
As you can see, it's easy to make a mess with all these numbers...
|
|
So many errors in the book! It's a a shame. With so much delay I was expecting more rigor, it looks like the errata is going to have as many pages as the book itself...
I must say that I am disappointed by the Bestiary, I was expecting a lot better than that in terms of quality: less errors, more flavor text (some monsters are just really a stat block, not inspiring at all) and especially better artwork.
I know this is personal opinion and everyone has different taste about artwork but I find some of the monsters art really crap, especially the goblin family. I wan't a big fan of the new goblin to start with but the other family members are just wrong: the bugbear, the hobgoblin who looks like Shrek, the bargheist, ...
The worse of all being the troll IMHO.
Sorry for the rant, not a specific problem about rules but more a general disappointment about the product.
You're entitled your opinion, but as far as I'm concerned, this book is light years ahead from a quality perspective, compared to the usual 3.5 WotC stuff I was buying at the end (dragons of faerun, MMIII, MMIV, MMV, to name a few... people actually gave up trying to find errors as it was too time consuming to jot them down...)
Aside from a very few minor things, this book is useable as is.
|
|
WotC boards also has an active message board and the number of errors in the 3.5 MM seemed much lower that what we see here: 3.5 MM errata. Sorry but it's just a shame, it seems that there are mistakes every other monster.
Hahahahahahahah! that statement was actually very funny. Keep cracking such good jokes, Faenor! :D :D :D (hint: MM3.5? start with the grapple bonuses, then look at how they did hit points, then take a stroll around the ability DCs... what a wonderful trip you'll have!)
Basically, back in 3.5: for minions and random encounters, I would use the MM stats as is to save time, but for any major monster/NPC/boss, I would recalculate the stats from the ground up, as EVERY stat block was flawed...
You're obviously attached to your WotC stuff, so we'll agree to disagree here if you will... (I, myself, no longer suffer from that weird 3.5 conservatist mentality, especially since I put all my 3.5 stuff out for sale... Faenor: would you like to buy what's left of my 3.5 stuff for cheap? it's funny: even though there appears to be tons of 3.5/WotC lovers out there, I haven't been able to sell my 3.5 collection... even at the low price of $5 per book... I wonder why... these "crappy" Paizo products "should" be increasing the value and demand of my WotC stuff right???)
|
Creative Director
|
First of all... while it won't solve copies of the first printing's errors, we WILL be fixing errors in the text every time we reprint the book. And while there are some errors in the Bestiary, I don't think any of them are game breaking. Frankly, it's a little too easy to get caught up and worked up on errors in stat blocks, when in play, there's going to be COUNTLESS errors occurring anyway in the form of forgotten modifiers from situational conditions and spells and effects or misinterpretations of rules or whatever. And furthermore, I should point out that it's just as easy to introduce NEW errors on threads like these when someone rebuilds a statblock and forgets that the Fly skill has bonuses and penalties from size or that favored classes give extra skill points or that the rules are different now than they were in 3.5 in a lot of minor ways.
Am I disappointed there are errors in the book? Absolutely. But I'd rather have the book out than never put it out because we're trying to fix every single error. One of the first truths any editor has to accept is that no book will be 100% error free—and this is particularly true of RPGs since they have to be very aggressive on the release schedule but there's never enough money in the industry to be able to, say, afford to staff two dozen highly-trained editors. Paizo's lucky that we've got eight folks in the editorial department, actually—I suspect that's more than most other RPG companies with the possible exception of WotC...
Anyway... sorry the errors are ruining the game for you.
Whether dragons make you shaken or frightened is not specified. For now I will go with frightened on a failed save, and shakened if you make the save.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
First of all... while it won't solve copies of the first printing's errors, we WILL be fixing errors in the text every time we reprint the book.
Comments like that make me so happy that Paizo exists and makes me wish they had released Pathfinder before 4E was released...
Do I ask too much?