|
Absolutely. Check the lich's 2nd level spells, where it lists extended mage armor as having been cast.Perhaps the stats assume that mage armor has been cast?Lich, page 188
The lich has a mysterious +4 armor bonus to AC, yet there is no listing in its treasure line of a chain shirt, hide armor, or magical armor of a lesser variety. Not to mention such armor would certainly interfere with its spellcasting.
I stand corrected. Thank you, James.
|
|
Hawk and Eagle have different sizes (Tiny and Small respectively) but yet have the same space and reach. I know this was brought up earlier, but nothing was said about it officially and it wasn't in the errata so I'm wondering if it was overlooked.
Additionally the giant eagle, a Large creature, has a 10 ft. space but only a 5 ft. reach. While I think this is probably not an error because it just seems to make sense to me, I'm wondering if it was intentional anyway.
Wraith, page 281
Seems odd to me, that this hasn't been reported already, but I coundn't find any reference to it in the thread.
1) Listed flat-footed AC is 14 and should be 15 (10, +5 deflection).
2) Listed CMD is 16 and should be 21 (10, +3 base atk bonus, +3 Dex, +5 deflection).
_____________________________________________
With a 19 Charisma, a lillend gets an extra 1st, 2nd, and 3rd level spell per day (and an extra 4th level spell, if it had any).A 7th level bard with a 19 Charisma gets 5 first level spells per day.
My bad, I was under a tsunami of numbers (that's why I had no intention to check all Dragons).
Do dragons cast like a sorcerer or do they cast in their own unique way?
If you are refferring to the Eschew Materials matter, as far as rules go they do need materials; thus they cast as sorcerers in every aspect except the fact that, obviously, they don't have Bloodline nor other class abilities.
Additionally the giant eagle, a Large creature, has a 10 ft. space but only a 5 ft. reach. While I think this is probably not an error because it just seems to make sense to me, I'm wondering if it was intentional anyway.
There are many creatures of Large size (or larger) with lesser reach than their space; typically creatures that lack long enough limbs/necks/appendages. So, yes, it was intentional.
Angel, Planetar, page 11
Its total spells should be 4/6/6/6/5/5/4/4/3;
As listed, it has:
- one 1st lvl spell in excess
- one 2nd lvl spell in excess
- one 4th lvl spell less
- one 7th lvl spell less
- one 8th lvl spell less
Actually, by my count, it should be 4/6/6/6/5/5/4/4/2. As you pointed out, they have 1 extra 1st & 2nd level spell, and one fewer 4th & 7th level spell. Assuming that they put the excess spells into higher level slots, the Planetar's spells are OK.
Hound Archon Natural Attack Damage:
Maybe I'm missing something, but why does the bite attack have a STR_MOD*1.5 damage modifier (STR_MOD when used as a secondary attack), and the slam attack have a STR_MOD/2 damage modifier? Shouldn't it be STR_MOD for both (STR_MOD/2 when secondary)?
Trumpet Archons should have Sense Motive +22 (14 ranks + 5 [WIS 20] + 3 [class skill]), not +24. They should have DC 20 for their Trumpet supernatural ability (10 + 7 [14 HD] + 3 [CHA 17]), not 19.
Variant Zombies, page 289
Both the variants are missing the entry for an increased CR, like the Skeleton's ones.
I could think it's intentional, but the two variants do look significantly improving to me.
|
|
Giants from Cloud to Stone, page 147-151
Only Stone Giants have iterative rock attacks listed in their stat block despite the fact that all other giants too have base attack bonuses higher than +6.
I can't find any rule saying that only Stone Giants get iterative attacks for rock throwing (or better, I don't see any rule saiying than other Giants should not get them), so the entries should read as follow:Cloud Giant (Base attack bonus +12)
Ranged rock +12/+7/+2 (2d6+18)
Fire Giant (Base attack bonus +11)
Ranged rock +10/+5/+0 (1d8+15 plus 1d6 fire)
Frost Giant (Base attack bonus +10)
Ranged rock +9/+4 (1d8+13)
Hill Giant (Base attack bonus +7)
Ranged rock +6/+1 (1d8+10)
Gah! I just found out why the Stone Giant has iterative rock throws!
Quick Draw feat!
|
|
Xill - p. 283
This creature should have additional attacks with its longbows because of its high base attack bonus. It's ranged line should read as follows:
"Ranged 2 longbows +13/+8 (1d8/x3)"
Unless there's some rule about two-weapon fighting I'm forgetting...
...And there was! It should actually be "longbows +13/+13/+8 (1d8/x3)"
Yes?
Since this popped out for Bestiary 2...
I just remembered that the Fly spell grants a bonus to Fly checks equal to half the caster level.
For Bestiary's monsters, this (plus other corrections, in some cases) applies to: Bone Devil, Ice Devil, Neothelid and Ogre Mage.
We mention that in the Bestiary intro, by the way... specifically on page 6 in the description of what the Space/Reach entry in a monster's stat block means.For Medium creatures that have the standard Space/Reach of 5 ft./5 ft., we always omit the space and reach headings in stat blocks.Ommissions on Page 255:
Snake, Constrictor and Snake, Venomous are both missing "space" and "reach" headings and values.
Thanks for letting me know... probably saved me from about another 80 posts when I noticed the others :)
So a large(tall) creature would normally have a reach of 10, right?
if it's reach is listed as 5, then that means it has a short reach?
So a large(tall) creature would normally have a reach of 10, right?
if it's reach is listed as 5, then that means it has a short reach?
Yes.
This doesn't imply that they are all correct, some could as well be errors, although the probability is low, but that is a thing only the designers can cast light upon for every single case.| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Boggard appears to have an incorrect skill rating for Acrobatics:
Skills Acrobatics +2 (+14 jumping)
Racial Modifiers +16 Acrobatics when jumping
I assume it should be +18 while jumping.
(Only noticed because we wanted to build ourselves a Boggard Druid.)
Boggard appears to have an incorrect skill rating for Acrobatics:
Skills Acrobatics +2 (+14 jumping)
Racial Modifiers +16 Acrobatics when jumpingI assume it should be +18 while jumping.
(Only noticed because we wanted to build ourselves a Boggard Druid.)
There's a -4 penalty for a land speed of 20.
Not sure if this has been pointed out already, but it is this way in my hardcopy First Printing and my PDF Third Printing of the Pathfinder RPG Bestiary:
The Green Hag had 90 ft Darkvision.
But then again, I checked my D&D Monster Manual 3.5e and she had 90 ft. Darkvision there too.
So I'm not sure if she's supposed to have 90 ft. Darkvision or if it's just an error that got carried between editions.
|
|
Not sure if this has been pointed out already, but it is this way in my hardcopy First Printing and my PDF Third Printing of the Pathfinder RPG Bestiary:
The Green Hag had 90 ft Darkvision.
But then again, I checked my D&D Monster Manual 3.5e and she had 90 ft. Darkvision there too.
So I'm not sure if she's supposed to have 90 ft. Darkvision or if it's just an error that got carried between editions.
Forgive me if I sound ignorant but where is the issue here? Are you saying you think darkvision should have been 60 ft. because that's what monstrous humanoids get as a trait?
Creative Director
|
Not sure if this has been pointed out already, but it is this way in my hardcopy First Printing and my PDF Third Printing of the Pathfinder RPG Bestiary:
The Green Hag had 90 ft Darkvision.
But then again, I checked my D&D Monster Manual 3.5e and she had 90 ft. Darkvision there too.
So I'm not sure if she's supposed to have 90 ft. Darkvision or if it's just an error that got carried between editions.
Not an error. Some monsters have better darkvision than normal.
Not an error. Some monsters have better darkvision than normal.Not sure if this has been pointed out already, but it is this way in my hardcopy First Printing and my PDF Third Printing of the Pathfinder RPG Bestiary:
The Green Hag had 90 ft Darkvision.
But then again, I checked my D&D Monster Manual 3.5e and she had 90 ft. Darkvision there too.
So I'm not sure if she's supposed to have 90 ft. Darkvision or if it's just an error that got carried between editions.
Ah, OK. Thanks for the clarification. Just usually see 60 or 120, and the other hags were 60 with no mention of it actually being an enhancement for the green hag so there was a possibility a 6 and 9 got transposed.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Humanoids have the trait "Proficient with all simple weapons, or by character class." Other creature types specifically add the phrase "and any weapons mentioned in its entry."
This phrase is not in the humanoid creature type, which means that Ogres would not be proficient with their greatclubs, and dark stalkers would not be proficient with their short swords. I'm sure there are other examples, but these are two I have found.
I think this text should be added to the humanoid traits section.
Cheers,
Sir George Anonymous
Genie, Efreeti, page 140
The Quicken Spell-Like Ability feat cannot be applied to Scorching Ray (2nd level spell requires CL 12th to be quickened; the Efreeti has CL 11th).
Genie, Shaitan, page 140
The Quicken Spell-Like Ability feat cannot be applied to Glitterdust (2nd level spell requires CL 12th to be quickened; the Shaitan has CL 9th).
|
|
Astral Wanderer had a large post in the Bestiary 2 thread about how much lycanthropes were messed up in that book (which they are). I feel the lycanthrope rules found on page 196 of this book should be revised (especially after James Jacobs mentioned his own recommendations for fixing the size issue). Unless somebody can point out something else I'm overlooking, these should include:
- In Size and Type section, it says "A lycanthrope's hybrid form is the same size as the base animal or the base creature, whichever is larger." As stated earlier in the bestiary 2 errata thread, this causes many issues. Medium characters transforming into a werebear or a weretiger SHOULD become Large size (they don't in the stats), destroying their armor in the process since it doesn't change sizes. James Jacobs already says he would errata it to say you remain the same size of the humanoid form.
- In Size and Type again, it says "The lycanthrope takes on the characteristics of some type of animal within one size category of the base creature's size." If this was intended, then this means Small characters can't become werebears or weartigers.
|
|
Missed one:
- In AC, it says "In hybrid or animal form the lycanthrope has the natural armor bonus of the base animal increased by +2." This results in the werebear of bestiary 2 having an AC of 24 in hybrid form (which it has wrong in that book). At only 4 HD, that's an impressivey large AC for a party to try to hit. Something may need to be done there.
not sure it is really needed, as a boar 'gores' with its teeth, and thus should be close enough to a bite for the curse to spread (as pig saliva, snot, and what have you is almost certain to be introduced to the wound).
not sure it is really needed, as a boar 'gores' with its teeth, and thus should be close enough to a bite for the curse to spread (as pig saliva, snot, and what have you is almost certain to be introduced to the wound).
In fact I posted re-made stat blocks for Bestiary 2 Lycanthropes, where the Wereboar has no bite and curses with its gore, but in the book it does have a bite attack (with the curse attached) that popped out from nowhere.
I think the Svirfneblin's Wild Empathy is incorrect. The Core Rules say it should be Ranger Level + Charisma *Bonus*. The Bestiary lists +0 which would include Charisma *Modifier* instead of Charisma *Bonus*.
Cheers,
Sir George Anonymous
|
|
not sure it is really needed, as a boar 'gores' with its teeth, and thus should be close enough to a bite for the curse to spread (as pig saliva, snot, and what have you is almost certain to be introduced to the wound).
Your reasoning is solid. From a rules lawyer perspective, however, if the rules say curse of lycanthropy is administered through a bite attack, then there needs to be some specific text that would either allow a gore to do the same thing or give a creature a bite attack. I'm not saying you don't have a point, cause you do, I'm just saying that concrete rules are what I adhere to and expect (that said, I also expect disappointment).
I think the Svirfneblin's Wild Empathy is incorrect. The Core Rules say it should be Ranger Level + Charisma *Bonus*. The Bestiary lists +0 which would include Charisma *Modifier* instead of Charisma *Bonus*.
Cheers,
Sir George Anonymous
I think that is not properly a Svirfneblin error, but a Core Rulebook "error" in that it should effectively be "modifier" and not "bonus" (personally, I always considered it as if it was "modifier", indeed, since it's like a Diplomacy check and Diplomacy uses modifiers).
|
|
Not sure how we missed this one (or maybe we didn't and my search-fu just sucks).
Ancient Red Dragon - page 99
There seems to be 2 unused skill ranks, likely missing from Fly since its the only skill that doesn't have maxed out skills, and is just 2 away from doing so. Proof:
Ancient Red Dragon
25 HD
Gargantuan dragon (fire)
275 skill ranks
Appraise +33 = 5 (Int) + 3 (class) + 25 ranks
Bluff +33 = 5 (Cha) + 3 (class) + 25 ranks
Diplomacy +33 = 5 (Cha) + 3 (class) + 25 ranks
Fly +11 = -1 (Dex) - 8 (clumsy) - 6 (size) + 3 (class) + 23 ranks
Intimidate +33 = 5 (Cha) + 3 (class) + 25 ranks
Knowledge (arcana) +33 = 5 (Int) + 3 (class) + 25 ranks
Knowledge (history) +33 = 5 (Int) + 3 (class) + 25 ranks
Perception +33 = 5 (Wis) + 3 (class) + 25 ranks
Sense Motive +33 = 5 (Wis) + 3 (class) + 25 ranks
Spellcraft +33 = 5 (Int) + 3 (class) + 25 ranks
Stealth +15 = -1 (Dex) - 12 (size) + 3 (class) + 25 ranks
TL;DR: Change Fly +11 to Fly +13
|
|
From Chopswil over in the Core Rulebook errata thread:
Quicken Spell-Like Ability has pre-req of "Spell-like ability at CL 10th or higher." but to quicken a 0-level spell the table says CL 8th.
Seems to contradict itself.Same deal with Empower Spell-Like Ability, pre-req of 6th, 0 level spell 4th.
And here's a reply for it from Astral Wanderer, which I feel answers it nicely:
The Prerequisite entry is the wrong one (in bothe Empower and Quicken), since it lists the minimum CL for 1st level spell-like abilities rather than the minimum CL for 0 level ones.
But more than listing the minimum CL for 0 level, it'd be best to list the prerequisite as "Spell-like ability at appropriate or higher CL (see table below)."
I think that is not properly a Svirfneblin error, but a Core Rulebook "error" in that it should effectively be "modifier" and not "bonus" (personally, I always considered it as if it was "modifier", indeed, since it's like a Diplomacy check and Diplomacy uses modifiers).I think the Svirfneblin's Wild Empathy is incorrect. The Core Rules say it should be Ranger Level + Charisma *Bonus*. The Bestiary lists +0 which would include Charisma *Modifier* instead of Charisma *Bonus*.
Cheers,
Sir George Anonymous
You could be right, however there other places where the rules specifically use the word bonus instead of modifier to signify that the character/creature is not penalized by a negative modifier.
I don't see a space/reach entry for the Dire Boar. Obviously space should be 10 ft because it is a large creature. Should a dire boar have a reach of 5 ft?
Cheers,
Sir George Anonymous
Probably, most quadruped Large creatures only have a reach of 5 ft.I don't see a space/reach entry for the Dire Boar. Obviously space should be 10 ft because it is a large creature. Should a dire boar have a reach of 5 ft?
My thought as well.
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I prefer to think that the sahuagin do have their own language.1) Merfolk can learn the language Sahuagin as a bonus language.
2) Sahaugin (page 239) themselves don't know this language:
Languages Aquan, Common; speak with sharks
One of these statements has to be incorrect.
Is this going to be officially fixed in print and the PRD? It seems like a quick and easy fix.
I agree that sahuagin should have their own language. However, if this became official, wouldn't sahuagin need to be added to the Linguistics skill list of languages?
|
|
I prefer to think that the sahuagin do have their own language.1) Merfolk can learn the language Sahuagin as a bonus language.
2) Sahaugin (page 239) themselves don't know this language:
Languages Aquan, Common; speak with sharks
One of these statements has to be incorrect.
Is this going to be officially fixed in print and the PRD? It seems like a quick and easy fix.
I agree that sahuagin should have their own language. However, if this became official, wouldn't sahuagin need to be added to the Linguistics skill list of languages?
In 3.x the monster manuals were littered with talking creatures that had their own language. So numerous were they that hardly any were listed in the Speak Language skill section of the PHB, just the main, common ones (orc, gnoll, etc.). Pathfinder's no different, and there's probably a ton of critters with their own language that aren't explicitly mentioned in Linguistics. I'm guessing that if a character is serious about increasing her Linguistics skill, she'll need a Bestiary with her to scour the languages presented in them.
I agree though that the sahuagin should have their own language added to their list.
|
|
Triceratops companions - pg. 86
(here's the first of several powerful charge related issues)
The animal companion stats for this creature mention that it receives powerful charge for its 7th-level advancement. Every other animal companion that receives this specifically mentions how much extra damage it deals with it, but not this guy. Bestiary 2 and 3 use some pretty arbitrary values for determining how much extra damage is dealt with this ability, but the first bestiary is consistent*: double damage dice + x2 Str bonus. This would mean that it should say "powerful charge (2d6)" (for a total of 4d6+[Str x2]).
*Except...
|
|
Minotaur and Half-Fiend Minotaur - pgs. 206 and 171, respectively
These guys both have the same issue and it deals with their powerful charge.
1) These guys randomly have a higher attack bonus listed for their powerful charge, even though the ability itself doesn't grant such a benefit and the creature doesn't possess any sort of feat or monster ability that would increase it.
Edit: Nevermind, they're providing the total in case you can't do the math. Charging with this drops the -5 for being secondary and adds +2 because it's a charge.
2) Every monster in the Bestiary that has powerful charge uses the same formula for determining damage of the charge: Double damage dice + x2 Str mod. The minotaur and his half-fiend counterpart only deal 1.5x Str mod, probably because it was calculated as a secondary attack along with their manufactured weapons. During a charge, however, only one attack is made, (unless you have the pounce ability, which these guys don't), so the gore would be the only attack and make the full 2x Str damage. Unfortunately this can't technically be reported as a clean-cut error because the powerful charge ability doesn't mention a specific formula for damage; we only have the stats of other powerfully charging monsters to go by (plus Bestiary 2 and 3 just say to hell with this formula and are pretty arbitrary about the damage this ability deals).
The Appendix lists Riding Dog as a CR 1/2 in Monsters by CR, but the actual entry lists it as CR1.
A plant creatures is "Proficient with its natural weapons only." However, by the numbers, vegepygmies appear to be proficient with longspears. I think the plant creature entry read the same as the construct entry, i.e. "Proficient with its natural weapons only, unless generally humanoid in form, in which case proficient with any weapon mentioned in its entry."
Cheers,
Sir George Anonymous
Should basidirond spores be a poison instead of a disease?
What is the range of the basidirond's tremorsense ability?
Cheers,
Sir George Anonymous
|
|
Basidirond - pg. 28
This creature's Cold Lethargy ability says:
"Although a basidirond is immune to cold damage, any cold effect it is exposed to slows it for 1d4 rounds. During this time, the basidirond cannot use its hallucination cloud or spores."
Based on the bolded part, it sounds like the creature would react as if it were the target of a slow spell, but it doesn't specifically say that, just the part afterwards about not being able to use its hallucination cloud or spores. It's uncertain whether or not being able to use these abilities is what "slowing" means, or if it's in addition to a slow spell effect taking place.
The shark's Keen Scent ability appears to be a more powerful version of Scent. Scent grants the creature a +8 bonus to smell-based Perception checks. Should Keen Scent offer this same bonus? Should a creature that uses Beast Shape to become a shark receive the Scent ability?
Cheers,
Sir George Anonymous
Is there a reason why dire sharks have reach 20' instead of 15'? Regular sharks have their reach 5' less than their space, and, presumably, dire sharks have the same body shape.
Cheers,
Sir George Anonymous
I think the flat-footed AC is incorrecet for Animated Objects. Books shows 12, but I think it should be 14 (+4 natural, no other modifiers that I am aware of).
Cheers,
Sir George Anonymous