Errata / Typos in APG


Product Discussion

251 to 300 of 538 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Asgetrion wrote:
Archer (Fighter) archetype's 'Trick Shot' ability does not specify which action type it uses; can I combine it, for example, with Rapid Shot? Can I feint an opponent and treat him flat-footed for the rest of the round (i.e. against the rest of my attacks)? Or was this ability intended to work as if I had 'Improved X', i.e. feint as a move action and then I get to fire a single arrow? And do I inflict normal damage if I use feint or disarm, or is it treated as a "normal" maneuver?

I assume it's the same action as it would be if you weren't using a bow (e.g. grapple is a standard action, trip can be used in place of an attack, feint would be a move action if you have Improved Feint).

I would add one more question: Does the fact that "Trick Shot" allows you to sunder with an arrow override the fact that piercing weapons generally can't be used for sundering?

Scarab Sages Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games

Asgetrion wrote:
Archer (Fighter) archetype's 'Trick Shot' ability does not specify which action type it uses; can I combine it, for example, with Rapid Shot? Can I feint an opponent and treat him flat-footed for the rest of the round (i.e. against the rest of my attacks)? Or was this ability intended to work as if I had 'Improved X', i.e. feint as a move action and then I get to fire a single arrow? And do I inflict normal damage if I use feint or disarm, or is it treated as a "normal" maneuver?

It uses the same action that feinting normally uses: Standard action (see under the Bluff skill) or move action (if you have Improved Feint). So nope, you can't use it with Rapid Shot (which requires a full-round action). Normally feinting only applies to your next attack, but if you have Greater Feint it lasts longer.

Feinting and disarming works just as they normally do.

So what's the point of the ability?

You can now disarm with a ranged weapon. Normally you can't.

You can now sunder with a ranged weapon. Normally you can't.

You can also feint with a ranged weapon. Officially in the rules there is nothing to prevent you from feinting with a ranged weapon; HOWEVER, I have seen people argue the point that since Bluff says you have to be "in combat" they read it to mean you have to be "in melee" and sometimes use the Intimidate (demoralize) action, which normally requires threatening in melee (unless you have one of several workaround abilities) as "proof" that Bluff (feint) should work the same way.

So, it was restating something that was already there but stating it explicitly to help avoid arguments (and also economizing on word count by including it with the others).

Scarab Sages Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games

hogarth wrote:
Asgetrion wrote:
Archer (Fighter) archetype's 'Trick Shot' ability does not specify which action type it uses; can I combine it, for example, with Rapid Shot? Can I feint an opponent and treat him flat-footed for the rest of the round (i.e. against the rest of my attacks)? Or was this ability intended to work as if I had 'Improved X', i.e. feint as a move action and then I get to fire a single arrow? And do I inflict normal damage if I use feint or disarm, or is it treated as a "normal" maneuver?

I assume it's the same action as it would be if you weren't using a bow (e.g. grapple is a standard action, trip can be used in place of an attack, feint would be a move action if you have Improved Feint).

I would add one more question: Does the fact that "Trick Shot" allows you to sunder with an arrow override the fact that piercing weapons generally can't be used for sundering?

It does, just as it overrides the fact that ranged weapons generally can't be used for sundering.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ.

For the Horizon Walker Terrain Mastery, when it's activated as a move action to give +2 to some skill checks to allies within 30 feet, how long does this bonus last? If it's only 1 round, that will keep the group moving pretty slowly to retain the bonus. I'm hoping it's meant to be longer.

Contributor

2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ.
JoelF847 wrote:
For the Horizon Walker Terrain Mastery, when it's activated as a move action to give +2 to some skill checks to allies within 30 feet, how long does this bonus last? If it's only 1 round, that will keep the group moving pretty slowly to retain the bonus. I'm hoping it's meant to be longer.

I've marked this for the FAQ, but this ability basically works like hunter's bond (companions) except the ranger's lending his terrain bonus instead of his enemy bonus, so (like hunter's bond) it should last a number of rounds equal to the ranger's Wis mod (minimum 1).

Dark Archive

Jason Nelson wrote:
Asgetrion wrote:
Archer (Fighter) archetype's 'Trick Shot' ability does not specify which action type it uses; can I combine it, for example, with Rapid Shot? Can I feint an opponent and treat him flat-footed for the rest of the round (i.e. against the rest of my attacks)? Or was this ability intended to work as if I had 'Improved X', i.e. feint as a move action and then I get to fire a single arrow? And do I inflict normal damage if I use feint or disarm, or is it treated as a "normal" maneuver?

It uses the same action that feinting normally uses: Standard action (see under the Bluff skill) or move action (if you have Improved Feint). So nope, you can't use it with Rapid Shot (which requires a full-round action). Normally feinting only applies to your next attack, but if you have Greater Feint it lasts longer.

Feinting and disarming works just as they normally do.

So what's the point of the ability?

You can now disarm with a ranged weapon. Normally you can't.

You can now sunder with a ranged weapon. Normally you can't.

You can also feint with a ranged weapon. Officially in the rules there is nothing to prevent you from feinting with a ranged weapon; HOWEVER, I have seen people argue the point that since Bluff says you have to be "in combat" they read it to mean you have to be "in melee" and sometimes use the Intimidate (demoralize) action, which normally requires threatening in melee (unless you have one of several workaround abilities) as "proof" that Bluff (feint) should work the same way.

So, it was restating something that was already there but stating it explicitly to help avoid arguments (and also economizing on word count by including it with the others).

Thanks, Jason! It's definitely a great ability, and I'm actually torn between Crossbowman and Archer... both are great archetypes, and I just can't decide whether I want to play an elven archer or a dwarf crossbowman. :)

Dark Archive

Martiln wrote:

The feat: Summoner's Call(pg.171) seems like it didn't get converted properly from the beta play-test to the APG. Its text reads:

You have the power to call your eidolon one additional time per day.
Prereq. Eidolon Class feature.
Benefit: Whenever you summon your eidolon, you may give it a +2 enhancement bonus to its Strength, Dexterity, or Constitution. This bonus lasts 10 minutes after the summoning ritual is complete.
So now a summoner can just re-summon his eidolon every 10 minutes, giving it a free +2 enhancement to one of its physical ability scores? Does this need to be changed so it compliments the fact that summoners are no longer restricted to summoning their eidolon once per day?

If the summoner wants to stop and spend the minute it takes to resummon it every 10 minutes then by all means.

I will tell you this though, in game I don't think I have ever had a character with enough patience to deal with that. Plus I have doubts about how well the PC themselves will REALLY understand the way feats of this kind really work.


5 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

I guess it's hard to tell whether or not someone has posted it already, but here goes:

Quote:

Metamagic , Persistent

Aura strong (no school); CL 17th
Slot none; Price 3,000 gp (lesser), 11,000 gp (normal), 24,500
gp (greater); Weight 5 lbs.
Description
The wielder can cast up to three spells per day as though using
the Persistent Spell feat.
Construction
Requirements Craft Rod, Persistent Spell; Cost 1,500 gp
(lesser), 5,500 gp (normal), 12,250 gp (greater)
Quote:

Metamagic , Bouncing

Aura strong (no school); CL 17th
Slot none; Price 9,000 gp (lesser), 32,500 gp (normal), 73,000
gp (greater); Weight 5 lbs.
Description
The wielder can cast up to three spells per day that bounce as
though using the Bouncing Spell feat.
Construction
Requirements Craft Rod, Bouncing Spell; Cost 4,500 gp
(lesser), 16,250 gp (normal), 36,500 gp (greater)

Persistent is a +2 Metamagic while Bouncing is a +1 Metamagic. I imagine these prices need to be swapped. (Although I wouldn't mind getting a Persistent rod at such a bargain...)

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

Why do the different types of Giant Hide Armor (p. 284) have different prices (and costs)? The description says that once per day they wearer can grow to match the size of the appropriate giant, as if using giant form I or giant form II. While I see the reason for 2 prices (one for GF I and one for GF II), it's not clear why an ogre suit of giant hide armor would cost less than a hill giant.

I'm guessing that the intent is to actually get all of the abilities of the giant, so that using troll hide would grant regeneration, hill giant would grant rock throwing, etc. but the description just says you gain the size, which I would assume would be the same for any large giant and the same for any huge giant (and grant the size category bonuses as well as the size ability adjustments and natural armor bonus per GF I or GF II.) If this is the case, which is correct - the prices, or the fact that you just change size but don't gain special abilities?

Contributor

You change size as if using the appropriate giant form spell, which means (as per the spell) you get the appropriate abilities of that creature (regen for trolls, rock throwing for giants, etc.).

Otherwise all of the Large armors would just use enlarge person for the effects and cost, which would be much cheaper.

Generally, when an item calls out "it works like {spell}," it gets all the baggage of that spell unless the item says otherwise. Because if that wasn't the case, an item that said "this lets you create a burst of fire once per day, as if using fireball" would have to explicitly call out "with the range, duration, area, damage, saves, and spell resistance of fireball" ... or you'd have to assume it was a burst of fire with unknown range, duration, area, damage, saves, SR.... :)


I don`t think that language is as clear-cut as you think, Sean.
Saying ¨you create a burst of fire as if using fireball means your fireball will have the same parameters of the spell. If you fireball also (independently, not as an effect of the burst of flame) doubled your own height, that /wouldn`t/ be included because that isn`t within what it says you can do (creating burst of fire). Just like saying you can use a breath weapon as if you were a 30HD blue dragon doesn`t mean you get all the other abilities of a 30HD blue dragon.

Saying ¨you change size as if using spell X¨ means you change size as that spell let`s you change size. That spell may allow other effects, but those other effects aren`t ¨changing size¨, which is all that the item allows you to do.

The wording should be more along the lines of ¨you gain the form and abilities of the giant the armor was made from, as if using the spell giant form X¨.

Contributor

I agree, the item's text could be clearer (ideally, it would say "the wearer can take the form of the appropriate giant as if using giant form" ... but the intent is pretty obvious that if the item is referring to giant form rather than enlarge person, you're supposed to use giant form as a model of what happens, meaning you get the abilities according to giant form.

The game is usually explicit in saying the stuff you *don't* get when it models something an ability on a spell or class ability, such as "The ray functions as a greater dispel magic spell, except it only affects magic items," or "Solars can cast divine spells as 20th-level clerics. They do not gain access to domains or other cleric abilities." We use these references as shorthand so we don't have to recreate all the game stats in an item or monster ability. The text wouldn't point you at giant form if it didn't want to give you all the benefits of giant form. An ability wouldn't point you at cure light wounds if it didn't work like cure light wounds... for example, if it didn't harm undead creatures--in fact, an effect that cures anyone for 1d8+1, even undead, should be written out as a unique ability rather than referring to CLW because referring to CLW in this case would encourage an incorrect interpretation of the intended effect.

Your example of the 30HD blue dragon doesn't work because you're mentioning the breath weapon of the dragon, so it makes sense that all effects relating to the *breath weapon* (area, DC, damage) would apply... dragging *all* dragon abilities along with that is absurd, as absurd as suggesting "this CL 5th item lets you use fireball, therefore you also get all the abilities of a 5th-level wizard." :)


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Your example of the 30HD blue dragon doesn't work because you're mentioning the breath weapon of the dragon, so it makes sense that all effects relating to the *breath weapon* (area, DC, damage) would apply... dragging *all* dragon abilities along with that is absurd...

...Just like the item is only specifically mentioning the size change as a granted effect.

Imagine if the item said it granted you a breath weapon as using Dragon Form 3, you wouldn`t expect to apply other effects of DF3, right? Same thing here, because size changes have no more to do with regeneration or rock throwing than breath weapons do. Perhaps as a designer one can say that Enlarge Person would be a better choice as a base spell IF the intent were solely for a Size change, but that isn`t going to be obvious to every reader... Especially when the item is written as a `family` of items which can increase your size 1 OR 2 categories above Medium (i.e. beyond the abilities of Enlarge Person for Medium casters).

Anyhow, simple fix if it`s going to happen... Thanks for the feedback.


3 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

Ok forum ate a big post...

Instant Summons is on the Witch spell list, it requires Arcane Mark, but that one isn´t on the Witch spell list.

-------------------------------------------------------

Patron spells:

Not clear on which spell levels the witch adds the spells to her spell list, some spells are on the bard spell list an grand early access. I guess its implied that you add the spells to the spell level you just gained, but it isn´t written down.

I guess Patrons are a designet to work a bit like domains, but what happens when a with goes mulitclass with spell advancement (like Loremaster) will she continue to get new patron spells?

-------------------------------------------------------

Phantasmial killer is on the Trickery Patron list and on the general witch list.


Banpai wrote:
Phantasmial killer is on the Trickery Patron list and on the general witch list.

AFAIK this isn`t Errata. The general witch list is of spells POSSIBLE to know for any witch.

The benefit is you don`t have to use your Spells Learned per Level or other means to learn the spell if it is a Bonus Patron Spell. It is better than not having a Bonus Patron Spell at that level, it just doesn`t expand your choices like an off-witch-list bonus spell would.


Quandary wrote:
Banpai wrote:
Phantasmial killer is on the Trickery Patron list and on the general witch list.

AFAIK this isn`t Errata. The general witch list is of spells POSSIBLE to know for any witch.

The benefit is you don`t have to use your Spells Learned per Level or other means to learn the spell if it is a Bonus Patron Spell. It is better than not having a Bonus Patron Spell at that level, it just doesn`t expand your choices like an off-witch-list bonus spell would.

Sean K Reynolds stated that it's intentional that a very small number of spells are duplicated.


hogarth wrote:
Quandary wrote:
Banpai wrote:
Phantasmial killer is on the Trickery Patron list and on the general witch list.

AFAIK this isn`t Errata. The general witch list is of spells POSSIBLE to know for any witch.

The benefit is you don`t have to use your Spells Learned per Level or other means to learn the spell if it is a Bonus Patron Spell. It is better than not having a Bonus Patron Spell at that level, it just doesn`t expand your choices like an off-witch-list bonus spell would.
Sean K Reynolds stated that it's intentional that a very small number of spells are duplicated.
Quandary wrote:
Banpai wrote:
Phantasmial killer is on the Trickery Patron list and on the general witch list.

AFAIK this isn`t Errata. The general witch list is of spells POSSIBLE to know for any witch.

The benefit is you don`t have to use your Spells Learned per Level or other means to learn the spell if it is a Bonus Patron Spell. It is better than not having a Bonus Patron Spell at that level, it just doesn`t expand your choices like an off-witch-list bonus spell would.

Thx for the info, haven´t reportet errata in a long time, ok one more try:

page 200 Witch spell list, Spite is listed with an expensive focus, but the spell has a costly material component (rare inks worth 250 gp) and a casting time of 1 round.

It´s a bit like Contingency (suggesting focus) but considering, that it´s offensive, material component could make sense.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

The Cloak of Immolation (p. 310-311) doesn't mention if it can be easily removed or if it requires curse ending magic to rid the wearer of it. I'm assuming it should mention curse removing magic, since all of the other cursed items do in this section except the ones that explicitly say they don't.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

JoelF847 wrote:

Why do the different types of Giant Hide Armor (p. 284) have different prices (and costs)? The description says that once per day they wearer can grow to match the size of the appropriate giant, as if using giant form I or giant form II. While I see the reason for 2 prices (one for GF I and one for GF II), it's not clear why an ogre suit of giant hide armor would cost less than a hill giant.

I'm guessing that the intent is to actually get all of the abilities of the giant, so that using troll hide would grant regeneration, hill giant would grant rock throwing, etc. but the description just says you gain the size, which I would assume would be the same for any large giant and the same for any huge giant (and grant the size category bonuses as well as the size ability adjustments and natural armor bonus per GF I or GF II.) If this is the case, which is correct - the prices, or the fact that you just change size but don't gain special abilities?

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

You change size as if using the appropriate giant form spell, which means (as per the spell) you get the appropriate abilities of that creature (regen for trolls, rock throwing for giants, etc.).

Otherwise all of the Large armors would just use enlarge person for the effects and cost, which would be much cheaper.

After reading the Mask of Giants (p. 307), I'm revisiting this issue. Since the mask lets you pick a form (troll, ogre, fire giant, frost giant, or stone giant), for the same price, why don't the Giant Hide Armors cost the same for these (and have a higher price for the Huge giants, which would also be the same)? Since it's all based on the Giant Form I or II spells, which cost the same to make a scroll of, regardless of what form you pick, shouldn't an item that basically duplicated the spell cost the same regardless of what form?

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

For the Construct Channel Brick (p. 303) when you use the item to repair constructs and objects, does that replace the healing or damaging power normally done by channel energy to living or undead? I'm guessing so, similar to elemental alignment channel, but the text for this item doesn't actually say so.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

Is the Catching Cape (p. 302) effect supposed to end after being hit once by a ranged attack? For a one use item (even a cheap one), it seems odd that 80% of the time, it has no effect. Also based on its effect, would it make sense to add entropic field as an option for requirements?

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

The Boots of Friendly Terrain (p. 301) doesn't explicitly state the bonus they give for their terrain type if the ranger doesn't have that type already. It just says that they can treat the terrain type as one of his favored terrain. It does state that if the ranger already has that terrain type, they can add +2 to the bonus for it, but should probably state it's a +2 bonus regardless of if the ranger has that terrain.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

Soothsayer's Raiment (p. 286) doesn't have any mention of revelation minimum level in the way that the Ring of Revelation (p. 293) does. Based on the Ring's description, I would think that the Raiment would be limited to revelations that no pre-requisite, or maybe up to 6th level.

In addition, comparing the prices between these two items, the price for the Raiment seems too low. It's 10,300, and counts as +1 chainmail as well (which is valued at 1,300) leaving 9,000 for the revelation portion of the enchantment, while the Ring costs 10,000 for the lesser version that can grant a revelation alone. Since the ring uses it's own slot, and the Raiment is combined with magic armor, I'd think that the armor should be more expensive than the ring at least.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

The Lord's Banner (terror) (p. 307) states that "Those that succeed on the save are shaken. A creature that makes its saving throw is immune to the banner's effects for 1 day." Being immune seems to conflict with being shaken.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Does the Scabbard of Vigor (p. 309) bonus allow a weapon to bypass DR? The greater magic weapon spell does not, but with the limited use and duration of the scabbard, I don't think it would be too unbalancing to allow it. Either way, it should probably say to avoid confusion.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Should the Muleback Cords (p. 308) have the spell ant haul (p. 202) as a requirement, either instead of or as an option to replace bull's strength?

For that matter, there doesn't seem to be any items in the magic item chapter that have requirements of spells from the spell chapter. (unless I missed some). No other example leaps to mind, but I would think some of the new spells would be appropriate,

Finally, does Muleback Cords stack with the ant haul spell? They don't state the bonus types, so I would think by RAW they do, but would guess that's not the intention.


chopswil wrote:
Lord's Banner p.307, in the requirements section there is a leadership version stated but there is not a leadership version any where else in the text.

Has there been a response to this? I have not seen one.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

I'm pretty sure that this hasn't been covered yet. Page 310. War Paint of the Terrible Visage (hereafter refered to as WPotTV). There's no listed save. I'm assuming this was just overlooked, and should be a DC 11 save.


Jason Nelson wrote:


You can also feint with a ranged weapon. Officially in the rules there is nothing to prevent you from feinting with a ranged weapon; HOWEVER, I have seen people argue the point that since Bluff says you have to be "in combat" they read it to mean you have to be "in melee" and sometimes use the Intimidate (demoralize) action, which normally requires threatening in melee (unless you have one of several workaround abilities) as "proof" that Bluff (feint) should work the same way.

So, it was restating something that was already there but stating it explicitly to help avoid arguments (and also economizing on word count by including it with the others).

A standard Feint only denies the target his dex to AC for the next MELEE attack, so, does the trick shot ability mean you can deny their dex bonus to AC on a ranged att? Otherwise, what is the point of a ranged feint i'm thinking?


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
chrids wrote:


A standard Feint only denies the target his dex to AC for the next MELEE attack, so, does the trick shot ability mean you can deny their dex bonus to AC on a ranged att? Otherwise, what is the point of a ranged feint i'm thinking?

You may want to look again...

PFPRD wrote:
Feint: You can use Bluff to feint in combat, causing your opponent to be denied his Dexterity bonus to his AC against your next attack. The DC of this check is equal to 10 + your opponent's base attack bonus + your opponent's Wisdom modifier. If your opponent is trained in Sense Motive, the DC is instead equal to 10 + your opponent's Sense Motive bonus, if higher. For more information on feinting in combat, see Combat.

The combat section never states "melee" either.

Liberty's Edge

MysticNumber ServitorOfAsmodeus wrote:
The combat section never states "melee" either.

It does on page 201 of the core rulebook : "If successful, the next melee attack you make against the target does not allow him to use his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any)."


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required.
The black raven wrote:
MysticNumber ServitorOfAsmodeus wrote:
The combat section never states "melee" either.
It does on page 201 of the core rulebook : "If successful, the next melee attack you make against the target does not allow him to use his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any)."

Oh.... so I over-looked that somehow. So in the skill section it doesn't specify, but in the combat section it does....lame. Well, as A GM I would ignore the whole "melee" thing, because it is way cooler and less limited that way. It makes enough sense to feint at range to me.


...So the previous topic looks like an Errata issue with the CORE Rules.

Anyhow, a minor wording issue with the Rage Prophet´s Savage Seer ability:

Quote:
A rage prophet’s class level stacks with barbarian levels for determining the effect of his rage powers, oracle revelations, and his oracle’s curse. This does not grant additional abilities.

It seems like it meant to say ´stacks with barbarian AND ORACLE levels...´.

The current wording doesn´t make much sense when read literally,
since of course barbarian levels don´t progress the effects of oracle revelations or curses.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Quandary wrote:

...So the previous topic looks like an Errata issue with the CORE Rules.

Anyhow, a minor wording issue with the Rage Prophet´s Savage Seer ability:

Quote:
A rage prophet’s class level stacks with barbarian levels for determining the effect of his rage powers, oracle revelations, and his oracle’s curse. This does not grant additional abilities.

It seems like it meant to say ´stacks with barbarian AND ORACLE levels...´.

The current wording doesn´t make much sense when read literally,
since of course barbarian levels don´t progress the effects of oracle revelations or curses.

This was addressed in another thread by Jason (possibly earlier in this one, but I cannot find it at the moment). Effectively, you should read it as, "A rage prophet’s class level stacks with barbarian levels for determining the effect of his rage powers, and with his oracle levels for determining the effect of his oracle revelations and his oracle’s curse."


MysticNumber ServitorOfAsmodeus wrote:
The black raven wrote:
MysticNumber ServitorOfAsmodeus wrote:
The combat section never states "melee" either.
It does on page 201 of the core rulebook : "If successful, the next melee attack you make against the target does not allow him to use his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any)."
Oh.... so I over-looked that somehow. So in the skill section it doesn't specify, but in the combat section it does....lame. Well, as A GM I would ignore the whole "melee" thing, because it is way cooler and less limited that way. It makes enough sense to feint at range to me.

I agree on that too --to a point. The trick shot is <30 ft, where the skill description does not have that restriction it seems. Feinting from 120 ft away doesn't make much sense, but close up (<30 ft) works for me. But of course, as in all cases, is it official?


5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ.

Perfect Strike feat:
Can you use it with the Temple Sword and other new Monk weapons?
The flavor text says "When wielding a monk weapon,.."
But the description just mentions some monk weapons "You must use one of the following weapons to make the attack: kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, and siangham.". Intentional or error?

Scarab Sages

evilash wrote:

The wording of the spell Flames of the Faithful.

Advanced Player's Guide p. 222 wrote:
If you are using the judgment class feature and all of your judgments are granting the maximum bonus, your weapon gains the flaming burst property instead.
Since the judgement class feature is level dependent now, this is probably wrong.

I'd just like to plug the quoted post as a FAQ candidate. (Unless it's already been FAQ'd, but I didn't find it.) I'd be much obliged if y'all would hit the FAQ button on that post.

Contributor

Tom Baumbach wrote:
evilash wrote:

The wording of the spell Flames of the Faithful.

Advanced Player's Guide p. 222 wrote:
If you are using the judgment class feature and all of your judgments are granting the maximum bonus, your weapon gains the flaming burst property instead.
Since the judgement class feature is level dependent now, this is probably wrong.
I'd just like to plug the quoted post as a FAQ candidate. (Unless it's already been FAQ'd, but I didn't find it.) I'd be much obliged if y'all would hit the FAQ button on that post.

You mean this FAQ item?

Scarab Sages

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
You mean this FAQ item?

Hah! I skipped straight to spells FAQ, found it empty, and moved on. Thanks.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

APG "Two-Weapon Warrior" Fighter Variant:

If I have both Improved and Perfect Balance:
When I use one handed weapon (not ligth) in my off hand (and another in the main hand), do I suffer -2 to attacks (normal TWF penalties for ligth weapons), -1 (normal TWF penalties for light weapons plus the benefits of Perfect Balance, note that "Alternatively" isn't used in the wording of Perfect Balance) or -0 (normal TWF penalties for this variant when using ligth weapons, or normal TWF penalties for light waapons plus the additional benefits of Improved and Perfect Balance).


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The "Erosion Touch" revelation under the Nature Oracle's list (APG 50) looks as though it belongs to the Waves Oracle's list. Is it possible that it should be switched with the "Punitive Transformation" revelation on the Waves Oracle list (APG 53)?


If a fighter chooses weapon training in the Close weapon group and wears Gloves of Dueling, do (or should) the gloves add +2 to hit and damage with armor spikes?


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the errata.

Page 141, Verdant bloodline.

Bonus feats: Acrobatic Moves

==

There is no feat Acrobatic Moves, so I *assume* it should be Acrobat Steps.

Right?

-- david
Papa.DRB


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

(edited, tidied up)
P. 70-71
The witch spell lists omit the second level buff-your-own-casting-stat spell appropriate to the witch, fox's cunning. Given that the only other casting class of which I am aware thus far in official Paizo rules with its own lists which shares this absence of buff-your-own-stat second level spell is the 'NPC class', the Adept, (even the Paladin and Ranger can buff their own respective spell-casting stats) I assume that this one is an error.
It's not just a question of being able to buff your own stat with a spell - it's also a matter of being able to make a magic item to boost your stat too. Yes, I know threefold aspect is on the witch list, but it's a fourth level spell, when it buffs intelligence it does so at the cost of a penalty to physical stats, and it doesn't have any items associated with it.

P. 190-200
The updates/additions to the spell list of the PFRPG core rules NPC class, the adept, are not listed.

Contributor

Jeremiziah wrote:

Lonewolf-Rob informs us here that Inquisitors and Druids cannot choose subdomains. Something to this effect needs to be errata'd into the book somewhere. At this point, there's no verbiage anywhere that would lead someone to that conclusion.

In fact, the only language that appears to attempt to address this is: "Subdomains are treated as equivalent to their associated domain for any effect or prerequisite based on Domains" (from the Subdomains heading in the Cleric chapter of the APG).

I don't know about you all, but I think a reasonable assesment of that line would lead one to conclude that Druids and Inquisitors could select subdomains. But, they can't. So that needs to be called out somewhere.

Added to APG FAQ.

Liberty's Edge

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Jeremiziah wrote:

Lonewolf-Rob informs us here that Inquisitors and Druids cannot choose subdomains. Something to this effect needs to be errata'd into the book somewhere. At this point, there's no verbiage anywhere that would lead someone to that conclusion.

In fact, the only language that appears to attempt to address this is: "Subdomains are treated as equivalent to their associated domain for any effect or prerequisite based on Domains" (from the Subdomains heading in the Cleric chapter of the APG).

I don't know about you all, but I think a reasonable assesment of that line would lead one to conclude that Druids and Inquisitors could select subdomains. But, they can't. So that needs to be called out somewhere.

Added to APG FAQ.

Whoa, thanks, Sean! This is an IMPORTANT thing for people to know. Has someone run this by Lonewolf-Rob? Per his earlier post, he seems to be operating under different auspices. I'm really glad this was ruled this way; it makes much more sense to me.

For those who haven't paged over to the FAQ, any class that can take a Domain CAN take a subdomain.

Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

--Checkpoint--

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing


5 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

Does the Lingering effect from Lingering Performance feat stop when The Bard cast the Saving Finale/Purging Finale/Reviving Finale/Heroic Finale/Stunning Finale/Deadly Finale?

Does a Cleric with the Restoration Subdomain actually get remove disease at 2nd spell level or is this an errata? Remove disease is normally a spell a level 5 cleric get as a 3rd spell level.


3 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

APG "Gloves of Dueling" (Wondrous item).

The item gives bonuses to CMD against disarm and that kind of stuff plus:
[...]If the wearer has the weapon training class
feature and is using an appropriate weapon, his weapon training
bonus increases by +2.

Only 15000 gp for another stacking +2 bonus to damage and attack, Combat Maneuvers and CMD vs disarm/sunder, did Fighters need so much love? really?
I suspect that it may be just another +2 to CMD against disarm and sunder, confirmation please.


Jeremiziah wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Jeremiziah wrote:

Lonewolf-Rob informs us here that Inquisitors and Druids cannot choose subdomains. Something to this effect needs to be errata'd into the book somewhere. At this point, there's no verbiage anywhere that would lead someone to that conclusion.

In fact, the only language that appears to attempt to address this is: "Subdomains are treated as equivalent to their associated domain for any effect or prerequisite based on Domains" (from the Subdomains heading in the Cleric chapter of the APG).

I don't know about you all, but I think a reasonable assesment of that line would lead one to conclude that Druids and Inquisitors could select subdomains. But, they can't. So that needs to be called out somewhere.

Added to APG FAQ.

Whoa, thanks, Sean! This is an IMPORTANT thing for people to know. Has someone run this by Lonewolf-Rob? Per his earlier post, he seems to be operating under different auspices. I'm really glad this was ruled this way; it makes much more sense to me.

For those who haven't paged over to the FAQ, any class that can take a Domain CAN take a subdomain.

Does the Dance of Joy

I love it when sanity wins. :D

251 to 300 of 538 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / Errata / Typos in APG All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.