|
Their Lore Master, by RAW, does not allow taking 10. The base bard's Lore Master does, and it's strange that the archetype that's supposed to be good at knowledge can't do that. Also fails at the "Make it the same or different" philosophy.
Actually the base bard's Lore Master is weird BECAUSE it mentions being able to take 10. This is weird because ANYBODY can take 10 on Knowledge checks.
Their Lore Master, by RAW, does not allow taking 10. The base bard's Lore Master does, and it's strange that the archetype that's supposed to be good at knowledge can't do that. Also fails at the "Make it the same or different" philosophy.Actually the base bard's Lore Master is weird BECAUSE it mentions being able to take 10. This is weird because ANYBODY can take 10 on Knowledge checks.
From what I recall, not during combat. Which is when the Archivist needs it most.
|
|
From what I recall, not during combat. Which is when the Archivist needs it most.Their Lore Master, by RAW, does not allow taking 10. The base bard's Lore Master does, and it's strange that the archetype that's supposed to be good at knowledge can't do that. Also fails at the "Make it the same or different" philosophy.Actually the base bard's Lore Master is weird BECAUSE it mentions being able to take 10. This is weird because ANYBODY can take 10 on Knowledge checks.
Agreed, but the base bard can't do that either. As written it doesn't say Lore Master's take 10 ability is usable in combat either.
So it's either there is useless text that was specifically added to the PFRPG (since Lore Master is not a 3.5 thing), or the line about being able to take 10 means you can always take 10. I think the latter interpretation is the most common sense, although it could be clarified a bit.
|
|
So it's either there is useless text that was specifically added to the PFRPG (since Lore Master is not a 3.5 thing), or the line about being able to take 10 means you can always take 10. I think the latter interpretation is the most common sense, although it could be clarified a bit.
My hypothesis is that it was just some old text that was left in before some of the rules were finalized. Maybe at one point Knowledge skills weren't among those that could be taken 10 with.
And it wasn't fixed in 3 years? :/
|
|
And it wasn't fixed in 3 years? :/
nope. There are still lots of things that have been completely overlooked, even things that have been around since the core rulebook's first printing. For instance the 8th level spell of the Artifice domain being instant summons, which needs arcane mark to be cast to work properly, which a cleric can't cast. I made a big post on the errata thread for that book, just to show you an example of stuff that's still lingering from that book here it is behind a spoiler tag. This is even after the recent errata update to it.
- P. 23: Changing "type" to "subtype" in the Defensive Training gnome racial trait.
- P. 37: 2nd paragraph for suggestion, first sentence, "daily use of bardic performance" should be changed to "remaining uses of bardic performance."
- P. 40: Channel Energy ability, mentioning the fact that "living creatures" means creatures with a Constitution score (to specify that Constructs can't be affected by channel energy).
- P. 42: 8th-level spell for the Artifice domain is instant summons, yet clerics can't cast arcane mark, a spell that must be used in tandem with this spell.
- P. 43: This may not be an actual errata, but as I understand it the Pathfinder Society Guide grants clerics of Irori the Improved Unarmed Strike feat for free as a bonus feat (in order to use their favored weapons effectively). Perhaps a footnote should be added to Table 3-6: Deities of the Pathfinder Chronicles.
- P. 45: Remove Viewing ability from the Knowledge Domani, first sentence, the words "at will" should be deleted.
- P. 48: Adding the duration of "1 round" somewhere to the description of the Battle Rage ability in the War domain.
- P. 53: (for anybody using a PDF copy, [possibly older versions only]) Weapon Finesse not included in list of Animal Feats.
- P. 63: 4th paragraph of the Divine Bond class feature, 2nd sentence, "heavy horse" was probably meant to be "light horse."
- P. 78: Something should mention that if a wizard selects a weapon as his bonded item, he need not be proficient with it. Additionally it should clarify that a weapon is considered "wielded" when it is held in a way that allows its use (so a two-handed weapon would make a poor choice).
- P. 79: Paragraph regarding Cantrips, last sentence. "Prohibited school" should be changed to "opposition school." Same thing in the 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph of the Spellbooks part on this page.
- P. 86: 3rd paragraph under Skill Checks, last sentence, word "exceeds" should probably be replaced with "equals or exceeds."
- P. 91: Some addition to the Climb skill mentioning how creatures of size Tiny or smaller use Dex instead of Str to modify their Climb checks.
- P. 108: Some addition to the Swim skill mentioning how creatures of size Tiny or smaller use Dex instead of Str to modify their Swim checks.
- P. 112: Item Creation Feats section, Skill Check paragraph, 1st sentence, changing "10 + item's caster level" to "5 + item's caster level."
- P. 136: The addition of the elven curve blade to the list of weapons that can benefit from Weapon Finesse in that feat's Benefit description.
- P. 140: Weapons section, 2nd paragraph, last sentence, changing the word "exceeds" to "equals or exceeds".
- P. 147: The changing of the description of the net, mentioning somewhere that it requires 2 hands to be thrown properly.
- P. 203: Ready section, Distracting Spellcasters paragraph, last sentence, the word "Spellcraft" should probably be "concentration".
- P. 220: Preparing Divine Spells section, 1st paragraph of the Spell Selection and Preparation part, 3rd sentence, changing the words "a cleric" to "a divine caster."
- P. 262: Crushing despair spell failing to mention what kind of material component it uses (previous versions used a vial of tears).
- P. 266: Detect Chaos/Evil/Good/Law table, the Faint entry for Aligned creature (HD) should be changed to "6-10".
- P. 289: Giant Form II spell, first sentence, "type" should be changed to "subtype." Also in the second to last sentence, the words "one element" should be "any elements." (apparently this was supposed to be in the errata previous to the last one, but never made it, and still hasn't it seems)
- P. 323: Plant shape I spell, last paragraph (the Medium plant section), the words "+2 enhancement bonus" should be "+2 size bonus."
- P. 323: Polymorph spell, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence, "animal, humanoid or elemental" should be "animal, magical beast, humanoid, or elemental."
- P. 334: lesser restoration, restoration, and greater restoration have strange casting times. Lesser takes 3 rounds, normal takes a minute, and greater goes back down to 3 rounds. In previous editions, greater restoration took 10 minutes to cast.
- P. 341: Shapechange spell, second sentence, "beast form IV" should be "beast shape IV."
- P. 362: True Resurrection spell, the diamond worth 25,000 gp coming after the DF part of the components line instead of the M part of it.
- P. 363: Unhallow spell, 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence, "sacred bonus" should be changed to "profane bonus."
- P. 378: Assassin prestige class requirements, Alignment says any evil yet the description mentions neutral characters taking levels in this class.
- P. 412: Ledge paragraph, last sentence, change "opposed Strength check" to "CMD."
- P. 453: Table 14-7: Racial Ability Adjustments, the Halfling mentions gets a +2 to Intelligence when it should be Charisma.
- P. 515: Golem Manual, requirement spells to be cast when creating a Stone Golem Manual mention antimagic field, when this spell is not mentioned at all in what the book contains.
- P. 540: Bracers of Defenselessness, Slot entry says "arms" when it should say "wrists"
- P. 551: Creating Magic Weapons section, 5th paragraph, delete this word "XP"
- P. 554: Spell-Like Abilities (Sp) section in Appendix 1: Special Abilities, apparently in previous reprints of the Core Rulebook, this was fixed, but it was never mentioned in any of the errata documents. Thus, for anyone using an older PDF or an older print edition, this paragraph still says spell-like abilities can be counterspelled as normal, when they cannot, nor can they be used to counterspell.
- P. 559: Table 16-2: Sample Poisons, "Dark reaver power" should be "Dark reaver powder."
- P. 562: Death attacks still mention that they slay instantly, when in PF many death attacks simply do profound amounts of damage.
- P. 565: When Spell Resistance Applies section, 1st paragraph of Effect Spells, last sentence mentions the web spell as being applicable to spell resistance. This is a relic from previous editions, as the web spell is no longer bothered by spell resistance.
**ADDITIONALLY**
A sentence on page 199 describes how combat maneuvers are affected when using them against stunned creatures, claiming that creatures using maneuvers against stunned opponents get a +4 bonus on their CMB checks. When you look at the Stunned condition on page 568, it mentions a -2 penalty to AC. It's unclear if the -2 penalty to AC stacks with the +4 bonus an attacking creature gets when performing a combat maneuver against the stunned creature.
The "Catching Cape" item duplicates the effects of an "entropic shield" spell, but the prerequisite spell is "shield". The item does not duplicate any effects of the shield spell.
|
|
Pg. 230 - lead blades spell
This spell has some odd formatting. It has a range of personal, and then a Target of "touch." Touch is not a target, it's a range. Furthermore, it lacks a saving throw and SR entry, something that typically only happens with spells that have a Target of "you".
It seems either two things were meant to happen here:
1) It has a Range of "personal," a Target of "you," and no Saving Throw or SR entries, which would be "none" and "no" respectively.
-OR-
2) It has a Range of "touch," a Target of "melee weapons carried*," and then some Saving Throw and SR entry, most likely "none" and "no" respectively.
* I bolded this word because the spell description deliberately says it affects "all melee weapons you are carrying". It specifically leaves out the word "held" meaning all sheathed melee weapons, and even those stowed away, receive the benefits. This also suggests that #2 is wrong, as you wouldn't touch all your stowed weapons.
|
|
Page 211 of the Core Rulebook describes Enchantment spells as affecting the mind. The first sentence of the second paragraph specifically says "All enchantment spells are mind-affecting spells." The following enchantment spell(s) from the APG are missing their mind-affecting descriptor:
- instant enemy (page 229)
Additionally, the Core Rulebook also describes the two subschools of the enchantment school, compulsion and charm, and while it doesn't say all enchantment spells belong to one of these subschools, all of the ones in the core rulebook do, leading me to believe that's not a coincidence. The following enchantment spell(s) from the APG don't have a subschool:
- memory lapse (page 232)
|
|
Page 176 - Brass knuckles
Before everyone shuts off their brains in preparation for another brass knuckles rant, my question is a little different.
Brass knuckles are always referred to in the plural which can cause a bit of confusion (a "brass knuckle" would really just be a ring :p)
My question is, when you buy "brass knuckles" how many do you get? Does the price listed reflect a single set of brass knuckles (for use in one hand) or do they come in pairs? I'm guessing the former.
|
|
Page 179 - Swordbreaker dagger
How is the disarm bonus calculated? It says you add +4 on your disarm or sunder attempts against bladed weapons, is this in addition to the +2 for having the Disarm special property, or does it replace it?
Also side note, the sai is also an exotic light weapon that deals the same amount of damage and has the same crit multiplier, but only allows a +2 to disarm and sunder attempts (granted it's with all weapons, not just bladed). True the sai is 9 gp cheaper and weighs 2 lbs. less, but I thought I'd point it out.
|
|
Page 177 - Table 4-1: Weapons
Minor nitpick here. Many weapons on this table have the phrase "see text" in their Special column. There's really no point to this, as none of the weapons listed feature any reason to include this text (with the exception of MAYBE the boar spear and the swordbreaker dagger, which alter in some way how their special ability works, namely Brace and Disarm respectively). The other weapons just do something additionally cool, but nothing that would go in the Special column.
Basically if the dagger doesn't have a "see text" entry for allowing a +2 Sleight of Hand check to conceal it, and the net doesn't have a "see text" entry for it's crazy special rules, neither should any of these weapons.
|
|
Page 176 - Various new types of arrows
Do these new arrows have some special rules for when attempting to use them as melee weapons like normal arrows do?
1) Blunt arrows: are they treated as improvised bludgeoning weapons that deal damage like a club?
2) Flight arrows: are they treated as improvised piercing weapons that deal damage like a dagger one size category less?
3) Smoke arrows*: are they treated exactly like normal arrows are?
*side note about smoke arrows: the table presents this ammo singularly, not in the normal bundle of 20 like other arrows are. The artwork for it however, presents it in a full quiver of other smoke arrows. Just an "interesting" note.
|
|
Page 176 - Cestus
I apologize in advance if this falls under one of the most-commonly-asked-about-issues with this weapon.
Since the cestus is considered a weapon in its own right, and not an unarmed weapon "upgrade," the sentence about how a proficient wielder can do bludgeoning or piercing damage with an unarmed strike needs to be removed. Unless of course those that aren't proficient with simple weapons can still only do one type of damage with this weapon (in which case we need to know which type).
The Adventurer's Armory errata still doesn't update this for that book, either.
|
|
Page 179 - Agile breastplate
In the armor's description, the reference to jump checks should be changed to "Acrobatics checks made to jump".
The same issue exists with the agile half-plate following it. Also I'll mention again the possible issue of the agile half-plate being 5 pounds heavier than the normal half-plate.
|
|
Page 179 - Quickdraw shield, light wooden or steel
The first two sentences of the description for this item says:
"This light shield is specially crafted with a series of straps to allow a character proficient in shields to ready or stow it on his or her back quickly and easily. If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you may don or put away a quickdraw shield as a swift action combined with a regular move."
Emphasis mine. Usually the first sentence is flavorful fluff, but the nod to proficiency changes things a bit. Must a character have both a +1 BAB AND Shield Proficiency to use this special feature of this shield?
|
|
Page 183 - Tent
This isn't an errata (I think, anyway) more than it is an observation. The variously sized tents described on page 183 explain how different sizes of creatures fit within them. The standard described within the text is for tents designed by Medium craftsmen. The table on page 182, however, lists the weight followed by a superscript "1", indicating it's one of those items that weighs less when manufactured for Small creatures. Does this mean that a small tent manufactured by Small craftsmen holds 1 Small creature, a medium tent manufactured by Small craftsmen holds 2 Small or 1 Medium creatures, etc.?
Or was it that those superscripts on the table were placed there mistakenly?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Staves
There is a very important thread happening here regarding the pricing of staves. Some serious errata is needed here, most likely. Whether the Core Rulebook is wrong or the APG is wrong, we have yet to hear officially.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Page 176 - Bardiche
The last sentence of the bardiche says:
"You gain a +2 bonus to your CMD to resist sunder attempts against a bardiche."Was this written correctly? As written someone using a bardiche is penalized when attempting to sunder with it?
I'm not sure how this would indiate a penalty of any sort. It gives a bonus to your CMD, so if someone else attempts to sunder the bardiche you're weilding, they have a harder time with it.
|
|
I'm not sure how this would indiate a penalty of any sort. It gives a bonus to your CMD, so if someone else attempts to sunder the bardiche you're weilding, they have a harder time with it.Page 176 - Bardiche
The last sentence of the bardiche says:
"You gain a +2 bonus to your CMD to resist sunder attempts against a bardiche."Was this written correctly? As written someone using a bardiche is penalized when attempting to sunder with it?
It's mainly the use of the word "against." I have a bonus to resist sunder attempts against a bardiche? As in when it's being wielded at me? I think what it should say is "with a bardiche."
|
|
Any consensus on this point?They either get a second use per day of prestidigitation, or get a 1/day use of it if they gave it up as part of an alternate racial feature.The Gnome Trickster feat (page 161) states:
"Benefit: In addition to your normal gnome spell-like
abilities, you also gain the following spell-like abilities:
1/day—mage hand and prestidigitation."As per the Core Rulebook, gnomes already have prestidigitation 1/day as one of their normal spell-like abilities. So I guess the question is, what is the actual second spell-like ability granted by this feat?
It wouldn't be "if they gave it up as part of an alternate racial trait," because all of those traits in question specifically replace gnome magic, not alter it, and gnome magic is a prerequisite for this feat.
I think I'm going to house rule the haunted fey aspect cantrip from Ultimate Combat in place of this second prestidigitation until an official fix is made.
|
|
Staves
There is a very important thread happening here regarding the pricing of staves. Some serious errata is needed here, most likely. Whether the Core Rulebook is wrong or the APG is wrong, we have yet to hear officially.
A handful of us in the thread linked above have been breaking down the pricing of the various staves in order to determine how/if they were calculated correctly. While going through the CRB's staves, it was discovered that many DO NOT follow the pricing rules for staves described in the magic item creation section of that book. Many, it seems, had prices that were chosen specifically to create nice, neat values (like any stave whose last digit was not a 5 or 0) or to match other staves like it (like all the magic school staves). Meanwhile, the APG's staves seem to have the creation cost equal the price, unlike the CRB which has creation cost equal the cost (resulting in super high prices in the CRB and then relatively low prices in the APG). The APG staves also have some errors associated with them, like missing material component costs and miscalculated charge values.
Going through the prices in the CRB we found a couple of things that enlightened us on rules that were either vague or missing. Specifically, it was discovered that focus components are not factored into the cost, and when doubling the cost to determine price you do not double the cost of the material components (that is, they're only added in once).
I hope we'll see an errata for this, but within the spoiler below I've gone ahead and posted the legitimate, rule-following prices of APG staves for any GMs out there as anal as me. Any fraction was rounded up to the next gold piece. Keep in mind these values are for if the APG's staves followed the pricing rules the CRB staves follow.
- Price: 41,600 / Cost: 20,800
Staff of Cackling Wrath:
- 9th level / Price: 56,700 / Cost: 28,350
* This one deserves special note for two reasons. One, it's caster level is wrong, because one of the spells is 5th level and no matter what class you have to be CL 9th to pull that off. Two, the only class that could craft this without any help from another class is the witch.
Staff of Hoarding:
- Price: 55,867 / Cost: 30,017
Staff of Journeys:
- Price: 27,200 / Cost: 13,600
Staff of Many Rays:
- Price: 57,200 / Cost: 28,600
Staff of Obstacles:
- Price: 52,850 / Cost: 27,050
Staff of Performance:
- Price: 48,800 / Cost: 24,400
Staff of Revelations:
- Price: 51,009 / Cost: 30,609
Staff of Rigor:
- Price: 20,800 / Cost: 10,400
Staff of Slumber:
- Price: 81,767 / Cost: 49,217
Staff of Shrieking:
- Price: 36,000 / Cost: 18,000 (BARD ONLY)
Price: 28,800 / Cost: 14,400 (BARD AND SOR/WIZ ONLY)
* Here's another special mention. The CL for this staff is 8th. The only way this staff could be crafted at CL 8 would be if it was worked on by both a bard and a sorcerer or wizard. If it were worked on by a bard ONLY, it's CL would have to be increased to 10, because in order to cast shout a bard needs to be at least 10th level.
Staff of Souls:
- Price: 32,800 / Cost: 16,400
Staff of Stealth:
- Price: 39,300 / Cost: 20,900
Staff of Toxins:
- Price: 34,200 / Cost: 17,100
Staff of Traps:
- Price: 56,925 / Cost: 36,525
Staff of Vision:
- Price: 86,667 / Cost: 45,417
Staff of Weather:
- Price: 84,068 / Cost: 42,034
Versatile Evocation of the Admixture Wizard School:
"When you cast an evocation spell that does acid, cold, electricity, or fire damage, you may change the damage dealt to one of the other four energy types."
The "of the other four energy types" seems to imply a 5th option. I'm fairly certain this is a mistake, and it's just meant to be limited to acid, cold, electricity, and fire damage.
|
|
Page 309 - Scabbard of stanching and scabbard of vigor (and sheath of bladestealth, while we're at it)
These magic items all take up the belt slot. Meanwhile, the scabbard of keen edges from the core rulebook doesn't take up any slot on the body. Assuming we'd like to maintain uniformity, either the APG's 3 magic items are wrong, or the CRB scabbard is wrong.
|
|
Staves
There is a very important thread happening here regarding the pricing of staves. Some serious errata is needed here, most likely. Whether the Core Rulebook is wrong or the APG is wrong, we have yet to hear officially.
A handful of us in the thread linked above have been breaking down the pricing of the various staves in order to determine how/if they were calculated correctly.
<blah blah blah>
Fun's not done yet. Forgot about the staff of fortune in the Hero Points variant rule section:
This is a good example of a HUGE price change since the material components were not factored into the cost at all, originally. Again, assuming that the CRB has the right of how prices are calculated from cost, the new values should be:
Price: 101,800 gp / Cost: 78,400 gp
|
|
Any consensus on this point?They either get a second use per day of prestidigitation, or get a 1/day use of it if they gave it up as part of an alternate racial feature.The Gnome Trickster feat (page 161) states:
"Benefit: In addition to your normal gnome spell-like
abilities, you also gain the following spell-like abilities:
1/day—mage hand and prestidigitation."As per the Core Rulebook, gnomes already have prestidigitation 1/day as one of their normal spell-like abilities. So I guess the question is, what is the actual second spell-like ability granted by this feat?
...
I think I'm going to house rule the haunted fey aspect cantrip from Ultimate Combat in place of this second prestidigitation until an official fix is made.
Scratch that. The Haunted Gnome feat from Ultimate Combat already does that. Back to square one.
|
|
For those of you keeping track of this stuff, Cheapy brought up a good point in this thread.
The gist of it is that according to Jason B. the Summoner's summon monster spell-like ability was intended to work with Augment Summons. The lead post links to a post in another thread that was FAQ'd until a response of "answered in the errata" was issued. No such line actually exists in the APG errata, however, so unless it's slated for a future errata, this one got missed over.
|
|
Page 124 - Natural Weapon ranger combat style
This was brought up in the product discussion thread, and SKR answered it. I'm posting it here for anyone who wants to update their stuff.
The ranger's natural weapon combat style includes a feat called Eldritch Fangs. No such feat exists. It was intended to be Eldritch Claws
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Page 92 - Leadership subdomain
Another that was mentioned in the product discussion thread but didn't make it's way over here. The ability of the leadership subdomain doesn't mention how often it can be used per day.
It's probably it was meant to be at-will
I believe that it's meant to be at-will, because it's similar to the base ability, but only 1 round, whereas that one is a few rounds.
...and you edited your post to say the same thing...
|
|
Page 92 - Leadership subdomain
Another that was mentioned in the product discussion thread but didn't make it's way over here. The ability of the leadership subdomain doesn't mention how often it can be used per day.
It's probably it was meant to be at-will
I believe that it's meant to be at-will, because it's similar to the base ability, but only 1 round, whereas that one is a few rounds.
...and you edited your post to say the same thing...
Cool cool. And I edited to say "probable" instead of "probably"
Page 87 - Table 2-11: Subdomains
One of the subdomains for the Good domain is Angel on this table. It should be changed to Agathion.
|
|
For those of you who like to update your stuff but don't follow the paizo blog (like me until recently), there was a change to the polearm master back in September of last year that hasn't made it into the FAQ yet (unless I'm blind).
On page 106 of the APG, change the first two sentences of the Sweeping Fend ability of the Polearm Master archetype to read as follows:
"At 13th level, a polearm master can use any spear or polearm to make bull rush maneuvers, though he takes a -4 penalty on combat maneuver checks when making such attempts. When using a spear or polearm to make a trip maneuver, he treats these weapons as if they had the trip weapon feature."