Now that I've had my lunch....
Let me say thank you for reporting the issues you've discovered with Bestiary 2. Rest assured that I am investigating each and every one of them to verify if there's a problem, and making notes in my master copy of the book about any issue that requires clarification or revision.
I'd like to point out that with a project this size, it is impossible to create something 100% error-free, but we consider the quality of our products to be incredibly important. Every monster in this book has been build-tested by a developer and received several editing passes afterword.
Keep in mind that of the issues people have found in this thread, only some of them are errors involving numbers in the stat blocks, and these do not have a significant effect on using the monster in the game. Some of the reported issues aren't errors at all, and stem from a reader not noticing or remembering a key rule or ability that means the monster is actually correct as written. And some issues are minor typographical mistakes--inevitable in a technical book containing over 160,000 words.
If you notice something that looks like an error in the book, please verify to the best of your ability that it is an error--and if so, let us know about it here. I want to know about any actual mistakes in the book, but it doesn't help anyone to report things that aren't actually mistakes. It also helps speed up my investigation if you list the page number and monster name, followed by the issue you're reporting.
Thank you!
Entries in that part of the stat block are listed alphabetically. Thus, Cleric Spells Prepared is listed before Spell-Like Abilities.
In that case, Pleroma Aeon, Star Archon, and Undine are all incorrect since they list their SLAs above their cleric spells.
In the same vein, the explanation of the stat block in both the bestiary and the bestiary 2 need to be updated to reflect that change since they both currently list SLAs above spells of any sort.
Well, honestly, it really doesn't matter. :p It's not like you're going to look at the stat block and say "OMG I CAN'T FIND ITS CLERIC SPELLS!" :)
The akata has a +4 racial modifier not listed in its printed stat block (but it is present in the build spreadsheet), so its skill listing is correct.
...
It should have "SQ amphibious" (it's in the build spreadsheet).
...
The derghodaemon has a +4 racial modifier not listed in its printed stat block (but it is present in the build spreadsheet), so its skill listing is correct.
I'm not sure why he has the aquatic type to start with (outsiders don't need to breathe in the first place, right?) since there isn't much in his description that indicates he'd be from an aquatic place. Anyways...
Thanks for the clarification. Unfortunately it doesn't do much good for material to be lost in the progression from "build spreadsheet" to finished - and paid for - material. We'll keep working on the errors and most of us have made an effort to double check errors pointed out by others.
Well, honestly, it really doesn't matter. :p It's not like you're going to look at the stat block and say "OMG I CAN'T FIND ITS CLERIC SPELLS!" :)
Agreed. But you would nick someone in the Superstar contest who scrambled their stat block. We like to think everyone at Paizo is a superstar too!
In the same vein, the explanation of the stat block in both the bestiary and the bestiary 2 need to be updated to reflect that change since they both currently list SLAs above spells of any sort.
Or perhaps it doesn't actually matter as long as all the spells and spell-likes are clearly labelled and in the "Spells" area of the statblock. It is possible for more than one way to be acceptable.
I'm not sure why he has the aquatic type to start with (outsiders don't need to breathe in the first place, right?)
"Outsiders breathe, but do not need to eat or sleep (although they can do so if they wish)."
since there isn't much in his description that indicates he'd be from an aquatic place. Anyways...
Kind of hard to be a "stoic watcher of the Ethereal Plane and the Elemental Planes" if you drown whenever you go to the Plane of Water....
Thanks for the clarification. Unfortunately it doesn't do much good for material to be lost in the progression from "build spreadsheet" to finished - and paid for - material.
My point in stating that is two-fold:
(1) The data is correct as designed.(2) The monster's numbers are correct as presented in the book. You lose nothing in terms of playability by not having that "Racial Modifiers +4 Perception" listed in the stat block.
So while it doesn't "do much good" for that material to not appear in the book, it doesn't hurt you, either. Remember, people used to play AD&D without knowing monster ability scores, let alone their exact bonuses for performing skills.
But you would nick someone in the Superstar contest who scrambled their stat block.
That implies that a stat block is 100% locked in with the same style every time. I'll point out that none of the Bestiary stat blocks have entries for Before Combat, During Combat, and Morale, even though the Paizo stat block style in the APs (which predate the Paizo monster books) include them. Would you say that the Bestiary stat blocks are "missing" information because of that?
"Outsiders breathe, but do not need to eat or sleep (although they can do so if they wish)."
Kind of hard to be a "stoic watcher of the Ethereal Plane and the Elemental Planes" if you drown whenever you go to the Plane of Water....
Good point, outsiders do breathe. Ok then if we look at the description of the aquatic subtype... Aquatic Subtype: These creatures always have swim speeds and can move in water without making Swim checks. An aquatic creature can breathe water. It cannot breathe air unless it has the amphibious special quality. Aquatic creatures always treat Swim as a class skill. (Bestiary 2, pg 306)
So our angel is still missing half of the defining features of this subtype as it does not have a swim speed. Why not just give it the water breathing special ability like the storm giant if you want it to be able to survive on the elemental plane of water. Aquatic subtype seems to imply an aquatic origin, does it not?
My point in stating that is two-fold:
(1) The data is correct as designed.
(2) The monster's numbers are correct as presented in the book. You lose nothing in terms of playability by not having that "Racial Modifiers +4 Perception" listed in the stat block.
unfortunately what is lost is the fact that we can be sure that it's correct by calculating it ourselves. How are we to know if that was an addition error, which happens as we all know, or if it was an omission error? I'm personally a couple decades too young to remember AD&D, and I have a feeling I wouldn't have liked it much, so unfortunately that reference is lost on me (and a good chunk of the rest of the player base)
That implies that a stat block is 100% locked in with the same style every time. I'll point out that none of the Bestiary stat blocks have entries for Before Combat, During Combat, and Morale, even though the Paizo stat block style in the APs (which predate the Paizo monster books) include them. Would you say that the Bestiary stat blocks are "missing" information because of that?
No, because the description of the stat block as defined in the bestiary and the bestiary 2 do not include a tactics section. This makes sense since these monsters are supposed to be much more generally applicable than the ones in the APs and such have much more freedom of action.
I think you are arguing for the sake of arguing, and I'm not going to get entangled in that.
I think you are arguing for the sake of arguing, and I'm not going to get entangled in that.
I think you're getting backed into a corner because I'm pointing out inconsistencies in things you make up to cover your mistakes on the spot. (eg it's pretty clear the angel was not supposed to be aquatic...) But you are right! The spirit of the thread should continue without this derailment :)
I'm pretty sure I wanted the angel to be aquatic & amphibious when I designed it, but feel free to think I'm playing CYA.
I think you are arguing for the sake of arguing, and I'm not going to get entangled in that.I think you're getting backed into a corner because I'm pointing out inconsistencies in things you make up to cover your mistakes on the spot. (eg it's pretty clear the angel was not supposed to be aquatic...) But you are right! The spirit of the thread should continue without this derailment :)
I've seen SO many game developers doing this again and again and again.
Why can't they ever fess up? It's not like it makes them any less human than the rest of us to admit to a mistake every once in a while.
I think you are arguing for the sake of arguing, and I'm not going to get entangled in that.I think you're getting backed into a corner because I'm pointing out inconsistencies in things you make up to cover your mistakes on the spot. (eg it's pretty clear the angel was not supposed to be aquatic...) But you are right! The spirit of the thread should continue without this derailment :)I've seen SO many game developers doing this again and again and again.
Why can't they ever fess up? It's not like it makes them any less human than the rest of us.
seriously? Paizo is usually very transparrent about mistakes that happen. SKR has been kind enough to pull back the curtain on some of these issues here, but if you are going to be this hostile about his answers he'll be inclined to stay silent next time. Don't ruin a good relationship with the developers for the rest of us.
seriously? Paizo is usually very transparrent about mistakes that happen. SKR has been kind enough to pull back the curtain on some of these issues here, but if you are going to be this hostile about his answers he'll be inclined to stay silent next time. Don't ruin a good relationship with the developers for the rest of us.I think you are arguing for the sake of arguing, and I'm not going to get entangled in that.I think you're getting backed into a corner because I'm pointing out inconsistencies in things you make up to cover your mistakes on the spot. (eg it's pretty clear the angel was not supposed to be aquatic...) But you are right! The spirit of the thread should continue without this derailment :)I've seen SO many game developers doing this again and again and again.
Why can't they ever fess up? It's not like it makes them any less human than the rest of us to admit to a mistake every once in a while.
I am quite serious. From v3.5 to Star Wars Saga (especially Star Wars Saga) and now, apparently, Pathfinder.
And I'm not hostile. I merely noted that I had seen this kind of thing before.
If I were hostile I would have said something like "all game designers are a cowardly bunch for not being willing to admit to simple mistakes," which is silly as it is an over generalization and wholly unprovable and hurtful.
And I'm not hostile. I merely noted that I had seen this kind of thing before.
Ok, you weren't that bad. It was the combination of you on top of vip00's was enough to make me annoyed at where this thread has been going.
I also don't see how: "Oops, that was a mistake, it should have had amphibious," is an unwillingness to admit mistakes. Certainly some other designer might have chosen not to make the creature aquatic, but that doesn't make it a mistake if he chose to design it as aquatic.
Over the last 2.5 years I've been a subscriber, I've seen Paizo make many mistakes. They've always been upfront about them and usually mention where in the process they occurred (design, development, layout, printing, etc), although never naming specific names. I haven't seen any evidence of "covering up" before, nor do I see it now. I trust SKR at his word. Does anyone have any evidence that we shouldn't?
plus these threads are free error checking :)Except when you're wrong, which means I'm comparing the print version, developed Word file, developed Excel file, and designer's turnover trying to find the "error." :/
I wonder if some of this stuff could be fixed with some bit of extra automation. Of course, that's my MO - get boring ass stuff at work and try to figure out how to ACTUALLY make it software engineering.
Aligned Templates give Smite (Smite Law, Smite Chaos, Smite Good, Smite Evil) that give CHA bonus to attack rolls, and +1 to damage per HD of the creature.
Should it have specified 'gives CHA bonus to attack rolls if CHA bonus is positive' instead? Otherwise low Cha creatures (like animals) actually get worse at attacking when using smite.
Should it have specified 'gives CHA bonus to attack rolls if CHA bonus is positive' instead? Otherwise low Cha creatures (like animals) actually get worse at attacking when using smite.
Typically "bonus" means positive , "modifier" means whatever.
Meaning, if it meant that a negative modifier would apply it would say modifier, not bonus. By saying bonus, that means only positive modifiers.
Should it have specified 'gives CHA bonus to attack rolls if CHA bonus is positive' instead? Otherwise low Cha creatures (like animals) actually get worse at attacking when using smite.Typically "bonus" means positive , "modifier" means whatever.
Meaning, if it meant that a negative modifier would apply it would say modifier, not bonus. By saying bonus, that means only positive modifiers.
Hmm, ok, fair enough, comment withdrawn.
Giant, Taiga p. 131, skill point issue, more used than computed
skill points = 45
used = 47Climb +15 = +5 ranks, +10 Str, +3 class skill, -3 Armor Check Penalty
Knowledge (religion) +11 = +10 ranks, +1 Int
Perception +13 = +5 ranks, +3 Wis, +3 class skill, +2 extra mods
Stealth +6 = +15 ranks, +2 Dex, -8 extra mods, -3 Armor Check Penalty
Survival +20 = +12 ranks, +3 Wis, +3 class skill, +2 extra mods
No error: Once there are 10 ranks in Survival, the bonus from self-sufficient becomes +4. The correct line is:
Survival +20 = +10 ranks, +3 Wis, +3 class skill, +4 extra mods
Grippli p. 149, minor typo- comma in wrong spot
in Skills "Stealth +11, (+15 in forests or marshes)
Survival +7"
it should be "Stealth +11 (+15 in forests or marshes),
Survival +7"with the comma after the mod
Additionally, has the grippli subtype, which is not referenced in the Appendix.
Hippopotamus p. 157, incorrect Fort + Will values
Fort 5 (good) +3 Con = 8
SB says +10
Will 2 (poor) + 1 Wis = 3
SB Says = 2
Additionally:
hp: 7 Animal hit dice (4.5*7=31)+ Con modifier per level (3*7=21) = 7d8+21=52
SB claims 7d8+35=66. That's correct, but +35 is not.
BAB (7 animal hit dice) = +5. SB says +6
CMB and CMD incorrect because of this.
4 unspent skill points
7 Hit dice = 7 (minimum) skill points
Perception +8 = +1 ranks, +1 Wis, +3 class skill, +3 skill focus
Stealth +0 = +1 ranks, +0 Dex, -4 size, +3 class skill
Swim +8 = +1 ranks, +4 Str, +3 class skill
____
3 ranks spent
Inevitable, Kolyarut p. 163,unused skill points
skill points 72
used = 69Diplomacy +22 = +12 ranks, +3 Cha, +3 class skill, +4 extra mods
Disguise +19 = +9 ranks, +3 Cha, +3 class skill, +4 extra mods
Knowledge (planes) +15 = +12 ranks, +0 Int, +3 class skill
Perception +22 = +12 ranks, +3 Wis, +3 class skill, +4 extra mods
Sense Motive +22 = +12 ranks, +3 Wis, +3 class skill, +4 extra mods
Survival +18 = +12 ranks, +3 Wis, +3 class skill
Additionally:
hp: 12 Outsider hit dice (5.5*12=66)+ Con modifier per level (6*12=72) = 12d10+72=138
SB claims 12d10+84=150. That's correct, but +84 is not.
Jabberwock p. 168, incorrect Fort value
Fort 15(good) + 11 Con = 26
SB says +27
Additionally:
hp: 26 Dragon hit dice (6.5*26=169)+ Con modifier per level (11*26=286) = 26d12+286=455
SB claims 26d12+312=481. That's correct, but +312 is not.
Sard, page 237:
the ranged thorn attack doesn't list a range increment, or am I missing something?
Some of the reported issues aren't errors at all, and stem from a reader not noticing or remembering a key rule or ability that means the monster is actually correct as written.
...
If you notice something that looks like an error in the book, please verify to the best of your ability that it is an error--and if so, let us know about it here.