Ultimate Magic Errata

[leo1925]

mdt wrote:

leo1925 wrote:

Thank you SKR for the scar hex, very good and thematically appropriate thinking, i love the whole "mark of the devil, cursed, bad things happen to me because of that". Very good.

Or the good witch marked me with the sign of the Northern Star, or the sign of The Virgin, or the sign of The Healer, and she can make good things happen to me.

Yes, yes, yes.

[Sean K Reynolds]

Synthesist and armor: FAQ!
Synthesist and healing: FAQ!
Synthesist and ability damage/drain: FAQ!
Synthesist and other afflictions/penalties/effects: FAQ!
Sythesist and Skilled or Ability Score Increase: FAQ!
Synthesist and HD/BAB questions: FAQ!
Synthesist and humanoid-only spells: FAQ! (This one probably needs a little more clarification, but I can't edit FAQ entries from home. The important part is the "whichever is worse" issue, whether you're dealing with a helpful spell or a harmful one.)
Synthesist and multiple attacks: FAQ!

Okay, now I'm tired, and have to pack for Gen Con. (I wanted to get these answered before GC because I know some PFS people may want to play their synthesist characters at the show.)

[Purple Dragon Knight]

FAQing hell!!! look at him go!!!

[Ravingdork]

There is no "spillover" for extra ability damage or drain beyond what it takes to reduce the eidolon to 0; if an eidolon with Constitution 1 takes 3 points of Con damage and dies, the summoner doesn't take the "extra" 2 points of Con damage. However, ongoing effects (like continuing poison...

Looks like you have a lingering sentence there Sean.

Also, thanks a bunch. You're awesome!

[Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Summoner: Can a synthesist (page 80) make attacks from his own body (such as manufactured weapons, unarmed strikes, or natural attacks) and attacks from the fused eidolon in the same round?

Yes, but the fused character is still subject to the Maximum Attacks entry in the table for an eidolon of his level (unlike a regular summoner, this limit does include attacks made with weapons). For example, a 1st-level synthesist is limited to 3 attacks per round, whether those three are dagger/off-hand dagger/bite, dagger/bite/claw, dagger/claw/claw, and so on.

Remember also that the synthesist is still subject to the rules of combining manufactured weapon attacks and natural weapon attacks in the same round (in that the natural weapons are always considered secondary and therefore have a -5 attack penalty).

Sorry to add more to the questions already answered.

So a summoner can make attacks from their own body? From your wooding, this means that they use their own physical attributes rather than the eidolon's? If not, does the eidolon need arms evolution to still use their manufactured weapons or natural attacks (if something like claws)? Or do synthesist eidolons get arms and hands for free if they are not bipedal?

[Lab_Rat]

Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:

Sorry to add more to the questions already answered.

So a summoner can make attacks from their own body? From your wooding, this means that they use their own physical attributes rather than the eidolon's? If not, does the eidolon need arms evolution to still use their manufactured weapons or natural attacks (if something like claws)? Or do synthesist eidolons get arms and hands for free if they are not bipedal?

A little confused on this one too. As worded it sounds like the summoner can reach outside of his fusion with his own arms (not the limbs from the eidolon) and hit something (At least that is what the questioned asked). I get this funny picture of a summoner shooting a bow from inside his eidolon fusion and watching the arrows come out of his translucent chest.

[Epic Meepo]

mdt wrote:

leo1925 wrote:

...mark of the devil, cursed, bad things happen to me...

Or the good witch marked me with the sign of the Northern Star...

Or the pimp witch marked you with a tramp stamp. :P

Seriously, though, a witch running a brothel would be a totally awesome NPC.

[Caedwyr]

The Hedge Witch archetype ability Spontaneous Healing references orisons. Witches do not have orisons, they have cantrips.

The witch archetypes have a style change between archetypes. The beast-bonded archetype references replacing a hex in one fasion, and the other archetypes use a different wording to reference replacing a hex.

The beast-bonded archetype Twin Soul ability says it replaces the witch's 10th level major hex. Since the major hex and grand hex abilities add additional hexes that may be selected at 10th and 18th level, this wording either implies that the witch may not select a 10th level hex from the major hex list (but they can still select a regular hex), that the witch must choose a hex from the major hex list, which is then replaced by the Twin Soul ability, or that at 10th level, the entire list of major hexes is replaced by the Twin Soul ability. This could be worded more clearly.

[Caedwyr]

For all witch archetypes, in the "Hexes that complement the archetype" sections, the plural of hex should be hexes and not hex.

[Pirate]

Yar!

Page 100, Spell Duels, under Dueling Counter. 3rd paragraph, 3rd sentence:

UC page 100 & the ]Note that characters who cast spells spontaneously (such as bards and sorcerers) must choose what exact spell they are using to counterspell in addition to the slot being used.

This is completely nonsensical. This should be a note for PRAPARED casters, not spontaneous casters.

I'm trying to think about what this could mean and how it impacts both spontaneous casters in a duel as well as prepared casters in a duel. If prepared caster's don't have to choose which specific spell is spent to counter, then do they suddenly gain spontaneous casting when they counter (as they don't have to choose which spell is lost, only which spell-level slot, so all of their spells prepared act like spells known when they counter in a duel)? And for spontaneous, what does choosing which spell do? They only have spells known and spell slots, and can pick any combination of spells known to cast when they spend a slot. Do they suddenly loose all knowledge of one spell when they counter in a duel?

If the next sentence said that the spontaneous caster can not cast that spell for the next round or something like that, then it would make sense (though what this would mean for prepared casters is still messed up)... but as it stands, this clause has no effect whatsoever (other than to confuse those using these rules).

So yeah: Page 100, Spell Duels, under [url=http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateMagic/magic/spellDuels.html#dueling-counter]Dueling Counter. 3rd paragraph, 3rd sentence is completely nonsensical. This should be a note for PRAPARED casters, not spontaneous casters.

~P

[Ninjaiguana]

Pirate wrote:

Yar!

Page 100, Spell Duels, under Dueling Counter. 3rd paragraph, 3rd sentence:

UC page 100 & the ]Note that characters who cast spells spontaneously (such as bards and sorcerers) must choose what exact spell they are using to counterspell in addition to the slot being used.

This is completely nonsensical. This should be a note for PRAPARED casters, not spontaneous casters.

I'm trying to think about what this could mean and how it impacts both spontaneous casters in a duel as well as prepared casters in a duel. If prepared caster's don't have to choose which specific spell is spent to counter, then do they suddenly gain spontaneous casting when they counter (as they don't have to choose which spell is lost, only which spell-level slot, so all of their spells prepared act like spells known when they counter in a duel)? And for spontaneous, what does choosing which spell do? They only have spells known and spell slots, and can pick any combination of spells known to cast when they spend a slot. Do they suddenly loose all knowledge of one spell when they counter in a duel?

If the next sentence said that the spontaneous caster can not cast that spell for the next round or something like that, then it would make sense (though what this would mean for prepared casters is still messed up)... but as it stands, this clause has no effect whatsoever (other than to confuse those using these rules).

So yeah: Page 100, Spell Duels, under [url=http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateMagic/magic/spellDuels.html#dueling-counter]Dueling Counter. 3rd paragraph, 3rd sentence is completely nonsensical. This should be a note for PRAPARED casters, not spontaneous casters.

~P

Pirate, I don't think you're reading this totally correctly. Here's the situation.

Prepared Casters - Since prepared casters have spells memorised rather than spell slots, they already have to pick a specific spell to counter with. They're marking a memorised spell off for the counter attempt, not a spell slot.

Spontaneous Casters - Spontaneous casters normally have multiple choices of spells to counter with by spending a given spell slot, since any spell can be used to counter. However, they must announce exactly which spell they are using to counter. This is due to the fact that using the 'right' spell (same school, same spell, etc) adds bonuses to the counter roll under the spell dueling rules.

[Warforged Gardener]

Question about the Bioconstruct modification on p. 116:

Ultimate Magic wrote:

All bioconstruct upgrades have the same weakness—they are susceptible to critical hits. An attacker that confirms a critical hit against a golem with a bioconstruct upgrade deals damage to the construct and also destroys one upgrade. The damaged upgrade ceases to function and the construct loses abilities associated with the upgrade. If a construct has more than one bioconstruct upgrade, only one is damaged. The GM randomly determines the damaged organ.

It may just be the wording, but this makes it seem like constructs aren't normally susceptible to critical hits. Is it saying that this modification makes them especially susceptible and to remove any critical hit immunities that specific constructs may have? Or was there a ruling that sneak attack and/or critical hits don't work on constructs anymore?

[Caedwyr]

The alchemist discovery Parasitic Twin has a pre-requisite of "vestigial limb x2". There is no alchemist discovery called "vestigial limb": the reference should be "vestigial arm".

[Caedwyr]

The greater mutagen alchemist discovery does not have mutagen as a prerequisite.

[the xiao]

On page 49, under the continuation of HEX ARCANA, it mentions that, at 20th level, Magi can get a Grand Hex in place of a Magus Arcana, but magi don't get a new arcana at 20th lvl. I suppose it would be at 18th lvl, since that the last arcana the Magi get. So, Magi could potentially get 3 hexes (levels 3, 6 and 9), 2 major (levels 12 and 15) and 1 grand (level 18).

That's my houserule until errata comes.

[ssims2]

The Bard Animal Speaker archetype gets a new Bardic Performance called Soothing Performance at 3rd level that acts like Wild Empathy. Unfortunately, the normal Bard already has a performance called Soothing Performance, gained at 12th level, that does something completely different, and the Animal Speaker does not replace that performance.

This could be a bit confusing. Couldn't this new one be named Soothe Animal(s) or something?

[ssims2]

I had a thought on the Animal Speaker suggestion issue.

To recap, the Bard's Animal Speaker archetype replaces fascinate, but does nothing to suggestion or mass suggestion.

The general rules on archetypes are that when one of a sequence of linked abilities gets replaced, the sequence is altered rather than broken. i.e., if there is a sequence A (1st level) -> B (6th level) -> C (18th level), and A gets replaced, then the new sequence is A (6th level) -> B (18th level).

It seems to me that fascinate, suggestion, and mass suggestion are a linked sequence, and so the Animal Speaker should get fascinate at 6th level (instead of 1st) and suggestion at 18th level (instead of 6th).

[Sean K Reynolds]

Caedwyr wrote:

The greater mutagen alchemist discovery does not have mutagen as a prerequisite.

Maybe I'm not understanding you correctly, but I don't see a "greater mutagen" discovery in Ultimate Magic at all, so I'm not sure what you're referring to.

[Sean K Reynolds]

Warforged Gardener wrote:

Question about the Bioconstruct modification on p. 116:

Ultimate Magic wrote:

All bioconstruct upgrades have the same weakness—they are susceptible to critical hits. An attacker that confirms a critical hit against a golem with a bioconstruct upgrade deals damage to the construct and also destroys one upgrade. The damaged upgrade ceases to function and the construct loses abilities associated with the upgrade. If a construct has more than one bioconstruct upgrade, only one is damaged. The GM randomly determines the damaged organ.

It may just be the wording, but this makes it seem like constructs aren't normally susceptible to critical hits. Is it saying that this modification makes them especially susceptible and to remove any critical hit immunities that specific constructs may have? Or was there a ruling that sneak attack and/or critical hits don't work on constructs anymore?

They = "bioconstruct upgrades," not they = "constructs."

Constructs are crittable in the PFRPG, and the bioconstruct upgrade does not change that--having the upgrade means a critical hit has an additional effect (one upgrade destroyed) in addition to the standard effect of a crit (extra damage).

[Sean K Reynolds]

the xiao wrote:

On page 49, under the continuation of HEX ARCANA, it mentions that, at 20th level, Magi can get a Grand Hex in place of a Magus Arcana, but magi don't get a new arcana at 20th lvl. I suppose it would be at 18th lvl, since that the last arcana the Magi get. So, Magi could potentially get 3 hexes (levels 3, 6 and 9), 2 major (levels 12 and 15) and 1 grand (level 18).

That's my houserule until errata comes.

Where it says "20th level," it should say "18th level."

[Caedwyr]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Caedwyr wrote:

The greater mutagen alchemist discovery does not have mutagen as a prerequisite.

Maybe I'm not understanding you correctly, but I don't see a "greater mutagen" discovery in Ultimate Magic at all, so I'm not sure what you're referring to.

Yeah I took a look at this again, and it seems this should be in the APG errata thread instead (Ultimate Magic added the Mutagen discovery and several archetypes which remove the Mutagen class ability. This means that as written currently the alchemist does not need the Mutagen ability/discovery to choose the greater mutagen discovery.

[leo1925]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

the xiao wrote:

On page 49, under the continuation of HEX ARCANA, it mentions that, at 20th level, Magi can get a Grand Hex in place of a Magus Arcana, but magi don't get a new arcana at 20th lvl. I suppose it would be at 18th lvl, since that the last arcana the Magi get. So, Magi could potentially get 3 hexes (levels 3, 6 and 9), 2 major (levels 12 and 15) and 1 grand (level 18).

That's my houserule until errata comes.

Where it says "20th level," it should say "18th level."

Upper left of the page.

Coy pasting from the ultimate magic.pdf

UM p.49:

At 20th
level, a hexcrafter can select a hex, major hex, or grand
hex in place of a magus arcana. He cannot select any hex
or arcana more than once.

[Sean K Reynolds]

Caedwyr wrote:

This means that as written currently the alchemist does not need the Mutagen ability/discovery to choose the greater mutagen discovery.

That's because when the APG was written, there were no archetypes for the alchemist, thus *all* alchemists had the mutagen ability, thus it wasn't necessary to say "you have to have mutagen to take greater mutagen."

In other words, it's not errata.

[Sean K Reynolds]

leo1925 wrote:

Where it says "20th level," it should say "18th level."

Upper left of the page.
Coy pasting from the ultimate magic.pdf

At 20th
level, a hexcrafter can select a hex, major hex, or grand
hex in place of a magus arcana. He cannot select any hex
or arcana more than once.

Right, and I'm saying it is SUPPOSED to say "18th" instead of "20th."

[leo1925]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

leo1925 wrote:

Where it says "20th level," it should say "18th level."

Upper left of the page.
Coy pasting from the ultimate magic.pdf

At 20th
level, a hexcrafter can select a hex, major hex, or grand
hex in place of a magus arcana. He cannot select any hex
or arcana more than once.

Right, and I'm saying it is SUPPOSED to say "18th" instead of "20th."

I am sorry, i thought that you actually asked where did it say that, i thought that you couldn't find it.

[Caedwyr]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Caedwyr wrote:

This means that as written currently the alchemist does not need the Mutagen ability/discovery to choose the greater mutagen discovery.

That's because when the APG was written, there were no archetypes for the alchemist, thus *all* alchemists had the mutagen ability, thus it wasn't necessary to say "you have to have mutagen to take greater mutagen."

In other words, it's not errata.

So this is a confirmation that the intention is that Greater Mutagen not require the character have the Mutagen feature/discovery? If so, cool!

[Sean K Reynolds]

leo1925 wrote:

I am sorry, i thought that you actually asked where did it say that, i thought that you couldn't find it.

Ah, I see. :)

Caedwyr wrote:

So this is a confirmation that the intention is that Greater Mutagen not require the character have the Mutagen feature/discovery?

No, any more than the greater rage ability of a barbarian in the Core Rulebook does not require the barbarian to have the standard 1st-level rage ability. :p Or that the Core Rulebook needs errata to update all the spells with the level listings for the APG classes.

[Bellona]

The UM p. 70 says: "When creating a wildblooded sorcerer, select an existing bloodline (such as one from the Core Rulebook, the Advanced Player's Guide, or this book), then select one of the following mutated bloodlines associated with that bloodline." (Bolded emphasis mine.)

Unless I've seriously failed my Perception skill check, there are no associated wildblooded versions of the Accursed, Djinni, Efreeti, Maestro, Marid, Rakshasa, and Shaitan bloodlines (all of which were introduced in UM).

When/where will we see wildblooded versions of these new Sorcerer bloodlines?

[Bellona]

I'm not sure if this question belongs in this particular thread, but here goes anyway ...

The bloodline arcana for the Accursed sorcerer bloodline (UM p. 66) allows the sorcerer to "count as a hag for the purpose of joining a hag's coven". What is not clear is if this also applies to male sorcerers with that bloodline.

[JoelF847]

Bellona wrote:

I'm not sure if this question belongs in this particular thread, but here goes anyway ...

The bloodline arcana for the Accursed sorcerer bloodline (UM p. 66) allows the sorcerer to "count as a hag for the purpose of joining a hag's coven". What is not clear is if this also applies to male sorcerers with that bloodline.

Why wouldn't it? It would be the same as a male witch taking the coven hex joining a coven.

[Bellona]

Bellona wrote:

I'm not sure if this question belongs in this particular thread, but here goes anyway ...

The bloodline arcana for the Accursed sorcerer bloodline (UM p. 66) allows the sorcerer to "count as a hag for the purpose of joining a hag's coven". What is not clear is if this also applies to male sorcerers with that bloodline.

JoelF847 wrote:

Why wouldn't it? It would be the same as a male witch taking the coven hex joining a coven.

Well, I'm curious as to that point too. Hags are all female and tend to eat any male offspring. Therefore I'm wondering if hags would accept into their covens a male witch with the coven hex or a male sorcerer with the Accursed bloodline.

Maybe it will end up a DM-adjudicated question of flavour vs. RAW?

[Sean K Reynolds]

Bellona wrote:

The bloodline arcana for the Accursed sorcerer bloodline (UM p. 66) allows the sorcerer to "count as a hag for the purpose of joining a hag's coven". What is not clear is if this also applies to male sorcerers with that bloodline.

Nothing in the rules text you cite limits it to females.

[Bellona]

Bellona wrote:

The bloodline arcana for the Accursed sorcerer bloodline (UM p. 66) allows the sorcerer to "count as a hag for the purpose of joining a hag's coven". What is not clear is if this also applies to male sorcerers with that bloodline.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Nothing in the rules text you cite limits it to females.

Thank you for supplying an answer! :)

[chopswil]

Missing Spells: No description in book
Lend Greater Judgment from 5th-Level Inquisitor Spells list p. 200
Lightning Rod 7th-Level Sorcerer/Wizard Spells list p. 202

[Gorum]

Witch Ancestor Patron Theme PG. 83
Should the 12th level bonus spell be Greater Heroism?

[Sean K Reynolds]

chopswil wrote:

Missing Spells: No description in book

Lend Greater Judgment from 5th-Level Inquisitor Spells list p. 200

Lend Judgment, Greater, is on page 227, as "greater" spells are listed under their root name (in this case, lend judgment).

Gorum wrote:

Witch Ancestor Patron Theme PG. 83

Should the 12th level bonus spell be Greater Heroism?

Yes.

[chopswil]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

chopswil wrote:

Missing Spells: No description in book

Lend Greater Judgment from 5th-Level Inquisitor Spells list p. 200

Lend Judgment, Greater, is on page 227, as "greater" spells are listed under their root name (in this case, lend judgment).

ahh, typo

[Sean K Reynolds]

chopswil wrote:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

chopswil wrote:

Missing Spells: No description in book

Lend Greater Judgment from 5th-Level Inquisitor Spells list p. 200

Lend Judgment, Greater, is on page 227, as "greater" spells are listed under their root name (in this case, lend judgment).

ahh, typo

There is no typo. The spell's name is lend greater judgment, not greater lend judgment, because the former sounds better and is better English.

[Epic Meepo]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Lend Judgment, Greater, is on page 227, as "greater" spells are listed under their root name (in this case, lend judgment)...

The spell's name is lend greater judgment, not greater lend judgment, because the former sounds better and is better English.

Interesting. Listing lend greater judgment as lend judgment, greater is a break from the style convention used the Core Rules; the Core Rules don't list create greater undead as create undead, greater.

[Sean K Reynolds]

Epic Meepo wrote:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Lend Judgment, Greater, is on page 227, as "greater" spells are listed under their root name (in this case, lend judgment)...

The spell's name is lend greater judgment, not greater lend judgment, because the former sounds better and is better English.

Interesting. Listing lend greater judgment as lend judgment, greater is a break from the style convention used the Core Rules; the Core Rules don't list create greater undead as create undead, greater.

Yeah, well we also list monk's robe as robe, monk's, the elven curve blade as "curve blade, elven" (as if there were other kinds of curve blades in the game), and spell three different common swords as "longsword," "greatsword," and "short sword," so it's all crazy.

[Abraham spalding]

Bellona wrote:

Hags are all female and tend to eat any male offspring.

Actually Hags love when men join their covens -- after all it's hard to find men in swamps and what not and sometimes a lady just needs that male touch.

Of course such covens tend to end in tragedy when the other hag gets jealous of the man and there's a three way murder fest -- but them's the breaks as they say.

[Warforged Gardener]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

They = "bioconstruct upgrades," not they = "constructs."

Constructs are crittable in the PFRPG, and the bioconstruct upgrade does not change that--having the upgrade means a critical hit has an additional effect (one upgrade destroyed) in addition to the standard effect of a crit (extra damage).

Thank you. I appreciate the clarification.

[ProfPotts]

Bellona wrote:

The bloodline arcana for the Accursed sorcerer bloodline (UM p. 66) allows the sorcerer to "count as a hag for the purpose of joining a hag's coven". What is not clear is if this also applies to male sorcerers with that bloodline.

Still no 'Will and Grace' jokes to go with this comment? For shame... ;)

[Bellona]

Bellona wrote:

The bloodline arcana for the Accursed sorcerer bloodline (UM p. 66) allows the sorcerer to "count as a hag for the purpose of joining a hag's coven". What is not clear is if this also applies to male sorcerers with that bloodline.

ProfPotts wrote:

Still no 'Will and Grace' jokes to go with this comment? For shame... ;)

:D

[Razz]

chopswil wrote:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

I've added a bunch of FAQ items about many of the significant issues from this thread. I've noted this sort of issues in my master copy of UM for the eventual reprint.

These new FAQS don't address things that don't affect rules, such as transposed Components/Casting Time lines, missing punctuation after the Saving Throw line, a word not being bolded, and so on. It also doesn't address things that are obvious and don't affect gameplay (like how the <i>overwhelming grief</i> spell's Duration line should say "(see text)" because the description says you can try to save again to break the spell). I've noted this sort of issues in my master copy of UM as well, I'm just not going to make separate FAQ entries for little issues like this. I'll probably also do a compiled "these are the 'lost' spell references in the book, here are their replacements" post.

Significant issues remaining include:
* What to do with the witch's scar hex
* Animal speaker bard loses fascinate but keeps other performances that require fascinate
* Oath against the wyrm weaknesses
* Bioconstruct modification: heart and magical healing
* Synthesist healing and eidolon evolutions
* sample spellbooks not including cost of blank spellbook

If you're doing spells with missing Components sections then don't forget Fickle Winds,Battlemind, Blood Crow Strike, Share Memory, and Spit Venom.

Can we get a FAQ on the bolded spells ASAP? Kind of hard to cast these spells without knowing the components to the spell >.>

[Sean K Reynolds]

Razz wrote:

If you're doing spells with missing Components sections then don't forget Fickle Winds,Battlemind, Blood Crow Strike, Share Memory, and Spit Venom.

Can we get a FAQ on the bolded spells ASAP? Kind of hard to cast these spells without knowing the components to the spell >.>

Battlemind Link: V, S

Blood Crow Strike: V, S
Fickle Winds: V, S
Share Memory: V, S
Spit Venom: V

[leo1925]

Thank you SKR.

[VedounMar]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Significant issues remaining include:
. . .
* Animal speaker bard loses fascinate but keeps other performances that require fascinate
. . .

While you guys are pondering that one. . . Some clarification on the Animal Friend ability would be appreciated. The word that throws me off a bit is "kind." Tiger and cat are a similar "kind" in that they are both felines. . . they are not of a kind in that one is a few pounds of purring cuddly and the other is a 400 pound predator. . .so is "kind" equal to feline, canine, primate, snake, rodent, small furry woodland creature? or more specific: house cat, wolf, sparrow (African or European) etc. . .

The former is more potent, and its impact would be felt throughout the levels. The latter is less so, but only having an occasional affect on the game may be the intention.

I do like the idea of the bard with a touch of druid. . . but, no Handle Animal? Soothing Performance(Animal Speaker), and the Summon Nature's Ally thing are both something I'd be using throughout the levels. . . Animal Friend depends on the answer to the previous question. . . Attract Rats? Hopefully there is an extra sentence or two that didn't get to print which makes those Distraction DCs scale more for the level you are using them. As The decision to give +4 attack and damage to the party versus summoning up to 9 rat swarms isn't much of a decision. The rat swarms won't do enough damage to bypass DR, and those rare times when there is no DR the DC won't be high enough to matter. . .

Perhaps suggestion and mass suggestion are replaced by an animal companion at Druid -4?. . . and Attract Rats could be quietly forgotten. . . please? Of course. . . just removing Attract Rats would be an improvement. I'd rather have Lore Master anyway. ;)

[Kharaz Ironhammer]

Eleric wrote:

I was going through the spell books (pg 123) and a number of spells weren't in the spells at the back.

Jolt (0th)-pg 121 Unnamed Journal
Breeze (0th)-pg 124 arctic call
Scoop (0th) pg 124 Quest eternal
Comet (5th)- pg 124 Insights of Farseeing
Pierce reality (5th)" "
Lightning field (6th) pg 125 Grand Fathers legacy
Transfer Intelligence (5th) " "
Hungry are the dead (0th) " "
Reinforcing Bands (2nd) pg-125 Guardian Grimiore
Root (0th)- pg 126 Manual of Binding
Choose Fate (9th)- pg 126 Library of the dancer of skins
Rainbow helix (4th)-pg 127 Library of the dancer of skins
Fantastic reach (2nd)- " "
Metabolize (2nd)- " "
Thunderclap (6th)- pg 127 Mastery of word and thought
hush (1st)- " "

These spells sound like they can be really cool so what happened to them?

Also Missing:

Penumbra (0th)
Vitriol (3rd)

from Book of the Grave, pg 122

[Elfteiroh]

Kharaz Ironhammer wrote:

Also Missing:
Penumbra (0th)
Vitriol (3rd)

from Book of the Grave, pg 122

Penumbra have been cut and made into another spell (Protective Penumbra)

It's not in the spellbook.
In fact, all level 0 spells are cut and will never be made official. All these spells should also be removed from the spellbooks they are in.

source: this thread