Ultimate Magic Errata


Product Discussion

301 to 350 of 509 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

The spell Share Memory doesn't say how the caster chooses the memory in the target's remembrance.


In the Heresy Inquisition, there is no mention of " and one additional time per day for every four levels beyond 8th. ". Typo or not typo ?
Thanks !

Sovereign Court

Hi

Any idea when an official errata is coming out?

Thinking of the 400+ threads about the Synthesist

Thanks
Paul H

The Exchange

There's a lot of errata for the Syhthesist already if you check the 'help/faq' button on the top right-hand side of this site, and look for Ultimate Magic.

Owner - House of Books and Games LLC

PaulH wrote:

Hi

Any idea when an official errata is coming out?

Thinking of the 400+ threads about the Synthesist

Thanks
Paul H

Official errata doesn't come out until a reprint. Until then, all you'll find is unofficial errata (typically on the boards here) and whatever makes it into the FAQ.


The selected target for word spells says that if you selected a spell that does energy damage it become a ray. It doesn't say whether or not the ray loses any saving throws previously attached to the energy damage, even though rays that deal damage generally don't have such.

The burning flash word specifically states that it loses it saving throw, but the other energy spells don't. Is it meant for just fire to be this way, or was not listing the removal of saving throws an oversight?


Inquisitor Preacher Archetype
Determination says each of it´s options ¨is a free action to use.¨

That means Aggression can never be used for AoOs (unless they occur on the Inquisitor´s turn) - OK, fair enough.

Defense says ¨when the inquisitor would be hit by a melee or ranged attack, as an immediate action...¨
That pretty much conflicts with / makes redundant the ´general´ admonition that these use Free Actions,
which doesn´t have the wording that ´they are X Actions unless otherwise stated´ (that other Classes use)

Warning forces a re-roll when the Inquisitor´s ally´s are attacked, which almost never happens on the Inquisitor´s turn, and doesn´t state any action... Meaning the general admonition that ´Each is a free action to use.´ DEFINITELY should apply... Since you can´t take Free Actions off-your-turn unless otherwise stated (e.g. Speaking), this usage seems like it could almost never be used per RAW.

IMHO, the general action requirement should be removed, and all usages become ´non actions´.
I don´t know if the Defense action should remain an Immediate action or not.


Witch Hex: Unnerve Beasts (Su):
The target becomes offensive to animals (Will negates). Animals become distraught and aggressive in the victim's presence—horses buck, dogs snap and bark, bulls charge, and so on. The hex lasts a number of hours equal to the witch's Intelligence modifier. A creature that saves against the hex cannot be affected by the hex for 1 day. The reaction of the animals is a mind-affecting charm effect, but the hex on the target is not.

Does this force the affected animals to attack the WITCH? Or anybody BUT the witch? Could use clarification.


To be clear re: above, I´m not sure if the animals become agressive ONLY versus the target of the effect, or to EVERYBODY in general (i.e. including their allies, masters, etc) which would kind of be a partial Confusion effect without exactly being one. It doesn´t specify aggression vs. the target, only in their presence.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber
Quandary wrote:
To be clear re: above, I´m not sure if the animals become agressive ONLY versus the target of the effect, or to EVERYBODY in general (i.e. including their allies, masters, etc) which would kind of be a partial Confusion effect without exactly being one. It doesn´t specify aggression vs. the target, only in their presence.

Usually speaking, when you look at witches legends, it's just that the presence of the target is offensive to animals. Usually they'll attack the target, but if someone is riding them, or is close enough, they could be victims of the animals too. But it's often clear that the attack was caused by the presence of the target. So everyone start to distrust the target. It's an awesome covert power, specially in a small village full of superstitious people.

What I don't like is the absence of "range"... I suppose it's line of sight...


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

ICY PRISON:

Some of this was pointed out earlier, but I cannot find any answer to it. I posted a questioin in the rules board, but maybe this is the right place...

Icy Prison Spell.

Could you explain these points a bit, please? It looks like a very useful spell, but the wording is a bit confusing.

1.- In the text there's a "Fortitude negates (see text)" saving throw. However, I cannot find the text referring to the save. What is it?

2.- If a creature is trapped and helpless, can it try to free itself with a Strength check?

3.- How long does this check take? A standard, a full round?

4.- If the creature is entangled, what must it do to rid itself of the ice and the condition? The same as if it was helpless? If it does not rid itself of the ice, does it really keep receiving damage each round for the duration of the spell?

5.- Does the spell resistance apply to the trapping effect, or only to the damage?

Shadow Lodge

Fox1212 wrote:


1.- In the text there's a "Fortitude negates (see text)" saving throw. However, I cannot find the text referring to the save. What is it?

MY guess, (and this is all just my guess), is that you get bth saves. A Fort Save first, which may completely negate the spell, then, if you fail, a Reflex Save to see if you are Held or Entangled.

Fox1212 wrote:
2.- If a creature is trapped and helpless, can it try to free itself with a Strength check?

Yes. Thats about all they can do, actually.

Fox1212 wrote:
3.- How long does this check take? A standard, a full round?

I would guess a Standard action. I believe the other spells that do similar things allow a Standard Action to try to break free (Entangle). Possibly a Full Round action, though.

Fox1212 wrote:
4.- If the creature is entangled, what must it do to rid itself of the ice and the condition? The same as if it was helpless? If it does not rid itself of the ice, does it really keep receiving damage each round for the duration of the spell?

Try to move past the spells range (unlikely), try to move to fire/friends, attempt to break out of the ice, try to get away from another threat. . .

It does say you tae the damage each round you are held or entangled, so if you break free, or are broken free, no you don't take any more damage.

Fox1212 wrote:
5.- Does the spell resistance apply to the trapping effect, or only to the damage?

To the entire spell. Essentually the magic of the spells doesn't affect you at all. No damage, no chane of being Held/Entangled. It doesnt create difficult terrain, but if it did, it wouldn't hinder you (unless it where a Conjuration [Creation] spell). It does block line of effect which could debatably still work or not (if you do not move thereafter). RAW = probably, RAI = no.


Thank you Beckett. However, this is just your best guess. The wording of the spell is confusing enough that it needs a clarification from the developers. The only answer that could be taken as sure is the one to 5.

In any case, at least I have more opinions to help me decide.

By the way, a 6th point. Being a cold spell, does the ice take double damage from a fire effect?


Fox1212 wrote:

Thank you Beckett. However, this is just your best guess. The wording of the spell is confusing enough that it needs a clarification from the developers. The only answer that could be taken as sure is the one to 5.

In any case, at least I have more opinions to help me decide.

By the way, a 6th point. Being a cold spell, does the ice take double damage from a fire effect?

I think of this spell like Web, the effects are similar. first is the reflex save to see in totally helpless or just entangled. the fortitude save would be next to negate the ice damage. In my opionion thou, i think that option is a mistake (ie, errata) since the spell says it does damage whether or not the target save (reflex check).

fire effects applied to the ice would damage it normally, often doing double damage as those spells/objects often state.


So, no answer from a designer who can tell us what were their intentions with ICY PRISON?

Contributor

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Fox1212 wrote:
1.- In the text there's a "Fortitude negates (see text)" saving throw. However, I cannot find the text referring to the save. What is it?

Remove that from the spell; it should just say Reflex partial.

Fox1212 wrote:
2.- If a creature is trapped and helpless, can it try to free itself with a Strength check?

If it fails its save, it is trapped and helpless. It can't take any actions if it is helpless.

If it makes its save, it is entangled but can otherwise act normally for the duration. The Strength check is for an entangled (not helpless) creature; I've noted that sentence for clarification.

Fox1212 wrote:
3.- How long does this check take? A standard, a full round?

Standard action.

Fox1212 wrote:
4.- If the creature is entangled, what must it do to rid itself of the ice and the condition?

It can make a Strength check to break it, break the ice by dealing damage, or use something to counteract the magic of it (such as dispel magic).

Quote:
If it does not rid itself of the ice, does it really keep receiving damage each round for the duration of the spell?

Yes, as long as you're still helpless or entangled by the ice.

Fox1212 wrote:
5.- Does the spell resistance apply to the trapping effect, or only to the damage?

You generally only get one spell resistance check against a particular effect.


Thank you, Sean!!!

One last question I posted above. Does the ice take double damage from fire effects?

EDIT:

See the text in Wall of Ice

Quote:


Fire can melt a wall of ice, and it deals full damage to the wall (instead of the normal half damage taken by objects)

So probably that same wording should go into the spell?

Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think the spell needs that, that sounds like a no-brainer property of ice, falling under the category of "some energy types might be particularly effective against certain objects" rule (Core Rulebook page 173). The wall of ice spell mentioning that is just the rulebook being redundant (which is fine for a core rulebook where you want to reiterate rules, but shouldn't be held as a precedent that every later rule supplement spells out obvious and redundant things).

Shadow Lodge

Is that right, Reflex save only, vs either entangled or held (with no chance of breaking yourself free)?

Looks like an easy and cheap way to destroy a dragon, or anything with a low Refl. . .

Even if it where rounds per level, that's probably better than Time Stop against small groups, at much lower level.

Contributor

Hmm, and hold monster is at the same level, and that allows a break-out roll, you have a point.

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6

In the original draft, the action to break the ice was explicitly a full-round action. My intent - which can certainly be overridden by the actual rules guys at Paizo - was that a person who failed their save could still break the ice with a successful Strength check. That's about the only thing they can do other than purely mental actions.

Note that to kill the victim, you'd generally need to break the ice, and then you no longer have a helpless target. There's ways around it, coup de grace with a brilliant energy weapon comes to mind.


Russ Taylor wrote:
Note that to kill the victim, you'd generally need to break the ice, and then you no longer have a helpless target.

Of course, many creatures would be killed by the minimum 9 points of cold damage per round for minimum 9 minutes (which would be 90 rounds, for 810 points of cold damage) :)

But, I think this spell is fairly well balanced by the fact that if the trapped creature has a friend that can deal 27+ damage to the ice, you're free from its effects.

Shadow Lodge

Honestly, the way I guessed above (Fort Negates, then Refl to avoid Held, able to attempt to break free each round as Full Round Action or Standard) seemed pretty balanced to me. Kind of wish a Winter Preist could take it, but I guess only Winter Witches get cool Winter stuff. :)


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Hmm, and hold monster is at the same level, and that allows a break-out roll, you have a point.
Russ Taylor wrote:

In the original draft, the action to break the ice was explicitly a full-round action. My intent - which can certainly be overridden by the actual rules guys at Paizo - was that a person who failed their save could still break the ice with a successful Strength check. That's about the only thing they can do other than purely mental actions.

Note that to kill the victim, you'd generally need to break the ice, and then you no longer have a helpless target. There's ways around it, coup de grace with a brilliant energy weapon comes to mind.

As Russ points out, the difference with hold monster is that the held monster can be delivered a coup de grace immediatly, while a monster trapped by Icy Prison is "protected" by the ice.

However, given the difficulty of the strength check (24 at level nine and increasing), I would have guessed the original idea was Russ's, full-round action to get free of the ice. It's also obviously a classic move from comics and animated series (Dragon Ball comes to mind instantly). The character is trapped in ice - or rock, or chained, ...- his opponent relaxes and even turs his back to him, and then suddenly he flexes his muscles and the ice explodes to bits around him. Very cinematic, isn't it?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Extra Evolution Feat

Ultimate Magic wrote:
You can gain Extra Evolution multiple times, but only once for every five summoner levels you possess.

The wording is a bit ambiguous, at what levels can it be taken?

Given it has the same text as the Improved Natural Armour evolution in the APG, should this FAQ entry also cover this feat?

Grand Lodge

I couldn't find this anywhere in the thread, yet it's mentioned with a change in the Product Discussion tab for UM, so I'll drop this here.

Page 33 & 34 There was some confusion about the 4th-level Cave Domain spell, blackwing host, namely what and where on earth it was.

Fortunately SKR posted a response on those boards and I'm mentioning it here for whomever missed it.

SKR:
"Replace that spell with insect swarm (bats instead of wasps)."


The Synthesist evolutions are very unclear. As a biped eidolon when taking Extra Limbs and then adding claws for extra attacks. Would the improved damage evolution apply to the new claws as well as the original claws?

If so, why would anyone ever bother taking anything other than more claws for more attacks? All the secondary attacks seem useless, and a 9 armed eidolon-fused self-healing synthesist seems crazy overpowered next to the party fighter...

Grand Lodge

Seeker of skybreak wrote:


Page 164 - Under Table 4-1. For 9th level spells with 2 effect words it reads 7/7 or 8/5.
It should read 7/7 or 8/6 (Unless this was intentional)

This was from the very first post in this thread, to which it says the issues within were "answered in the FAQ." The two preceding questions were, but this one wasn't, so in case it was missed I'll ask: was this supposed to be changed for the FAQ as well?

Grand Lodge

chopswil wrote:

Protective Penumbra, p. 233

missing Component??
Spell says "Components V, S,"
so is there a missing component or just an extra comma?

Good question. If you look at the paizo blog detailing all those dropped 0-level spells, they mention the dropped penumbra spell later became the protective penumbra spell. You'll notice penumbra has that extra material component of "M (a bit of soot)"

Silver Crusade

Emrys Canicusu wrote:

The Mad Monkeys spell has the monkeys using Wisdom modifier + caster level for the monkey's CMB if the spell is cast by an Oracle.

The two problems with that: Oracles use Charisma and Mad Monkeys is not a cleric spell.

It looks like they've fixed that problem, but I have another issue with this spell (or maybe it's just me not understanding):

In the spell description

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateMagic/spells/madMonkeys.html

"The monkeys attempt one disarm or steal combat maneuver each turn as a free action against any creature that begins its turn in the swarm, using your caster level plus your casting ability score bonus (Intelligence for wizards; Wisdom for druids and oracles; Charisma for bards, sorcerers, and summoners) for its CMB. Recovering an item from the monkeys requires a successful disarm or steal attempt against that CMD. An object stolen by the monkeys takes swarm damage each round the swarm is in possession of the object."

What CMD? Is it the same as for its CMB (which would be strange, because one is a bonus and one is a defensive score).

Grand Lodge

Oni_NZ wrote:

Extra Evolution Feat

Ultimate Magic wrote:
You can gain Extra Evolution multiple times, but only once for every five summoner levels you possess.

The wording is a bit ambiguous, at what levels can it be taken?

Given it has the same text as the Improved Natural Armour evolution in the APG, should this FAQ entry also cover this feat?

Probably not, considering we run into another issue. You can't gain a feat at 10th or 20th level.

Grand Lodge

Michael New wrote:
Emrys Canicusu wrote:

The Mad Monkeys spell has the monkeys using Wisdom modifier + caster level for the monkey's CMB if the spell is cast by an Oracle.

The two problems with that: Oracles use Charisma and Mad Monkeys is not a cleric spell.

It looks like they've fixed that problem, but I have another issue with this spell (or maybe it's just me not understanding):

In the spell description

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateMagic/spells/madMonkeys.html

"The monkeys attempt one disarm or steal combat maneuver each turn as a free action against any creature that begins its turn in the swarm, using your caster level plus your casting ability score bonus (Intelligence for wizards; Wisdom for druids and oracles; Charisma for bards, sorcerers, and summoners) for its CMB. Recovering an item from the monkeys requires a successful disarm or steal attempt against that CMD. An object stolen by the monkeys takes swarm damage each round the swarm is in possession of the object."

What CMD? Is it the same as for its CMB (which would be strange, because one is a bonus and one is a defensive score).

Maybe they meant the monkey swarm's CMD?

Also, what do you mean when you say "it looks like they've fixed that problem?" Can you direct me to where that was addressed?

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

Strife2002 wrote:
Oni_NZ wrote:

Extra Evolution Feat

Ultimate Magic wrote:
You can gain Extra Evolution multiple times, but only once for every five summoner levels you possess.

The wording is a bit ambiguous, at what levels can it be taken?

Given it has the same text as the Improved Natural Armour evolution in the APG, should this FAQ entry also cover this feat?

Probably not, considering we run into another issue. You can't gain a feat at 10th or 20th level.

Not with single class summoners, but multi-class summoners could, as bonus feats from other classes (or prestige classes.

Contributor

Oni_NZ wrote:

Extra Evolution Feat

Ultimate Magic wrote:
You can gain Extra Evolution multiple times, but only once for every five summoner levels you possess.
The wording is a bit ambiguous, at what levels can it be taken?

It should be like the correction to the Improved Natural Armor feat: once at 1st, then again at 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th.

Michael New wrote:

The Mad Monkeys spell...

What CMD? Is it the same as for its CMB (which would be strange, because one is a bonus and one is a defensive score).

That should be "against that CMB + 10."


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Hello Sean K Reynolds

About the Extra Evolution Feat.

Is it intended that a synthesist NOT get access to this feat, and others like it, as they don't actually have the Summon Eidolon class ability?

Thank you.


malkonnen wrote:

The Synthesist evolutions are very unclear. As a biped eidolon when taking Extra Limbs and then adding claws for extra attacks. Would the improved damage evolution apply to the new claws as well as the original claws?

If so, why would anyone ever bother taking anything other than more claws for more attacks? All the secondary attacks seem useless, and a 9 armed eidolon-fused self-healing synthesist seems crazy overpowered next to the party fighter...

I have done the math on this very subject. A biped sythesist could go to par or just over the damage capability of a fighter, however the systhesist has a few weaknesses that a fighter does not, such as sleeping and a number of spells able to banish their class features, and anti-magic fields. So it does balance out, I would be more worried about the quadrupedal body with pounce.

Contributor

6 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:

Hello Sean K Reynolds

About the Extra Evolution Feat.

Is it intended that a synthesist NOT get access to this feat, and others like it, as they don't actually have the Summon Eidolon class ability?

From the archetype:

"In all other cases, this ability functions as the summoner's normal eidolon ability..."


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:

Hello Sean K Reynolds

About the Extra Evolution Feat.

Is it intended that a synthesist NOT get access to this feat, and others like it, as they don't actually have the Summon Eidolon class ability?

From the archetype:

"In all other cases, this ability functions as the summoner's normal eidolon ability..."

Thank you VERY MUCH!

Grand Lodge

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Oni_NZ wrote:

Extra Evolution Feat

Ultimate Magic wrote:
You can gain Extra Evolution multiple times, but only once for every five summoner levels you possess.
The wording is a bit ambiguous, at what levels can it be taken?

It should be like the correction to the Improved Natural Armor feat: once at 1st, then again at 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th.

Don't you mean the Improved Natural Armor evolution? Or was there also a correction to the feat. (Honest to god I'm not trying to be a smart-ass, I just want to be sure)

Contributor

Uh, feat, evolution, whatever it's called. :)


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Uh, feat, evolution, whatever it's called. :)

In that case it is important distinction as there is Improved Natural Armor feat and Improved Natural Armor evolution, that despite having the same name work a bit differently (feat grants +1 to natural armor and evolution grants +2). However, the feat can be taken multiple times without limit so you are probably refering to evolution. Unless the feat is intended to have similar limit as well?

Grand Lodge

Sean K Reynolds wrote:


It should be like the correction to the Improved Natural Armor feat: once at 1st, then again at 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th.

Also, I mentioned this earlier and it was said that its more for multiclass characters with bonus feats or something, but is it correct to fix this feat in a way that makes it available at 10th and 20th level, since you normally can't gain feats at those levels?

Contributor

Drejk wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Uh, feat, evolution, whatever it's called. :)
In that case it is important distinction as there is Improved Natural Armor feat and Improved Natural Armor evolution, that despite having the same name work a bit differently (feat grants +1 to natural armor and evolution grants +2). However, the feat can be taken multiple times without limit so you are probably refering to evolution. Unless the feat is intended to have similar limit as well?

I think it's clear that I misspoke when I said "feat," and that I'm not suggesting we go back and change the Bestiary's entry for the Improved Natural Armor feat (which is a monster feat and thus shouldn't have a level-based limit because most monsters don't have levels).

Strife2002 wrote:
Also, I mentioned this earlier and it was said that its more for multiclass characters with bonus feats or something, but is it correct to fix this feat in a way that makes it available at 10th and 20th level, since you normally can't gain feats at those levels?

Nope, just because a single-classed summoner can't take it at 10th doesn't mean we need to revise the level limitations on it.

Grand Lodge

Ok I've been doing a lot of reading of Words of Power lately, so a few things found.

The target word "Selected" has this in the "Boost" statement:

Selected wrote:
This boosted target word increases the level of all the effect words in the spell by 3 levels.

All the other target words with boost say something to the effect of

Other Target Words wrote:
Boosting this effect word increases its level by X.

Should this actually be done the same as "Selected" where the level of all the effect words increase, or was "Selected" meant to be different? I'm inclined to think that "Selected" is correct.

Also the "Undeath" effect word currently states:

Undeath wrote:
The caster can control more than 4 HD per caster level of undead creatures. If additional undead are created, the caster chooses which undead to lose control of to get back under the limit.

I'm pretty sure its suppose to say "can control no more than 4 HD per caster level ..."

Grand Lodge

Minor error, typo, page 243

Last paragraph of symbol of vulnerability:

"Symbol of vulnerability can be made permanent with a permanency spell by a caster of 18h level or higher for the cost of 25,000 gp."

Should be 18th.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Create demiplane, create demiplane, greater, and create demiplane, lesser, pages 213 and 214

All three of these spells mention being able to make them permanent via a permanency spell. They mentions the GP value needed, but fail to mention the minimum caster level required to make them permanent.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Strife2002 wrote:

Create demiplane, create demiplane, greater, and create demiplane, lesser, pages 213 and 214

All three of these spells mention being able to make them permanent via a permanency spell. They mentions the GP value needed, but fail to mention the minimum caster level required to make them permanent.

They are such powerful effects already requiring such high caster levels that I imagine once you can cast them, you already meet the permanency caster level requirement.

Grand Lodge

Ravingdork wrote:
Strife2002 wrote:

Create demiplane, create demiplane, greater, and create demiplane, lesser, pages 213 and 214

All three of these spells mention being able to make them permanent via a permanency spell. They mentions the GP value needed, but fail to mention the minimum caster level required to make them permanent.

They are such powerful effects already requiring such high caster levels that I imagine once you can cast them, you already meet the permanency caster level requirement.

Perhaps. If it WASN'T intentional, however, by going with the values most other spells can be made permanent at their spell levels, a reasonable house rule would be to make it CL 16th, 17th, and 18th for the lesser, normal, and greater varieties of this spell, respectively.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Page 242 - Symbol of sealing

This is the only symbol spell in this book, and actually in the game if you include the core rulebook, that doesn't mention being able to make this spell permanent with a permanency spell. I'm fairly confident in saying I think this was an oversight.

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6

Strife2002 wrote:

Page 242 - Symbol of sealing

This is the only symbol spell in this book, and actually in the game if you include the core rulebook, that doesn't mention being able to make this spell permanent with a permanency spell. I'm fairly confident in saying I think this was an oversight.

I don't think so, the original did have rules for making it permanent, the post-development version did not. Possibly because you can do a permanent wall of force other ways.

301 to 350 of 509 << 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 / Ultimate Magic Errata All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.