The Draconic Glide kobold feat (pg.136) under special states
Special: If you have the gliding wings
racial trait, instead of the above abilities,
your base speed increases to 30 feet.but Kobold base speed is already 30 so what is this feat intended to do do?
That clause is probably intended to increase the kobold's glide speed to 30 feet laterally for every 20 feet it falls.
By itself, the "gliding wings" alternate racial trait gives a glide speed of 5 feet laterally for every 20 feet you fall. Draconic Glide also does the same by itself. So, if a kobold already has sufficient wings to glide and takes the feat, then logically its wings would get better and its glide speed would get faster.
You might then wonder, why 5' to 30'? Going from nothing to something is a big deal; going from a little something to just a little bit more isn't. I approve of the choice of 30', since it would have to go from a little something to a lot something to be worthwhile.
Also, there's a difference between saying
"This helm has been enchanted to give its wearer the power to cast fireball once per day."
and
"This helm has an enchantment that allows its wearer to cast fireball once per day."
The game doesn't define what being "enchanted" means. The game does define what an "enchantment" is. So it's okay if we're lenient about using "enchanted" to mean "has been given a magical property" instead of specifically "has been altered with a spell or effect of the enchantment school."
Likewise, I wouldn't be up in arms if a book used "bewitched" to mean "given a magical property/influenced by magic/altered by magic," even if the origin is not a creature with levels in the witch character class.
I do prefer "witchcraft" to mean "an effect from a witch," just as I prefer "wizardry" to mean "an effect from a wizard" and "sorcery" to mean "an effect from a sorcerer" (as opposed to "mage," which is a generic term for any arcane spellcaster).
I'm reading Half-blood Extraction, pg 59, and I see it's got a duration of instantaneous. Should it be instantaneous? Since it's a polymorph, shouldn't it be permanent? It works either way, I think, but I'm still asking.
Normally polymorph spells are permanent at most, but similar transmutation spells (such as flesh to stone) can be instantaneous. The difference is that the instantaneous ones can't be dispelled except by an opposite spell (like stone to flesh), or maybe by a miracle or wish or something like that. I think that 3000 gp is enough to buy a non-dispellable polymorph from one race to a closely-related race that has the same RP cost.
typo - Under Rock Throwing, "range" is misspelled as "rage" on page 236.
It just means if you don't spend the point you don't get to keep it. If its spent its spent.I dunno. It does say it increases it. Even if that's how it works, I'd houserule that it can't permanently increase it, but the wording could be a bit clearer.
The magus rules do not provide different terms for the Arcane Pool Refresh Points, and the Arcane Pool Current Points. So I just did. (You're welcome.) When the rules are imprecise, you have to use your common sense.
As such, when you say that Infernal Mortification only increases the APCP, that isn't even a houserule. The rule as written doesn't specify that it increases the APRP, so all you're doing is interpreting the rule -- not changing it.
Shouldn't Claw Blades p. 93 have a weapon equipment entry instead of a standard equipment entry?
The magic item "Rending Claw Blade" p. 95 are a set of +1 keen claw blades, so it is treated as a magical weapon and since it is a weapon it should have a weapon equipment entry.
Take a look at how much space the Dwarven weapons take up on the page. Also, functionally, Catfolk claw blades are merely an enhancement. I'm cool with with just an equipment entry and a description.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
pg 226 / 231 - Swim is listed at 1 RP in Lizardfolk sample, but at 2 RP in Movement Racial Traits list.
Undines have the same issue.
I care Sean...I care...As Sean K. Reynolds pointed out, there's a difference between enhancement and enchantement.Sadly, I had to give up championing that one, it's too pervasive and most people don't care.
I actually care about this too. Drives me crazy when I hear about a sword with a +1 enchantment. Noo!
Enchantment is not an effect on weapons and armor.
I actually care about this too. Drives me crazy when I hear about a sword with a +1 enchantment. Noo!
Enchantment is not an effect on weapons and armor.
I actually don't care about that. Lots of way awesome fantasy stories describe a magical sword as being enchanted. I think that trying to enforce "enchantment" as a precise game term would be like pushing against the tide: frustrating and doomed to fail.
Pg. 158 - Wind Listener Wizard Archetype:
Wispy Form (Ex): At 10th level, the wind listener gains
the ability to become airy and translucent as a standard
action, gaining DR 10/magic and the effects of improved
invisibility for a number of rounds per day equal to his level....Since there's no spell called improved invisibility, I'm pretty sure they meant greater invisibility.
This is a flaw apparently shared with the Enumerator from Lost Cities of Golarion.
I care Sean...I care...As Sean K. Reynolds pointed out, there's a difference between enhancement and enchantement.Sadly, I had to give up championing that one, it's too pervasive and most people don't care.
Same here. Ever since I've read that article I've been correcting people, and even they don't look kindly at that, over the time some of them started saying it properly.
The game doesn't define what being "enchanted" means. The game does define what an "enchantment" is. So it's okay if we're lenient about using "enchanted" to mean "has been given a magical property" instead of specifically "has been altered with a spell or effect of the enchantment school."
That's ok if we're being lenient. But, some of us, obviously, won't let that go. :D So, if we're using the term enhancement, wouldn't it make more sense that objects would then be enhanced, rather than enchanted?
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The kobold build in the race builder section left out the perception racial bonus (so they should be 7 RP not 5 RP), but putting it there would technically make them an advanced race (4 abilities)
perhaps the racial bonus for perception can be optionally slotted under the senses section?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's ok if we're being lenient. But, some of us, obviously, won't let that go. :D So, if we're using the term enhancement, wouldn't it make more sense that objects would then be enhanced, rather than enchanted?
I don't like using "enhanced" that way because (1) it's too generic, rather than magical, and (2) runs into the problem of confusing it with enhancement bonuses, which is about as bad as getting it confused with enchantment spells.
Valeros: I'm going to get my sword enhanced!
Ezren: Really, you're adding another enhancement bonus instead of getting frost on it?
Valeros: No, I'm getting it enhanced with keen.
Ezren: ...
Imbuement... But it does not sound as great as enchantment.
The kobold build in the race builder section left out the perception racial bonus (so they should be 7 RP not 5 RP), but putting it there would technically make them an advanced race (4 abilities)
perhaps the racial bonus for perception can be optionally slotted under the senses section?
Incidentally, the Kobold Racial Traits refer to both Craft (trapmaking) and Craft (traps), while their Race Builder entry uses "Craft (trapmaking)" twice. Looking at the Craft skill in the CRB, I would change them all to Craft (traps). But that's just a fiddly little detail that even I don't really care about.
Having Adobe Reader search for "trapmaking" in the PDF... yep, those are the only three instances in the book.
ETA: "Craft (traps)" is also found twice in the description of the kobolds' trapmaker's sack. So, they're neck-and-neck with three each.
That's ok if we're being lenient. But, some of us, obviously, won't let that go. :D So, if we're using the term enhancement, wouldn't it make more sense that objects would then be enhanced, rather than enchanted?I don't like using "enhanced" that way because (1) it's too generic, rather than magical, and (2) runs into the problem of confusing it with enhancement bonuses, which is about as bad as getting it confused with enchantment spells.
Valeros: I'm going to get my sword enhanced!
Ezren: Really, you're adding another enhancement bonus instead of getting frost on it?
Valeros: No, I'm getting it enhanced with keen.
Ezren: ...
With tongue firmly in cheek:
Clearly Valeros means it he will get the enhancement bonus on his sword increased, and then add the keen property to it. XD
Really Ezren, put that INT score to use. =p
skulking slayer page 56, Bonus feats: surprise follow through and improved surprise follow through are listed as being able to be selected, but it does not list if you need to make the pre-reqs for them, as i do not believe it would be possible for a half orc to be able to select surprise follow through as a level 2 rogue normally
It goes without saying that you don't have to meet the prereqs of a bonus feat. It's just given to you for free.
It goes without saying that you don't have to meet the prereqs of a bonus feat. It's just given to you for free.
Depends. Fighters and wizards have to for their bonus feats, although they get more leeway on choices.
It goes without saying that you don't have to meet the prereqs of a bonus feat. It's just given to you for free.
No, it doesn't. This class ability just lets them take these feats in place of a talent.
I stand (or rather sit) corrected. In my defense, I mostly play rangers. :p
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Damnation stride (p. 173) functions like dimension door but has a Duration of 1 minute / level.
It should probably;
A) have a duration of Instantaneous, like dimension door,
B) allow you to invoke it's effect once during the duration, which would be cool, but should specify what sort of action is used to activate the effect, and / or,
C) have a higher level version that lasts 1 minute / level and lets you damnation stride up to once per round (or once / caster level?) throughout the duration, 'cause that would be cool...
| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Gliding Wings trait works differently for kobolds than it does for Race Builder races. Should this be standardized, or do we just assume that the kobold version is a "lesser" version (requiring Fly checks to be used, as opposed to the Race Builder glide)?
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Something else: In the Vishkanya race example (p. 247), it is allotted 2 RP each for skill bonuses to Escape Artist and Stealth. If the Vishkanya instead were to use 2 RP for Static Bonus Feat: Stealthy (+2 Escape Artist and +2 Stealth), it's total RP cost would be 11 instead of 13 (plus, Escape Artist and Stealth could potentially scale up if they put more ranks into them).
That's ok if we're being lenient. But, some of us, obviously, won't let that go. :D So, if we're using the term enhancement, wouldn't it make more sense that objects would then be enhanced, rather than enchanted?I don't like using "enhanced" that way because (1) it's too generic, rather than magical, and (2) runs into the problem of confusing it with enhancement bonuses, which is about as bad as getting it confused with enchantment spells.
Valeros: I'm going to get my sword enhanced!
Ezren: Really, you're adding another enhancement bonus instead of getting frost on it?
Valeros: No, I'm getting it enhanced with keen.
Ezren: ...
I don't like using the term "enchanted" because it adds to the confusion of enhancement and enchantment. And I've grown accustomed to saying enhancing it with keen, or I'm upgrading the enhancement bonus. Which gets odder when we speak in our language, but still using the english word for it... :D
The Gliding Wings trait works differently for kobolds than it does for Race Builder races. Should this be standardized, or do we just assume that the kobold version is a "lesser" version (requiring Fly checks to be used, as opposed to the Race Builder glide)?
Considering that it replaces Crafty, which costs 7 RP (!), you'd think that it would be *better* than standard.
Something else: In the Vishkanya race example (p. 247), it is allotted 2 RP each for skill bonuses to Escape Artist and Stealth. If the Vishkanya instead were to use 2 RP for Static Bonus Feat: Stealthy (+2 Escape Artist and +2 Stealth), it's total RP cost would be 11 instead of 13 (plus, Escape Artist and Stealth could potentially scale up if they put more ranks into them).
It would also be an untyped bonus, which is nice. But it's a pretty unique coincidence. (Samsarans could end up in a similar situation, but it depends on what skills they choose for Shards of the Past.)
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
This might be an error,
Page 92, Cat Burglar archetype.
Both Phantom Presence (4th lvl) & Trap Saboteur (8th lvl) are listed as replacing Uncanny Dodge.
I presume the latter should be Improved Uncanny Dodge given the level it comes in.
|
This is a flaw apparently shared with the Enumerator from Lost Cities of Golarion.
You can figure out how to do almost anything.
Prerequisites: Int 13, Fast Learner, human.
Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus on all skill checks for skills you have no ranks in. Furthermore, you can use all trained skills untrained.
I think that last sentence was supposed to be something more like...
Furthermore, you can use all "Trained Only" skills untrained.
|
We all discussed this back in the APG errata thread but I figured since it makes a cameo in the ARG, it wouldn't hurt to mention it here for any who missed it previously.
The elf alternate racial trait lightbringer (Page 22) says the elf gets to treat light-based spells she casts as if they were one level higher. The designer of this ability, Jason Nelson, has said this means all spells with the light descriptor, as well as spells like searing light, which are light-based in theme, but remarkably don't have the light descriptor.
Not sure if these are errors...
1. p52, Acute Darkvision for Half-Orcs doesn't have the requirement of keeping standard Darkvision. So technically, you can drop Darkvision for Skilled, and drop Orc Ferocity for Acute Darkvision. Doesn't logically make sense but the abilities aren't worded to prevent it.
2. p46, Human Spirit, the feat is strangely worded. I had started a different thread on it here to make sure that I wasn't the only one who was confused
Another one that you guys may or may not know of already:
p.111: Under the shadow caller's Summon Monster VIII, Derghodaemons are listed as being from Bestiary 3 page 66. They're actually from Bestiary 2 page 66.
Another instance of listing "Improved Invisibility" instead of "Greater Invisibility"
True Chameleon Mutagen: The saboteur’s chameleon mutagen now acts as if he was under the effects of the improved invisibility...
A potentially huge problem in the ARG: None of the spells provided are listed as Oracle spells.
Now, Clerics and Oracles share the same spell list, so it seems easy enough to assume that any spell in the ARG labelled "Cleric" should be "Cleric/Oracle".
But the fact that Sorcerer/Wizard spells are labelled as such, while Cleric/Oracle spells aren't is going to lead to a lot of nitpickers insisting on the RAW, namely that all the new Cleric spells in the ARG are Cleric-only rather than being Cleric/Oracle as most Cleric spells usually are.
|
|
Pg. 33 Gnome rogue favored class option
The gnome rogue's favored class option in the Advanced Player's Guide grants a +1 bonus on Disable Device and Use Magic Device checks related to glyphs, symbols, scrolls, and other magical writings each time they take it. Like all of the APG's favored class options, this was brought over to the ARG, but in the ARG this bonus has gone from a +1 to a +1/2. It's uncertain if this was a mistake, or an update.
What Strife2002 said. Gluttony, it's only "Sorcerer/Wizard" because they're both in the CRB. The Oracle came later and so will always be a poor cousin, mooching off of the Cleric spell lists.
A potentially huge problem in the ARG: None of the spells provided are listed as Oracle spells.
Now, Clerics and Oracles share the same spell list, so it seems easy enough to assume that any spell in the ARG labelled "Cleric" should be "Cleric/Oracle".
But the fact that Sorcerer/Wizard spells are labelled as such, while Cleric/Oracle spells aren't is going to lead to a lot of nitpickers insisting on the RAW, namely that all the new Cleric spells in the ARG are Cleric-only rather than being Cleric/Oracle as most Cleric spells usually are.
Anyone claim so will be arguing *against* RAW as the oracle description states this explicitly:
Spells: An oracle casts divine spells drawn from the cleric spell lists.
Not cleric/oracle spell list. Cleric spell list.
Not cleric/oracle spell list. Cleric spell list.
Hmm... let me enter Devil's Advocate mode for a while...
.Wouldn't this imply that an Oracle cannot use scrolls without UMD, as the spell in question must be on her spell list by RAW? After all, if reading the RAW literally, the Oracle does not have a spell list of her own, she casts divine spells drawn from the Cleric list...
Not cleric/oracle spell list. Cleric spell list.Hmm... let me enter Devil's Advocate mode for a while...
.Wouldn't this imply that an Oracle cannot use scrolls without UMD, as the spell in question must be on her spell list by RAW? After all, if reading the RAW literally, the Oracle does not have a spell list of her own, she casts divine spells drawn from the Cleric list...
I'd say that the part I quoted from the Oracle's spellcasting section makes Cleric list into her list. No one said that being class list is exclusive to that class.
See, this is what I was talking about.
A simple cleric/oracle distinction would go a long way to ending RAW arguments on the matter.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's only confusing if you make it that way. The oracle uses the cleric spell list, so when viewing spells, pretend you're a cleric and look at her spell list. Even the oracle-only spells appear on the Cleric spell list, but before the description in parenthesis it says (oracle only)
(EDIT: I'm talking about the spell lists, by the way, not the spell descriptions. The lists being those short descriptions listed out for each spellcasting class before the bigger descriptions in each splat book).
Basically this issue has been brought up before to the devs, and their collective response is basically "meh"
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
A potentially huge problem in the ARG: None of the spells provided are listed as Oracle spells.
Now, Clerics and Oracles share the same spell list, so it seems easy enough to assume that any spell in the ARG labelled "Cleric" should be "Cleric/Oracle".
But the fact that Sorcerer/Wizard spells are labelled as such, while Cleric/Oracle spells aren't is going to lead to a lot of nitpickers insisting on the RAW, namely that all the new Cleric spells in the ARG are Cleric-only rather than being Cleric/Oracle as most Cleric spells usually are.
Yeah, this is unnecessary. The oracle can explicity use any spell on the cleric list (and there are even a few spells on the cleric list that are listed as "oracle only")
not sure if this is an error, but it seems off, bolded parts
Seducer (2 RP): Prerequisite: The race has at least a +2 racial
bonus to Charisma; Benefit: Members of this race add +1 to
the saving throw DCs for their spells and spell-like abilities
of the enchantment school. In addition, members of this
race with a Wisdom score of 15 or higher may use charm
person once per day as a spell-like ability (caster level is equal
to the user’s character level).
Why does it require a +2 racial Charisma, but ask for a Wisdom score of 15 for the spell like ability?
if it was suppose to be Charisma and not Wisdom, it makes more sense, and would read like this;
Seducer (2 RP): Prerequisite: The race has at least a +2 racial
bonus to Charisma; Benefit: Members of this race add +1 to
the saving throw DCs for their spells and spell-like abilities
of the enchantment school. In addition, members of this
race with a Charisma score of 15 or higher may use charm
person once per day as a spell-like ability (caster level is equal
to the user’s character level).
Not necessarily an error, but Heroic Defiance is listed as a bonus feat for the Imperious Bloodline (p. 75), even though it's impossible for sorcerors to qualify for that feat without multiclassing.
Of course it might be eligible for multiclass sorcerors, but still it seems a little odd to include a bonus feat that actually requires it. Maybe it was an oversight?
I thought with bonus feats you could ignore any pre-req that wasn't another feat?