Rise of the Runelords Anniversary Edition Errata


Rise of the Runelords

451 to 500 of 702 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Awesome job folks, especially you, Strife2002. Sorry to hear about your computer troubles, hope you got it all fixed.

I copied each part of the list, and pasted them into a new NeoOffice html document. The only change I've made so far is to put a blank link before each page header. Just looks better to me that way. :-)

One question: I assume these errata are not official, although at least one — the change to Caizarlu Zerren's stat block on page 82, changing his opposition schools — seems to have got into the pdf copy of the book that I just bought. I couldn't find an official errata file. Is there one? Or is that something Paizo's not going to do? Okay, that's two questions. :-)

Grand Lodge

There isn't an official one, no. All of the corrections are based on hard math or clear rule contradictions. There are a few called out by James Jacobs as being wrong, so there's that. Two that come to mind are the Medium-sized scythe wielded by the scarecrow, and the missing poison entry for the hounds of lamashtu

EDIT: oh yeah, and the various clerics that have cat's grace prepared illegally.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

AWESOME JOB STRIFE!!! A huge thank you for your efforts! *bows to your fiery greatness*

It is sad that James indicated earlier in this thread that there will be no official erratas for any APs, especially when there were so many glaring errors in this book (such as those Strife mentioned). I don't agree with Paizo's overall errata policy, but that's for another thread convo. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thank you Strife!!!, and indeed, the policy about no errata for the aps is really something...

Silver Crusade

Yeah, Paizo has this weird thing as a company where they use the word "errata" wrong. While dictionaries and most other publishing companies define "errata" as a list of errors in a publication, Paizo uses that word to list out changes made when printing a new edition of a product. Thus, only books that sell well enough to warrant additional print runs get errata sheets from Paizo.

Grand Lodge

Whoops! Just noticed an error with my corrections. On page 371, in the Sandpoint stat block, under notable NPCs, I said to change Ameiko's class levels from "aristocrat 1/bard 3/rogue 1" to "aristocrat 1/bard 6/rogue [rake] 1".

well what i mainly was trying to say was give her the rake archetype. what i DID NOT mean to say was give her 3 more levels of bard. Not sure where I pulled those from. Anyway, it should be "aristocrat 1/bard 3/rogue [rake] 1".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This two-part list is pleasing in the eyes of both gods and men. Thank you, Strife!

Grand Lodge

Pgs. 38 & 39 - Erylium

Erylium's Fly skill seems to be in error. She doesn't have any ranks in it, and that's fine, but it's still not calculated correctly. It should be:

4 (Dex) + 4 (Tiny) + 8 (Perfect maneuverability) = +16 bonus.

Additionally...

HOUSE RULE

Erylium's familiar Orm (a wren) isn't granting her any extra bonus like familiar's are supposed to. A wren doesn't actually appear anywhere on the list of animals that can be familiars, so it's unclear what exactly the bonus it grants should be. I'm sure a popular assumption will be that a wren is most like a raven, and therefore should grant a +3 bonus to Appraise checks*.

Personally I'm inclined to instead treat it as a bat, purely based on the fact that they're both Diminutive in size. This would grant it a +3 to Fly checks, making the aforementioned correction a +19 total (which means that with a roll of 1, Erylium would auto-pass most Fly checks required for special maneuvers).

*One argument, however, for treating Orm like a raven is the fact that raven's get a language to speak, and that would be the only way you could explain how exactly Erylium was able to receive reports from Orm about the outside world (as described on page 33). Since she's not a 5th-level witch yet, her familiar doesn't have the speak with master ability, and with no access to the speak with animals spell, her familiar would need some way to communicate with her.


The Bestiary lists +20 for a Quasit's fly skill.

Grand Lodge

Brf wrote:
The Bestiary lists +20 for a Quasit's fly skill.

Yes, that is for a STANDARD bread-and-butter quasit who actually put ranks into Fly and has a smaller Dex score:

Standard Quasit Fly skill:
+20 bonus = 8 (perfect maneuverability) + 4 (Tiny) + 2 (Dex) + 3 (ranks) + 3 (class skill)

Erylium is unique and has 3 levels of witch; she decided to distribute her skill points differently (which is evident since before this correction she still had a smaller bonus than the Bestiary quasit at only a +12 bonus).


Strife2002 wrote:
-> Change the Strength score from "18" to "20" to account for the casting of bull's strength mentioned in the Before Combat tactics. The aforementioned changes to the Melee line already reflect this.

Actually the change is from "18" to "22"

Grand Lodge

Bri74 wrote:
Strife2002 wrote:
-> Change the Strength score from "18" to "20" to account for the casting of bull's strength mentioned in the Before Combat tactics. The aforementioned changes to the Melee line already reflect this.
Actually the change is from "18" to "22"

You are correct, not sure where I got "20" from, especially since I DID write "22" in my notes.


@Strife2002
Do you happen to have a Google Doc (or similar) you can link for GMs like myself coming to RotRL late in the game?

I'm going to be using RealmWorks and anything that can speed up my data entry would be a huge boon. :D

Grand Lodge

@GamesManipulator
It's not a Google Doc really, just a .txt file, which admittedly I'm sure is more difficult to read and not really different than what I put in those spoiler tags. I should go ahead and make one, though, so perhaps I'll get on that and let you know when it's done.

Oh and sorry for not seeing this sooner!


Wow. I just picked up a pristine copy of the Anniversary Edition at a garage sale. I'm really excited because I've wished for a long time I could run this AP but didn't like that it wasn't standard PF rules. Didn't even know this version existed.

So I thought, I bet there's an errata thread on the forums. Holy cow! Whatta thread! You guys are awesome!

And that two-part compiled list comes out to 25 pages. Incredible.

Thankfully, I'd already decided to commit the sacrilege of using the book like a would a regular paperback module by writing notes right in it and highlighting and so forth. I'll spend the time making all these changes right in the book. I just hope there's still room for notes! :)

Grand Lodge

Mr. Grogg wrote:

Wow. I just picked up a pristine copy of the Anniversary Edition at a garage sale. I'm really excited because I've wished for a long time I could run this AP but didn't like that it wasn't standard PF rules. Didn't even know this version existed.

So I thought, I bet there's an errata thread on the forums. Holy cow! Whatta thread! You guys are awesome!

And that two-part compiled list comes out to 25 pages. Incredible.

Thankfully, I'd already decided to commit the sacrilege of using the book like a would a regular paperback module by writing notes right in it and highlighting and so forth. I'll spend the time making all these changes right in the book. I just hope there's still room for notes! :)

Glad you like the lists! Be sure to peek at the handful of posts that followed them for corrections to them!

Grand Lodge

Pg. 427 - Talons of Leng

Ultimate Equipment's recent errata pointed out to me that the talons of Leng show up there, and the write-up for them there should technically override the description in the AE, (since UE was released later). Including the changes from the errata, make the following changes to the talons of Leng:

> First paragraph, 4th sentence: delete "deal x3 damage and"
> First paragraph, last sentence: delete "while success leaves the target confused for 1 round"
> Second paragraph, last sentence: delete the entire last sentence starting with "If the wielding attacks only..."
> In the construction requirements, change "Craft Magic Arms and Armor" to "Craft Magic Arms and Armor, Craft Wondrous Item"

Grand Lodge

Pg. 363 - Karzoug the Claimer stat block

In light of the last post I made above about the talons of Leng, delete the "x3" crit multiplier Karzoug has for the talons in his Melee line.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
GamesManipulator wrote:

@Strife2002

Do you happen to have a Google Doc (or similar) you can link for GMs like myself coming to RotRL late in the game?

I'm going to be using RealmWorks and anything that can speed up my data entry would be a huge boon. :D

There's this Google doc, which I've been referring to for my game.

Grand Lodge

Ah yes, that one's pretty good. My two-part list added and corrected a few more things, but until I made it I was using that for awhile.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

You could make a copy of that one, and then add your amendments...?

Grand Lodge

Callum wrote:
You could make a copy of that one, and then add your amendments...?

I'm trying actually, real-life job is getting in the way a bit, but it's going.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

On p 91, the carrionstorms are listed as having 8 hp each, but on p 408 they are shown as having 11 hp.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

On p 97, there is some confusion as to the Misogynistic Rage haunt's trigger. The descriptive text says "Only 1d4 rounds after a character haunted by wrath enters this room...", whereas the haunt's area is given as "northwestern half of the room", and the trigger as "touch (painting)".

Dark Archive

Is there collection somewhere of all the errata?

I'd like to check it through to see if things I get confused about are errors or just things that confuse me :'D

For example, zombie lord has two runechill hatchet attacks, but i have no clue why one of them has +15 damage and other has +10...

Silver Crusade

CorvusMask wrote:

Is there collection somewhere of all the errata?

I'd like to check it through to see if things I get confused about are errors or just things that confuse me :'D

For example, zombie lord has two runechill hatchet attacks, but i have no clue why one of them has +15 damage and other has +10...

I have no idea about a collection of errata, but I can explain the headless lord's hatchets.

When two weapon fighting, you get your full strength bonus to damage on the primary hand, but only half your strength bonus to damage on the offhand attack. He's got a 31 strength, so that's why the primary hand does 5 more points of damage than the offhand.

If he had the Double Slice feat, he'd get the full str bonus on the offhand attacks, but he doesn't have that feat. Apparently, giving Great Fortitude to an undead creature that's immune to anything requiring a fortitude save was higher priority. The math works - it's the logic that's flawed. If you're the type of GM who tweaks the monsters in published adventures to improve their builds and make them more challenging, then that's an obvious change to make.


Undead aren't immune to "anything" requiring a Fort save. Disintegrate is the most obvious exception.

Dark Archive

Fromper wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:

Is there collection somewhere of all the errata?

I'd like to check it through to see if things I get confused about are errors or just things that confuse me :'D

For example, zombie lord has two runechill hatchet attacks, but i have no clue why one of them has +15 damage and other has +10...

I have no idea about a collection of errata, but I can explain the headless lord's hatchets.

When two weapon fighting, you get your full strength bonus to damage on the primary hand, but only half your strength bonus to damage on the offhand attack. He's got a 31 strength, so that's why the primary hand does 5 more points of damage than the offhand.

If he had the Double Slice feat, he'd get the full str bonus on the offhand attacks, but he doesn't have that feat. Apparently, giving Great Fortitude to an undead creature that's immune to anything requiring a fortitude save was higher priority. The math works - it's the logic that's flawed. If you're the type of GM who tweaks the monsters in published adventures to improve their builds and make them more challenging, then that's an obvious change to make.

Ah I see ^^; Its case of me forgetting small details then.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
CorvusMask wrote:
Is there collection somewhere of all the errata?

Yep - have a look at Strife2002's last two posts at the bottom of the previous page.

Grand Lodge

Callum wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
Is there collection somewhere of all the errata?
Yep - have a look at Strife2002's last two posts at the bottom of the previous page.

What he said, but also take a look at the few posts right after it for a handful of things either missed in that 2-part post or were wrong and needed correcting.

Grand Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Hey everyone, I finally got around to making a Google Doc for my list of compiled errata. I used the same formatting as before, as honestly I'm too busy right now to make it different, so if you don't like the layout, I apologize. I may change it later.

This doc includes the corrections and additional errors we found after I had posted the original two lists.

Here's the list for your viewing pleasure.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Many "thank yous!" for this. Even though my RotRL campaign is over, I do plan to run this again with a different group should I fine one. :)

Grand Lodge

Just updated the doc with Callum's errors of the carrionstorm hp and misogynistic rage haunt trigger contradiction. Not sure how I missed those the first time.

Grand Lodge

Pg. 388 - Magnimar stat block

Based on the rules for settlements, Magnimar should have a +10 Danger modifier, not +0. Change its Danger modifier to "+10".

Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Magnimar, City of Monuments and Pathfinder Player Companion: Varisia, Birthplace of Legends both confirm this as they have Magnimar's stats as well printed in them.

Adding to the google doc.

Grand Lodge

...Also, while we're on the subject, Magnimar's population details don't quite match up either with the stats presented in those two books.

This isn't THAT important, but I'm inclined to use the population stats found in those books because 1) they exist in 2 different publications already and 2) they account for an "other" race, which makes sense as the populace of Magnimar shouldn't just be the core-7 races. (EDIT: and 3) it's weird that elves and dwarves have the exact same numbers)

If you want to change the stat block to match its printing in previous books, change it to the following:

"Population 16,428 (13,307 humans, 821 halflings, 659 dwarves, 655 elves, 493 gnomes, 166 half-elves, 164 half-orcs, 163 other)"

Grand Lodge

Pg. 111 - Foxglove Townhouse map

This one's kinda funny. Take a look at the second and third floor. They have stairwells that lead to dead-ends. Some walls will need to be knocked down if anyone wants to go to the higher floors.

Dark Archive

Umm, okay, I have to ask. This is something that isn't normally issue in pen & paper tabletop game, but on roll20 it becomes even more apparent how bizarre it is.

Halls of Wrath is marked as 1 Square = 10 ft. Is that a mistake? I mean, that would make already massive room ridiculously massive, on roll20 to fit default square size to 5 ft version of the map, it would require width and height of 95 and 61(note, heights over 100 gives warnings on roll20 for possibly causing problems)

Also, on the map the statue seems like regular large sized statue so the same as the golem, but on 10 ft... Well yeah, it would be way larger than the golem.

Soo uh, yeah, whats up with Halls of Wrath's map size?


The AP is confusing in text. The lead-in text on p. 290 (AE version) describes the teleport circles as 10 feet in diameter but at 10' per square, the map depiction would imply 20'. But the GM text for K3 says: "Each of the 20-foot-square side rooms contains bunks for humans to the west, sinspawn to the east." (p. 292.) Since there are only two squares per wall on the map - 10' per square.

When my group played through it, we used 10' per square (I ignored the teleport circle written description) but given the majority of the occupants are medium, I doubt it's going to hurt if you use 5' per square. One advantage for the pc's of 10' per square: there is room for the pc's to be adjacent to the golem for melee attacks on the platform from which it commands/overlooks K1.

Keep in mind this wing used to house a lot more warriors of wrath and sinspawn...

Grand Lodge

Added this issue to the doc

Silver Crusade

I assumed the 10 ft per square was correct. Was a pain in the butt to draw the maps, but I've had that issue a lot with the larger maps in this AP.

Dark Archive

Yeah, after trying out what 10 ft square version looks like on roll20, it does actually seem to make sense. I mean, the statue's base is larger than the statue, but it fits snuggly in center and I think description text did mention platform so it probably is intended that way.

But yeah, its still absurdly huge map all the way round(I guess at least it gives space for Iron Archer to shoot arrows and show of energy type cycling thing and for warriors of wrath to threw glomps of vat goo or do their prep spells) ._. I guess its nice change of pace, but usually 10 ft maps are reserved for Giant's dungeons or other places with lots of large enemies, so it threw me off.


CorvusMask wrote:

Yeah, after trying out what 10 ft square version looks like on roll20, it does actually seem to make sense. I mean, the statue's base is larger than the statue, but it fits snuggly in center and I think description text did mention platform so it probably is intended that way.

But yeah, its still absurdly huge map all the way round(I guess at least it gives space for Iron Archer to shoot arrows and show of energy type cycling thing and for warriors of wrath to threw glomps of vat goo or do their prep spells) ._. I guess its nice change of pace, but usually 10 ft maps are reserved for Giant's dungeons or other places with lots of large enemies, so it threw me off.

I found most of the combats in Wrath worked out better (from a GM perspective) on a 5' square scale. In particular, there's nowhere to hide from massed Fireballs from the Warriors of Wrath unless it's on a 10' per square scale. Any party with flight and Haste isn't going to find the extra space to be a problem for them.

And the teleport circles look to be 20' diameter although the 9L spell creates 10' diameter circles.

Dark Archive

Narsham wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:

Yeah, after trying out what 10 ft square version looks like on roll20, it does actually seem to make sense. I mean, the statue's base is larger than the statue, but it fits snuggly in center and I think description text did mention platform so it probably is intended that way.

But yeah, its still absurdly huge map all the way round(I guess at least it gives space for Iron Archer to shoot arrows and show of energy type cycling thing and for warriors of wrath to threw glomps of vat goo or do their prep spells) ._. I guess its nice change of pace, but usually 10 ft maps are reserved for Giant's dungeons or other places with lots of large enemies, so it threw me off.

I found most of the combats in Wrath worked out better (from a GM perspective) on a 5' square scale. In particular, there's nowhere to hide from massed Fireballs from the Warriors of Wrath unless it's on a 10' per square scale. Any party with flight and Haste isn't going to find the extra space to be a problem for them.

And the teleport circles look to be 20' diameter although the 9L spell creates 10' diameter circles.

On otherhand, that applies to Warriors of wrath as well. I mean, there are lot of them so on smaller maps it might be harder for them to station themselves so that only one of them can be caught on fireball. Or in case of my party... Well let's just say that the druid is area control monster :'D Also, Iron Archer does still get more chances to shoot with arrows of wrath and Ahtroxis has a lot of chances to get long range spells in as well.

Though, I'm pretty notoriously bad in tactics. Like, I'm currently planning to place warriors and sinspawn close to teleport circle's entrance, is that a bad idea?

Dark Archive

BTW, little help here since I'm confused by one thing

So Jordimandus' demonically obese gives him +4 natural armor bonus, but he still has natural armor +6 so where does that rest of natural armor come from? I have feeling I'm missing something, but can't figure out what


CorvusMask wrote:

BTW, little help here since I'm confused by one thing

So Jordimandus' demonically obese gives him +4 natural armor bonus, but he still has natural armor +6 so where does that rest of natural armor come from? I have feeling I'm missing something, but can't figure out what

Not sure it helps much at all, but I am stumped as well. Can't see anything that generates the additional +2. I even opened up the Hero Lab build for him and it has it at +6 as well but heck if I know where it's coming from. Hopefully some smart person out here can point out why we're confused.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I looked as well, having completed this campaign for my group over a year ago. Surprised this has been missed by everyone until now. It's not even in the errata notes posted by Strife. So, I'm particularly curious.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I suspect it's an error, but it's hardly one that's game breaking, and in fact, as a CR 15 foe, he should have an AC of 30 according to table 1–1 in the Bestiary. So, in effect, the error is that he should be getting a +6 armor bonus from being demonically obese.

AKA: His AC in the stats is correct (in fact, it's kinda low).

Dark Archive

Come to think of it, do all runeforge azlanti wizards have old age mental score modifiers without physical modifiers in their stats like how Karzoug has, or do nature of their immortality prevent that benefit of aging? ._. Like I'm not sure how age modifiers work with immortalities

Paizo Employee Creative Director

3 people marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:
Come to think of it, do all runeforge azlanti wizards have old age mental score modifiers without physical modifiers in their stats like how Karzoug has, or do nature of their immortality prevent that benefit of aging? ._. Like I'm not sure how age modifiers work with immortalities

They don't have old age modifiers. The reasonign being that they spent all that time locked up in a coop and are kinda held back from aging alltogether more or less.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thanks James. Added to the error compilation doc.

451 to 500 of 702 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Adventure Path / Rise of the Runelords / Rise of the Runelords Anniversary Edition Errata All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.