Rise of the Runelords Anniversary Edition Errata


Rise of the Runelords

601 to 650 of 702 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Strife2002 wrote:
[... Quote tunnel ...] Thank you for that! I think for the sake of simplicity, I'll adjust the errata document to say that for the story award, change "recover the list of 'Sihedron Sacrifices'" to "recover Lucrecia's letter to Xanesha", since that letter actually mentions the Lord-Mayor, and therefore provides the incentive for him to reward the PCs so generously later.

Oh, yeah... That was probably the intent in fact. Good catch. :P

Grand Lodge

Strife2002 wrote:

Pg. 132 - Kibb

Earlier in this thread, it was mentioned that Kibb's HD was too high since as an animal companion, his HD are based off whatever his companion's stats are. While this is still true, the ability score changes we mentioned weren't correct, since we forgot to account for the bonus ability point he gained when he reached 4 HD. Rather than have you go in and correct the corrections, below are ALL of Kibb's changes that should be made from what's printed:

* In Kibb's header, change HP from "39" to "32".
* Change the entire Defense section to read as follows:
"AC 19, touch 16, flat-footed 13 (+5 Dex, +1 dodge, +3 natural)
hp 32 (5d8+10)
Fort +6, Ref +11, Will +2
Defensive Abilities evasion"
* In the Melee line, change the attack bonus for both the bite and claws from "+8" to "+7".
* Change the Dex score from "21" to "20".
* Change the Base Attack and CMB/CMD line to read as follows:
"Base Atk +3; CMB +7; CMD 23 (27 vs. trip)"
* Choose 1 skill to remove a rank from.

One extra thing about Kibb's hit points, a GM may want to reduce his hp by 2d6+3. The PCs are to presumably find him stuck in a bear trap, and 2d6+3 is the damage a bear trap deals according to Ultimate Equipment. Even if all PCs have a low Handle Animal/wild empathy bonus (even Shalelu, the slacker), a GM could grant them a bonus to one of these checks if they manage to heal his trap wound.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Also since we've reached a new page in this thread, I'll post a link to my compiled errata document in case any new-comers look at this thread and immediately get overwhelmed:

Rise of the Runelords: Anniversary Edition Compiled Errata


p. 330-331, Hidden Beast:

The increase to the beast's INT from 10 (base decapus) to 12 means he should get an extra language, right?

The flavor text on p.330 states he greets the PCs in Abyssal, but his statblock only has Aklo (Languages, p.331).

The description of the Sound Mimicry (voices) ability says it can form short phrases or sentences, up to 3 words, in a language it doesn't know, but the greeting in Abyssal is a bit more complex than that.

I suggest adding Abyssal to the Hidden Beast's Languages.

Thanks.

Grand Lodge

BushidoWarriorWookiee wrote:

p. 330-331, Hidden Beast:

The increase to the beast's INT from 10 (base decapus) to 12 means he should get an extra language, right?

The flavor text on p.330 states he greets the PCs in Abyssal, but his statblock only has Aklo (Languages, p.331).

The description of the Sound Mimicry (voices) ability says it can form short phrases or sentences, up to 3 words, in a language it doesn't know, but the greeting in Abyssal is a bit more complex than that.

I suggest adding Abyssal to the Hidden Beast's Languages.

Thanks.

Added, thanks!


p.331-332: Vampire Skulks statblock -

I cannot for the life of me figure out how they have 14 feats. Can someone check my math?

2 from Racial Hit Dice (base Skulk bestiary entry has 2)
6 from Vampire template (Alertness, Combat Reflexes, Dodge, Improved Initiative, Lightning Reflexes, Toughness)
3 from Rogue levels
1 from Combat Trick rogue talent
1 from Finesse Rogue rogue talent

I get 13.

At first I thought perhaps the authors gave them Altitude Affinity as a bonus feat, but no other NPC with Altitude Affinity seems to have an "extra" feat.

So what am I missing?

Thanks.


BushidoWarriorWookiee wrote:

p.331-332: Vampire Skulks statblock -

...

If it turns out I'm right, I'd recommend losing Great Fortitude; as undead, they're immune to anything requiring a Fort save (unless it affects an object), so they wouldn't need the bump to Fort saves.

If it turns out I'm wrong, I'd still lose Great Fortitude, but trade it for Iron Will; even though undead are immune to mind-affecting effects, there's a whole lot of divine magic available to PCs that trigger a Will save that's NOT mind-affecting.

Also, I think the statblock is missing the +8 racial bonus to Climb, which vampires should get from having the natural climb speed given to them by the Spider Climb ability.

Thanks.

Dark Archive

Dotting.

Grand Lodge

BushidoWarriorWookiee wrote:
BushidoWarriorWookiee wrote:

p.331-332: Vampire Skulks statblock -

...

If it turns out I'm right, I'd recommend losing Great Fortitude; as undead, they're immune to anything requiring a Fort save (unless it affects an object), so they wouldn't need the bump to Fort saves.

If it turns out I'm wrong, I'd still lose Great Fortitude, but trade it for Iron Will; even though undead are immune to mind-affecting effects, there's a whole lot of divine magic available to PCs that trigger a Will save that's NOT mind-affecting.

Also, I think the statblock is missing the +8 racial bonus to Climb, which vampires should get from having the natural climb speed given to them by the Spider Climb ability.

Thanks.

EDIT: at first I wrote about how I agree with the feat issue, but then changed my mind

Honestly I think Altitude Affinity should be the one that is deleted. Specifically because:
- As you said, there's one-too-many feats
- The skulk is missing Endurance as AA's prerequisite
- As undead, the vampire skulk would be immune to the detrimental effects of high-altitudes anyway since they require a Fort save. The only bonus the feat would grant is a +2 to Survival checks above 5,000 feet, which the stat block doesn't even seem to be adding in anyway.

The spider climb issue gets a little weirder though. While you're right the text of the vampire says they can scale sheer surfaces as if they were under the effects of a spider climb spell, they don't actually gain a listed climb speed, which is the criteria for gaining that +8 bonus to Climb checks. They don't actually get a constant spider climb spell-like ability, but instead can move their normal land speed on sheer surfaces inexplicably as an extraordinary ability. I don't necessarily agree with it, but other vampire stat blocks support this weird non-climb-speed-granting spider climb effect. The Bestiary entry, for instance, lists no climb speed, and doesn't grant the +8 bonus.

Grand Lodge

Pg. 155 - Dorella Kreeg stat block

Found a few small errors recently which I've already added to the compiled errata document. The first is Dorella Kreeg's AC line.

The tactics say she casts shield in the first round of combat, but her stats have it already factored in as if she cast it before combat. Therefore, a GM not looking too closely could accidentally apply the effects twice. Lower her AC and flat-footed AC to "20". Once/If she casts shield, the listed AC line in the text is correct.

Grand Lodge

Pg. 158 - Lucrecia stat block

In Lucrecia's 3rd-level spells known, change "cure critical wounds" to "cure serious wounds".

Grand Lodge

Pg. 124 - Xanesha stat block

Very minor, but change her type to "monstrous humanoid (shapechanger)".

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Thanks Strife! Always appreciate your updates!


Aren't Bruthazmus's hit points wrong? I'm not 100% certain, but check this out. Here is his normal stat block line:

Quote:
HP 31 (3d8 + 1d10 + 13)

If we break that down, we get:

HP 31 (4.5 + 4.5 + 4.5 + 5.5 + 13)

Right? That's 19 + 13. That's 32. The only explanation I can imagine is that they added the racial hit dice and rounded down before adding the class hit dice. So like this:

HP 31 (13 + 5 + 13)

Is that how you're supposed to do it? I assumed all those .5s would add up. Am I wrong?


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

No, you don't add the stray halves up. You calculate the hp from the race and the class separately, rounding down in each case, and then add them together (as in your second example).

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just an FYI to everyone that I've now finished updating the compiled errata document to include any outstanding errata from other books that are referenced that haven't been fixed yet. In other words, if only a partial stat block for a creature is listed because it asks you to see another book for those stats, and that stat block has errors even after any official errata has been released for it, I've included it in this document. I've not included any errors that were already fixed by official errata.


Callum wrote:
No, you don't add the stray halves up. You calculate the hp from the race and the class separately, rounding down in each case, and then add them together (as in your second example).

Standard arithmetic says you keep and add halves. Game arithmetic may say otherwise, of course. ;)

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Is something missing from the description of the arcane decay suffered by runeslave giants? The description in the appendix is (relevant phrase in bold)

Runeslave Template, ROTRL-AE, p. 412 wrote:


Arcane Decay (Su): The symbols etched upon a runeslave’s body put great stress on its physical form, choking its mind and ultimately killing the giant in time. Each runeslave has a predominant Thassilonian rune associated with one school of magic inscribed on its body. Traditionally, this rune is of a school of magic directly opposed to the runelord the runeslave serves— all of the runeslaves encountered in this adventure bear the sign of wrath upon their bodies as a sort of brand of shame. The slow decay of a runeslave’s mental faculties manifests as a gradual loss of life and sanity, represented by the accumulation of rune-shaped scars all over the body. The disease has no additional physical or mental effect until these magical runescars completely overwhelm their host, at which point the accumulated pain the giant has endured since becoming a runeslave is released in a fatal surge of unleashed suffering. All runeslaves are “infected” with this disease. Only limited wish, miracle, or wish can prevent or cure arcane decay, but in so doing removes the entire template, reverting the runeslave back to the base creature. Multiple successful Fortitude saves only delay the decay and do not cure the creature of the disease.

Unless I'm missing something - which is entirely possible - this "slow decay of a runeslave's mental faculties" isn't reflected anywhere in the AE. The original description of arcane decay in Pathfinder AP #4 apparently had an additional line, saying that the runeslave must periodically save against arcane decay or suffer 1 point of ability drain for each mental stat (see this 2008 thread, for example). Each time the runeslave uses its arcane surge, it must make another save. Does anyone know if this was an intentional change, or an error in the Anniversary Edition?


I only have the AE, and I remember dealing with Arcane Decay... I want to say it was under Jorgenfist, in the first room where the PCs have trouble with depth perception- there's a runeslave giant there. I also had four outside Jorgenfist when the PCs assaulted the guard post with the taiga giant (those might have been me beefing that encounter, though). I'm away from my book atm, though.

Or were you looking for runeslave giants that had already suffered the effects of Arcane Decay enough for the PCs to notice?


Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I noticed the arcane delay thing as well (my PCs are *just* about to head under Jorgenfist. From my reading, it looked like the decay was too long-term to meaningfully affect the monster's interaction with the PCs, so I decided not to worry about it. Mokmurian can always make another sentry for the room if one succumbs . . .

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I probably wouldn’t have noticed it, except that I’m swapping out the runeslave hill giant in the Chamber of Reduction for a runeslaved Barl Brakebones (the PCs let him surrender and leave on a promise that he would not return to Mommurian, and he didn’t - not willingly, anyway). When I built runeslaved BB in Hero Lab, I was surprised at how much intelligence he retained, and started wondering about spellcasting. Ultimately I decided not to worry about it because he doesn’t have his spellbooks or arcane bond anyway, but by then I noticed the discrepancy in the description of Arcane Decay in HL.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I rebuilt Lokansir (ROTRL AE, p. 218) in Hero Lab, which treats the Jotunblood template as adding 4 HD instead of 10 HD as in the Advanced Bestiary. I know this is noted in the compiled errata already, but when I fixed it by adding 6 more HD, Lokansir's CR changed from CR 11 to 17. I guess this makes sense, an increase of 6 for 6 additional HD, but it got me wondering whether the real error is in the Advanced Bestiary. The Advanced Bestiary says that the template adds 10 hit dice to the base creature and increases CR by 4, but that can't be right, can it? If we're adding 10 HD, shouldn't the CR go up by 10, making Lokansir by himself a CR 17 encounter?

Dark Archive

The Advanced Bestiary is a third party product. Some of its templates don't give an accurate CR adjustment. (The Feral Dragon template would be another example.) You shouldn't add 1 to the CR of a creature for every hit die added though. There are some suggestions in the bestiary, but based on a quick peek I'd estimate that a jotunblood hill giant would be about CR14 or 15.

It's possible that Lokansir was intended to be CR11 and that the writer decided to adjust its stats after he found out that the numbers didn't add up.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

That’s a possibility. I ran it last night, and the dwarf monk (ki mystic, not unchained) 12 took Lokansir down in 4 rounds in single combat. Lokansir only hit him twice (in round 3), for 69 points of damage, but it absolutely wasn’t enough.

Based on that experience, I have to agree that there is no way Lokansir should be treated as a CR17 encounter. I awarded experience for a CR 11 fight as written.


Lamatar Bayden also has one more spell slot which is not used, he should be able to prepare one more 2nd level spell, since 14-15 wisdom gives him one more slot for first- and second level spells.

Grand Lodge

Monkeybox wrote:
Lamatar Bayden also has one more spell slot which is not used, he should be able to prepare one more 2nd level spell, since 14-15 wisdom gives him one more slot for first- and second level spells.

Yep yep, looks like that was caught here.

Dark Archive

Tusk the Half-Orc wrote:

That’s a possibility. I ran it last night, and the dwarf monk (ki mystic, not unchained) 12 took Lokansir down in 4 rounds in single combat. Lokansir only hit him twice (in round 3), for 69 points of damage, but it absolutely wasn’t enough.

Based on that experience, I have to agree that there is no way Lokansir should be treated as a CR17 encounter. I awarded experience for a CR 11 fight as written.

I just took a quick peek in the original version of Fortress of the Stone Giants and I can confirm that Lokansir had the full template in the 3.5 version. Ouch...


I think that the stat block of Jordimandus (Runeforge, Festering Maze) doesn't take the Runeforge buff (+1 to attack rolls, skill checks and saves) into account.


It's possible I don't have the most current errata document, so please bear with me. The following are questions I have about Karzoug's stat block:

Melee: How does he get to +22/+17 with his glaive? BAB +10; STR +7; enhancement bonus +2. What's missing?

Also Melee: Talons of Leng grant 2 natural claw attacks; natural attacks aren't iterative; so should it be

Melee Karzoug's Burning Glaive +19/+14 (1d10+12/x3 plus 1d6 fire) or 2 claws +20 (1d4+13)

?

Finally, if his Arcane Bond is his glaive, and when it is dancing he is not holding or wielding it (see text of wizard class feature) does he have to make a concentration check to cast a spell? (it may not matter, since he can't fail, but if something happens to affect his concentration checks, it might).

Also finally, the description of the dancing weapon special ability refers to the wielder's "base attack bonus", does that include his STR modifier?

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Karzoug's Burning Glaive attack probably includes greater magic weapon. This would give the weapon a +5 enhancement bonus, that doesn't stack with the weapon's normal +2.

BAB +10 + STR +7 + weapon +5 = +22

You are correct about the Talons of Leng. There is also a FAQ released by Paizo regarding those (don't remember what it was while writing this).

Karzoug is still considered wielding his glaive, as per the dancing enchantment description.

The dancing does not add Strength.


ckdragons wrote:
Karzoug's Burning Glaive attack probably includes greater magic weapon.

Probably, and the math lines up, but casting greater magic weapon is not in his Before Combat tactics, thus my question.

ckdragons wrote:
Karzoug is still considered wielding his glaive, as per the dancing enchantment description.

Specifically:

Ultimate Equipment wrote:
"... the activating character is not considered armed with the weapon. The weapon is considered wielded or attended by the activating character for all maneuvers and effects that target items."

Emphasis mine. Then:

Arcane Bond wrote:
"... If the object is an amulet or ring, it must be worn to have effect, while staves, wands, and weapons must be wielded. If a wizard attempts to cast a spell without his bonded object worn or in hand, he must make a concentration check or lose the spell."

Emphasis mine. I posit the latter supersedes the former, since the former explicitly calls out effects "targeting items." But again, probably won't matter with a concentration of +33 :)


I don't know RAW but I think if I suggested to a player at my table that his bonded item that was a dancing weapon (likely a very rare circumstance) did not count as in his possession for using his base class ability but it could be targeted by disarm attempts and sunder attempts and spells, etc., I think I would receive an invitation to a spontaneous blanket party. And I would deserve it.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Latrecis wrote:

I don't know RAW but I think if I suggested to a player at my table that his bonded item that was a dancing weapon (likely a very rare circumstance) did not count as in his possession for using his base class ability but it could be targeted by disarm attempts and sunder attempts and spells, etc., I think I would receive an invitation to a spontaneous blanket party. And I would deserve it.

This is interesting. I'd agree that the answer to the first question - does Karzoug's burning glaive count as being in Karzoug's possession under the arcane bond rules - is yes, because it is still under his effective control. I think the part of the description of dancing special weapon ability that says the activating character is not "armed" while the weapon is dancing applies when determining if the character is threatening an adjacent square, for example.

On the second issue - "The weapon is considered wielded or attended by the activating character for all maneuvers and effects that target items." - I must be reading that differently from Latrecis. I think that's for the character's benefit, because the opponent would not need to roll a CMB check to disarm or steal an unattended weapon, they could just pick it up and walk away. Unattended objects also have to roll separate saving throws against area of effect spells, etc. Making it clear that the dancing weapon is still "wielded or attended" by its owner keeps it from being treated as though it had been abandoned.


Tusk the Half-Orc wrote:
Latrecis wrote:

I don't know RAW but I think if I suggested to a player at my table that his bonded item that was a dancing weapon (likely a very rare circumstance) did not count as in his possession for using his base class ability but it could be targeted by disarm attempts and sunder attempts and spells, etc., I think I would receive an invitation to a spontaneous blanket party. And I would deserve it.

This is interesting. I'd agree that the answer to the first question - does Karzoug's burning glaive count as being in Karzoug's possession under the arcane bond rules - is yes, because it is still under his effective control. I think the part of the description of dancing special weapon ability that says the activating character is not "armed" while the weapon is dancing applies when determining if the character is threatening an adjacent square, for example.

On the second issue - "The weapon is considered wielded or attended by the activating character for all maneuvers and effects that target items." - I must be reading that differently from Latrecis. I think that's for the character's benefit, because the opponent would not need to roll a CMB check to disarm or steal an unattended weapon, they could just pick it up and walk away. Unattended objects also have to roll separate saving throws against area of effect spells, etc. Making it clear that the dancing weapon is still "wielded or attended" by its owner keeps it from being treated as though it had been abandoned.

I don't know that our interpretations are different - turning the order around to a player's point of view - "So your saying the weapon is still in my possession and can be targeted by combat maneuvers, etc. but not in my possession to be used as an arcane bond item?" I wasn't thinking the weapon was abandoned but rather the interpretation above seemed to be the weapon was only kinda-sorta in the character's possession and the GM was "exploiting" a legal nicety to argue it couldn't be used for an arcane bond. Since the very brief description - "The weapon is considered wielded or attended by the activating character for all maneuvers and effects that target items." - doesn't explicitly say that it can.

I'm probably well outside the RAW corral but I would probably amend the sentence to "The weapon is considered wielded or attended by the activating character." I assume the dancing weapon description is focused on the common use patterns for weapons and melee combat and not on unusual corner cases such as a dancing weapon as an arcane bond item.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Makes sense to me.

Grand Lodge

Thanks everyone. Added issue with Karzoug's claws and attack bonus to the master doc.


The guards in Sandpoint have too many hit points.


Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:
The guards in Sandpoint have too many hit points.

That's already covered in the errata document.

Grand Lodge

Sc8rpi8n_mjd wrote:

Pg. 178 - Lamatar Bayden.

The elite array isn't correctly applied to his mental scores, according to my calculations.

Comparing the scores to those of a standard wight, we get:

Str +4
Dex +4, +2 from adding hit dice (ranger levels)
Int -1 (should be +0)
Wis +1 (should be +2)
Cha +3 (should be +2)

He cannot cast barkskin on himself, because the spell requires a living creature as the touched target. Being an undead, I suppose he is not a valid target.

A couple things. I already mentioned the above corrections in the errata document, but I noticed that after lowering his Charisma from 18 to 17, I forgot to adjust his energy drain DC. That should go from "DC 16" to "DC 15".

Also, it's been well established that his barkskin spell is worthless to him. What's also funny is that even if it could work on him, it would only grant a +2 bonus to natural AC, since an 8th-level ranger is still just CL 5th. Anyway, one person suggested on my errata document to instead change barkskin to ironskin, a spell from the duergar section of Monster Codex. This would work on him, make his AC line correct, and grant an added benefit one-time crit/sneak attack protection. This ends the duration, which is shorter than barkskin's but is still enough for one combat, but you could add a second casting of it to his spells since he needs an extra 2nd-level spell anyway.

Grand Lodge

Strife2002 wrote:
Sc8rpi8n_mjd wrote:

Pg. 178 - Lamatar Bayden.

The elite array isn't correctly applied to his mental scores, according to my calculations.

Comparing the scores to those of a standard wight, we get:

Str +4
Dex +4, +2 from adding hit dice (ranger levels)
Int -1 (should be +0)
Wis +1 (should be +2)
Cha +3 (should be +2)

He cannot cast barkskin on himself, because the spell requires a living creature as the touched target. Being an undead, I suppose he is not a valid target.

A couple things. I already mentioned the above corrections in the errata document, but I noticed that after lowering his Charisma from 18 to 17, I forgot to adjust his energy drain DC. That should go from "DC 16" to "DC 15".

Also, it's been well established that his barkskin spell is worthless to him. What's also funny is that even if it could work on him, it would only grant a +2 bonus to natural AC, since an 8th-level ranger is still just CL 5th. Anyway, one person suggested on my errata document to instead change barkskin to ironskin, a spell from the duergar section of Monster Codex. This would work on him, make his AC line correct, and grant an added benefit one-time crit/sneak attack protection. This ends the duration, which is shorter than barkskin's but is still enough for one combat, but you could add a second casting of it to his spells since he needs an extra 2nd-level spell anyway.

Also, Lamatar's wild empathy bonus should be lowered from "+12" to "+11" with this change to his Charisma.

Grand Lodge

Pg. 180 - Barl Breakbones (cont.)

In the 0-level spells, increase the DC of touch of fatigue from "DC 13" to "DC 15".

Also, in his feats, add "(earth breaker)" to the end his Martial Weapon Proficiency feat.


Pg. 314 - Karivek Vekker

the corrupting touch entry is missing the DC for the fortitude save to halves the DMG. Based on Karivek HD and Charisma should be 22


Pg. 314 - Karivek Vekker

the frightful moan is reported in the tectics section but is missing in the Special Attacks section (also in this case DC should be 22)

Grand Lodge

Thanks! Added to master errata document.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber

For the Lamia-kin, Hungerer, I can't find a duration for its Stench aura. Does anyone know the answer?

Grand Lodge

Jhaeman wrote:
For the Lamia-kin, Hungerer, I can't find a duration for its Stench aura. Does anyone know the answer?

Good catch, it appears to be missing. If it's anything like the original hungerer from the original, 3.5-version of Rise of the Runelords, it'd be 1d4+1 rounds.

Adding this to the master document.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

IIRC, Stench is in the Universal Monster Rules (or whatever they're called) in the Bestiary. There might be a guideline there about duration.. (I'm AFB at the moment.)

Grand Lodge

Bellona wrote:
IIRC, Stench is in the Universal Monster Rules (or whatever they're called) in the Bestiary. There might be a guideline there about duration.. (I'm AFB at the moment.)

There is - it specifically says that the duration will be listed in the monster's entry, unfortunately.


Pg. 335 - Gamigin

The Aura of Ice Devil is not reported, shoudl be:

Aura fear (10 ft., DC 24)

I have modified the DC taking into account the higher charisma of Gamigin

Grand Lodge

Nice. Added to master doc.

601 to 650 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.