I really think consume should have been limited to more like 3+Cha times per day, just so a 7 Cha and a 13 Cha weren't effectively the same. That being said, the Arcanist just transfers from being an Intelligence focused class to being a Charisma focused class.
You play it a bit like a summoner. Choose spells without DCs and only worry about your intelligence up to a level where you can cast your highest level spells. Your charisma may very likely be higher than your intelligence.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
True, but a +4 ioun stone (seekers of secrets) is 'only' 32kIoun stones provide a boost separate from the headband. It's more expensive to begin with, but doesn't increase the cost of future headband upgrades.The 8k enhancement bonus stones don't stack though so you are getting at most +2 for 8ooogp. The stacking ones cost 24k each so your +6 modifier is costing you 72000gp.
However, they are very selective on which Ability score is upgradable beyond +2.
Perks of having the source material:
Advanced Ioun Stones
Most ioun stones use the normal pricing rules for magic items; the major difference is that they all use the ×2 modifier for not using a magic item space on the body. For example, figuring out the price of upgrading a deep red sphere ioun stone from a +2 enhancement bonus to a +4 enhancement bonus is just a matter of using the formula (bonus squared × 1,000 gp × 2), which gives a final price of 32,000 gp; the difference between that and the standard item cost of 8,000 gp is 24,000 gp, so a qualified character with the Craft Wondrous Item feat can upgrade the stone by spending half that amount (12,000 gp) in materials.
Doesn't help in Society play, but it helps.
As I mentioned above, the Occultist now goes away from an Int focus, and thus a DC focus. Forget the headband of intellect and go with a headband of charisma, at least until you can afford the headband of multiples.
So you tank Int (witch gives you more spells and more DC) to get more cha to have more reserve to boost more times per day your DC. Never mind the double dip into having less slot thanks to lower int and having to consume more of them. Seems legit.
The point is that Int is always straight up better than Cha, so the only thing locking some class ability behind the cha wall is accomplishing is having said ability being effectively removed. Because, at the end of the day, the most important class ability of the arcanist is still 9th level arcane casting.
Let me be extremely clear. I think arcanist where powerfull and are still powerfull despite the (probably) warranted nerf. Still, I hold the convinction that this is a bad way of doing it.
|
| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Last time I try to get this clarified, otherwise I am just going to assume this is the way it is meant to work.
Hmm... So Swashbuckler / sleuths get a luck / panache pool = 1x charisma.
Mysterious Stranger / Sleuths get luck / grit pool = 2x charisma
Mysterious Stranger / Swashbucklers panache / grit = 2x charisma.
Is that an oversight?
The grit / panache sidebar says add the two pools together.
The grit / panache / luck sidebar says add grit and luck pool together, but just take the pool once for luck and panache and use it for both classes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Last time I try to get this clarified, otherwise I am just going to assume this is the way it is meant to work.
Hmm... So Swashbuckler / sleuths get a luck / panache pool = 1x charisma.
Mysterious Stranger / Sleuths get luck / grit pool = 2x charisma
Mysterious Stranger / Swashbucklers panache / grit = 2x charisma.
Is that an oversight?
The grit / panache sidebar says add the two pools together.
The grit / panache / luck sidebar says add grit and luck pool together, but just take the pool once for luck and panache and use it for both classes.
Thanks for bringing it up. We'll take a look at things with FAQ clicks or that pertain to the errata like this when we have more time (definitely not now, hoo boy!)
Oh noes, there's a caster that isn't SAD! Whatever shall we do?! Shelf it into abscurity like the Cleric before it, daring to require Charisma AND Wisdom?
Play another class? No... Have less than a 20 in the primary stat? No...
Oh, I know! B^+@# and moan! That solves problems all the time.
I for one am in the "do this to all SAD casters" boat. Have wizards, witches, sorcerers, oracles (holy crap especially oracles) and all the rest have a secondary ability you can live without but that is useful keyed off another attribute.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for bringing it up. We'll take a look at things with FAQ clicks or that pertain to the errata like this when we have more time (definitely not now, hoo boy!)Last time I try to get this clarified, otherwise I am just going to assume this is the way it is meant to work.
Hmm... So Swashbuckler / sleuths get a luck / panache pool = 1x charisma.
Mysterious Stranger / Sleuths get luck / grit pool = 2x charisma
Mysterious Stranger / Swashbucklers panache / grit = 2x charisma.
Is that an oversight?
The grit / panache sidebar says add the two pools together.
The grit / panache / luck sidebar says add grit and luck pool together, but just take the pool once for luck and panache and use it for both classes.
Okay, as long as it is on your radar. (And hopefully it gets addressed before I play my mysterious stranger / swashbuckler / sleuth*, though fortunately, since this is an attribute dependent feature change, I'm assuming if I am wrong it will get a rebuild :) )
*yeah, I am keeping sleuth in the mix for now. no extra pool, but the extra recovery options should make up for it.
|
|
Oh noes, there's a caster that isn't SAD! Whatever shall we do?! Shelf it into abscurity like the Cleric before it, daring to require Charisma AND Wisdom?Clerics don't require Charisma, channel is simply not worth the stat points of investing in it unless you re going down the daze lock route.
Similarly Arcanists still don't need to bother with Charisma. The decent exploits only use 1 point per use, only the Occultist is really shafted by this. The base Arcanist doesn't care.
I have seen some truly awe inspiring clerics in actual play dishing out (or healing, or both) encounter changing amounts of damage through channel. And since it doesn't require casting, it isn't shut down by grapples, doesn't provoke, etc.
There is a Kyle Baird scenario that opens with a fight that most tables take an hour to two hours to deal with. When I ran it a quick channeling holy vindicator wiped the floor with the whole fight in one round. (Which made me happy because it meant I had time for other things in the scenario that are a lot more fun.)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
1) No PRD changes yet (likely after Gen Con).
2) We're still selling the first print run of the book. We'll let you know when that changes, but it hasn't changed yet.
3) We'll likely make a blog post and discuss some of the changes once we're legitimately selling the second printing of the book.
Given the overwhelming desire/demand for errata for this book, I made sure that we posted the errata as soon as possible, not "when the new printing is on sale," as we normally do.
I just want to thank you for getting the errata to us early. It cleared up a lot of issues for me, and not having to wait until the actual printing began was really nice.
Not sure if it's an error, or just a really odd design choice:
The Snakebite Striker archetype for brawler trades away most of it's Maneuver Training levels. Was it intentional or accidental that they kept lv 15?
If you think an average 27 points of healing or damage (with a save for half) is encounter changing at tier 10-11 then I really don't know what to say.
A 10th level cleric channels for 5d6, or 7d6 with phylactery. When healing, that's an average of 3.5 x 5 for 17.5 healing, or 24.5 healing with phylactery.
A 10th level cleric has access to 5th level spells. The most comparable spell available to her is mass cure light wounds, which averages 4.5 + 10 for 14.5 healing.
At 11th level, channeling improves to 21 healing on average, or 28 healing with phylactery. Mass cure moderate wounds heals an average of 9 + 11, for a total of 20 healing.
Channeling to heal in tiers 10-11 stays in stride with comparable mass cure spells (which all require high-level spell slots, effectively adding 3 + Cha spell slots that don't require casting checks and can be used in nearly any situation that out perform actual spell slots in thorough put) and beats them easily if you invest in the proper equipment. And this isn't even factoring in the simple fact that channels have a much higher healing potential. At 11th level, a mass cure moderate wounds spell can heal for a maximum of 26 points of healing while channel energy can hit 36 healing, or 48 with phylactery.
And of course, in the case of both the spell and channeling, you use channel when many people need to be healed, not just one, so multiply all of these values by the number of targets that you are healing. Effective clerics don't use channel energy to heal a single target.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I prefer to make negative energy clerics, grab quicken channel and selective channel, and use it to get two magical attacks in a round.
To me, it's not about what channel can do on it's own; it's the fact that it's action economy with quick channel. In a single round I can cast a spell AND blast in a 30' radius for an energy type that almost nothing except for undead has resistance to (and because they are, I usually have at least one method for taking undead out prepared as a cleric, whether it's a spell or a command undead feat, depending on how I designed my character).
Even if the damage is middling, it's not going to be reduced, it's going to hit a large group if I'm positioned right (which I almost always am, because enemies tend to rush the caster), and it's in addition to already casting a spell.
Furthermore, grappling pretty much shuts down spellcasting, but not channeling. With quick channel you can attempt to escape a grapple and whether you succeed or fail you can still blast them in the same round.
No, channeling isn't necessary for a cleric, but it sure is nice.
I prefer to make negative energy clerics, grab quicken channel and selective channel, and use it to get two magical attacks in a round.
To me, it's not about what channel can do on it's own; it's the fact that it's action economy with quick channel. In a single round I can cast a spell AND blast in a 30' radius for an energy type that almost nothing except for undead has resistance to (and because they are, I usually have at least one method for taking undead out prepared as a cleric, whether it's a spell or a command undead feat, depending on how I designed my character).
Even if the damage is middling, it's not going to be reduced, it's going to hit a large group if I'm positioned right (which I almost always am, because enemies tend to rush the caster), and it's in addition to already casting a spell.
Furthermore, grappling pretty much shuts down spellcasting, but not channeling. With quick channel you can attempt to escape a grapple and whether you succeed or fail you can still blast them in the same round.
No, channeling isn't necessary for a cleric, but it sure is nice.
Channeling is utterly terrible...
Lets say you want to positive channel....
You either do it in combat, in which case you need Selective Channel (feat used) and a minimum CHA of 16, in order to get decent per day useage and selective use. And its also a standard action. SUMMARY - ability score and feat tax.... a huge problem for a class with no bonus feats.
Or you do it outside of combat... pointless since CLW Wands are 2 a penny. SUMMARY - waste of a class ability
Neg channeling..
Similar probs to above with the addition that the DC save is CHA based, its damage output poor and in order to make half effective needs a minimum of 2 extra feats and a CHA of 18+
SUMMARY.... Terrible and a significant reason for many of the probs with playing clerics.
channeling is great in one instance, you're of the undead domain and are higher than 8th level, heal as you damage, THEY WILL LOSE!
I prefer to make negative energy clerics, grab quicken channel and selective channel, and use it to get two magical attacks in a round.
To me, it's not about what channel can do on it's own; it's the fact that it's action economy with quick channel. In a single round I can cast a spell AND blast in a 30' radius for an energy type that almost nothing except for undead has resistance to (and because they are, I usually have at least one method for taking undead out prepared as a cleric, whether it's a spell or a command undead feat, depending on how I designed my character).
Even if the damage is middling, it's not going to be reduced, it's going to hit a large group if I'm positioned right (which I almost always am, because enemies tend to rush the caster), and it's in addition to already casting a spell.
Furthermore, grappling pretty much shuts down spellcasting, but not channeling. With quick channel you can attempt to escape a grapple and whether you succeed or fail you can still blast them in the same round.
No, channeling isn't necessary for a cleric, but it sure is nice.
Channeling is utterly terrible...
Lets say you want to positive channel....
You either do it in combat, in which case you need Selective Channel (feat used) and a minimum CHA of 16, in order to get decent per day useage and selective use. And its also a standard action. SUMMARY - ability score and feat tax.... a huge problem for a class with no bonus feats.
Or you do it outside of combat... pointless since CLW Wands are 2 a penny. SUMMARY - waste of a class ability
Neg channeling..
Similar probs to above with the addition that the DC save is CHA based, its damage output poor and in order to make half effective needs a minimum of 2 extra feats and a CHA of 18+
SUMMARY.... Terrible and a significant reason for many of the probs with playing clerics.
Did you even read what I said?
You don't take it independently with quick channel. It's a rider. It's a bonus. It's extra.By your logic, power attack sucks because the bonus damage you get by itself is not that much. You're not allowed to count the damage a weapon normally does, or a person's strength score when evaluating it. Nope, all it ever does is that +1/2/3 scale, right?
Even if the damage is middling, you tag it onto extra stuff. I fail to see how that's not similar to boosting CL for +1d6 on a spell. Even if they make their save for half damage, it's a more than 1d6 on most enemies.
Okay so you're saying that you take 2 feats and have a high enough charisma to make use of it. cha 12 lets you do that 2 times a day, a 16 lets you do it 3. If you take a third feat you can do it 4 times a day.
So I take 2 feats to use it twice a day, that's not really extra nor a bonus it's a small effect from two feats.
Power attack is some damage that adds to every swing all the day. So yes, you don't evaluate it based off of weapons damage or a person's str since those aren't part of the feat.
Boosting CL for +1d6 isn't that great of a thing to go for alone. If you have +2 per d6 then it's a bit better of an option.
You realise that Clerics get Freedom of Movement as a spell and that it lasts 10 minutes per level. Every caster wants an answer to grappling. That answer is never likely to be "invest lots of resources in sub par channelling".
At 9th level. Halfway through a year long AP. Longer than most characters live.
Yeah. I realize that.
Anyway, the thing that spawned this conversation was that clerics need to be MAD to access their secondary ability, so it's not a big deal for Arcanists to have to...and in fact I think all casters should have to have such a caveat, to keep them closer to martials.
At 9th level. Halfway through a year long AP. Longer than most characters live.You mean at 7th.
Meh. Too lazy to look it up. Assumed it was 5th. Yeah, that's a bit more viable.
Anyway, my original point remains.
|
Channeling has its uses. At low levels, the AoE or reach healing can be useful. Even at mid levels AoE healing is sometimes very useful (generally when AOE attacks are hitting the squishies).
At level 7 (assuming a Phylactery) channeled revival is VERY nice. You're getting a ranged Breath of Life 2 levels earlier than a non ranged version is available. I know that my PFS cleric saved 2 characters at level 7 and 8, once fairly likely stopping a near TPK.
Its certainly not wonderful or fantastic. But its considerably better than worthless garbage. Its probably worth the investment for a caster cleric as they can afford the feats and ability points.
|
You realise that Clerics get Freedom of Movement as a spell and that it lasts 10 minutes per level. Every caster wants an answer to grappling. That answer is never likely to be "invest lots of resources in sub par channelling".At 9th level. Halfway through a year long AP. Longer than most characters live.
Yeah. I realize that.
Anyway, the thing that spawned this conversation was that clerics need to be MAD to access their secondary ability, so it's not a big deal for Arcanists to have to...and in fact I think all casters should have to have such a caveat, to keep them closer to martials.
You mean more classes should have class features that you can pretty much ignore because it's not worth the investment to make them useful? Cause that's probably what's going to happen if you start making every 9th level caster need a secondary mental stat. 9th level casters have spells that are strong enough that you usually don't need anything else, and often having those spells fail is the worst thing that can happen to them, hence the focus on a high casting stat.
It would be nice if the game worked differently, but it doesn't.
Channeling is a terrible mish-mash
People forget....It needs a COMBINATION of feats, ability score points and action economy to even be half viable. It just isnt worth it for even a caster cleric IMO.... bearing in mind that clerics get zero bonus feats
For a caster cleric you're better off going with a CHA 8 to start with (and then getting a +2 CHA from an Ioun Stone) to give you an emergency source of quick n cheap party healing.
Feats for a caster cleric need to be used on boosting initiative, raising DC/CL and probably Craft Wonderous.... NOT on feats for terribly inefficient class skills.
If Paizo really wanted to improve the situation and open up clerics a bit, either make channeling key off WIS or go clerics 2 free channel feats at say 6th and 12th....
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hi, can we take the discussion of pros/cons of Cleric Channeling to another thread?
This thread is for discussing potential errors in ACG.
The text for the spell sage Spell study ability reads: "Casting the spell requires the spell sage to spend 1 full round per spell level of the desired spell ... For example, if a spell sage wants to use spell study to cast cure light wounds (cleric spell level 1st), he must spend 2 full rounds casting..."
The example contradicts the rule. Which is intended, 1 full round per spell level (rule) or 2X full rounds per spell level (example)?
|
|
Pg. 34 - Investigator's studied combat ability
Studied combat says it grants "an insight bonus on melee attack rolls and as a bonus on damage rolls". Only the attack roll was specified as melee-only; the damage roll wasn't specified and could be interpreted as also eligible with a ranged attack. Not sure if this was the intent or not.
In speaking of which, it was mentioned earlier, but the Steel Hound archetype for the investigator doesn't have any alteration for studied combat to be usable with ranged weapons. Not sure if this was intentional, either.
|
|
Pgs. 141 (table entry) & 153 (description) - Pack Flanking feat
Of the three teamwork feats that specifically call out "companion creatures" (which this feat specifically uses the term for these creatures in the benefits paragraph), this one is the only one that specifically uses only "animal companion" in the prerequisites, and not "eidolon" and "special mount," also (when I don't see any reason why it shouldn't have).
The other two feats also mention familiars as eligible...however...
|
|
Pgs. 140 & 141 (table entries); 150 & 156 (descriptions) - Improved Spell Sharing and Share Healing feats
These two feats include familiars in the list of creatures to be considered companion creatures that are intended to be used with these feats. The problem with this is that familiars don't actually ever gain feats, since technically they never increase in HD.
There are only three possible ways I know of that a familiar could have access to these feats (and possibly one or two of them would be house rules):
1) A GM allows a familiar's master to utilize the rules in Ultimate Campaign for retraining his familiar's feat it started with (I use singular, since not including possible bonus feats, a familiar's base creature doesn't start with more than 2 HD and would therefore only have its 1 HD feat). A master with the Improved Familiar feat would obviously have more feats to retrain.
2) A spellcaster chooses a vermin familiar, which loses the mindless trait and therefore by the rules would have an open feat slot for being at least 1 HD with an Int score. Since this is now a blank feat slot, a GM might allow one of these feats (although in one of my games I probably wouldn't allow this, and would ask the familiar's master to instead choose a feat from the list of animal-appropriate feats mentioned in the Druid's description).
3) (the legal one) A familiar takes the valet familiar archetype found in Animal Archive, which grants the teammate ability (familiar is considered to have all teamwork feats the master has).
EDIT: I made this post before i read SKR's post on page 5 regarding these two feats, and he's correct. Technically a familiar would also gain these feats when an allied cavalier uses the tactician ability, not to mention an existing or future archetype could also grant such an ability.
|
|
"We want dex to damage"
"But that will wreak mechanical havoc on the system. Look, I know it's not perfectly balanced, but a big deal is how for melee strength is used for d amage and dex for AC...and most skills...and ranged attacks. It really puts too much on one attribute to do dex based damage. We gave you a feat for accuracy. Isn't that enough?"
"My precious concept needs to be exactly as viable as all others! Gimme! Don't care about anything but my CONCEPT!"
"Here. Dervish dance. Dex to damage and accuracy, and a pretty easy prerequisite. Shut up now."
"Waaah, it's only one weapon!"
"Ugh, geeze, fine, here, slashing grace. Can you please shut up now?"
"Rapiers make more sense than battleaxes, though."
"Okay, good point. Here. Fencing grace. Now you can choose from like a quarter of the weapons in the game between these three feats. Surely that should keep you happy. Right?"
"Feat tax! Scandalous! What about blunt weapons? We want EVERYTHING!"
"But if everything is dex-able, there will be no point to 1-handing anything with strength."
"Don't care. Concept before all, even game balancing mechanics. Also...light weapons with slashing grace?"
"Ooh, good catch on slashing grace. Let's change that so it says light instead. Makes more sense. Also, here's a new rogue that can dex to damage just about anything that makes sense. Sound good?"
"I DON'T WANT TO PLAY A ROGUE! NOW I CAN'T USE A SMALL SUBSET OF SLASHING WEAPONS THAT ARE OBSCURE!! I HATE YOU!!"
*sigh*
Thank you. I actually laughed out loud.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alright! I'm a little late to the party, but it took me about 7 days to get through all 22 pages of this thread and compare it to the ACG errata. The following is a compilation of what we believe to be errors in one way or another that the errata maybe missed. As usual, I'm working from a print copy of the book, so if you're using a PDF and notice I mentioned something already fixed, then we have ourselves one of those hard-to-find errors that was fixed in the 2nd printing that didn't get mentioned in the errata document. Also, if think I missed something, just point it out to me. I left out basic typos (unless they could potentially affect the rules or confuse someone), and anything I saw that I didn't feel was actually erroneous.
Pg. 34 - {POSSIBLY NOT AN ERROR; CLARIFICATION REQUESTED} Studied combat specifically only says it grants a "bonus on melee attack rolls and a bonus on damage rolls". Only the attack roll is being called out as melee-specific; as written ranged attacks would gain a bonus to damage using this. Unclear if this was intentional.
Pg. 41 - Life spirit, spirit magic spells, change "naturalize poison" to "neutralize poison".
Pg. 46 - Waves spirit (from previous page), wave strike ability, second sentence, change "every 2 shaman levels they possess" to "every 2 shaman levels the shaman possesses". As written the ability deals greater damage based on how many levels of shaman THE TARGET HAS.
Pg. 51 - Versatile performance ability, last sentence, change "bard" to "skald".
Pg. 59 - Dizzying defense deed; This is ability is very strange. It says you spend a panache point to take the fighting defensively action as a swift action instead of a standard action. The Core Rulebook lists fighting defensively twice: once as a standard action, the other as a full-round action. The former is intended to be used as a single attack, the latter just describes what you do when using it in a full-attack action. Honestly the Core Rulebook made things harder than they needed to be, and should probably have just made fighting defensively something you apply to all of your attacks in a round, should you choose to use it.
In any case, it's strange for the following reasons:
1) A swift action? Since this is done as an attack action, is this saying you get an extra attack as a swift action? Otherwise it doesn't do anything other than the bonus and penalty changes.
2) It only called out the standard-attack version of fighting defensively. Does this mean you can't use this as part of a full-attack action?
3) Dodge bonuses to AC stack, so is it safe to assume this becomes a +5 bonus when combined with 3 ranks in Acrobatics?
Pg. 65 - Earth blessing's header is stuck on the end of the previous blessing's major ability. It needs a line break and a font and size change.
Pg. 69 - Elves, arcanist favored class ability grants a full point to their the arcane reservoir ability every level it's taken. Meanwhile, gnome arcanists only gain 1/6th of a point every level. This discrepancy is unprecedented.
Pg. 70 - As described above, gnome arcanists only gain a 1/6th of a new arcane reservoir point every level they take this bonus, while elves on the previous page gain a full point every level.
Pg. 87 - {NOT AN ERROR} Not technically a mechanical error, but worth mentioning for a GM or player who may not be looking too closely. Champion Defense is gained at a later level than Returning Shield, yet is listed first in this archetype's description.
Pg. 88 - {POSSIBLY NOT AN ERROR} Strangler archetype, strangle ability replaces unarmed strike, which removes the bonus feat of Improved Unarmed Strike brawlers typically receive. Because of this, it creates an inevitable feat tax when trying to acquire the essential Improved Grapple.
Pg. 90 - Order of the beast shares the same name as another cavalier order found in Inner Sea Combat.
Pg. 90 - {POSSIBLY NOT AN ERROR} Daring champion archetype, panache and deeds ability grants access to precise strike. Considering this archetype still gets the challenge ability, you're looking at a situation that's either potentially confusing or potentially unbalanced when it comes to the question of whether the character can combine these abilities (and essentially gain double their level in extra damage).
Pg. 95 - Divine Hunter archetype, domain ability, second paragraph, in the first sentence, change "the animal domain" to "a domain that grants an animal companion". This covers other domains that grant such features, like Scalykind.
Pg. 99 - {POSSIBLY NOT AN ERROR} Sacred Huntsmaster doesn't grant Handle Animal as a class skill, which is thematically strange.
Pg. 103 - {POSSIBLY NOT AN ERROR} Steel hound archetype doesn't change anything about studied combat that would allow it to be applicable to ranged weapons. Unclear if this was intentional. Additionally, the talented shot ability's wording is unclear if the steel hound may ONLY select a gunslinger deed at 11th level, or if they may select a gunslinger deed WHENEVER they can select an investigator talent from then on.
Pg. 104 - Eldritch scion archetype; several issues:
1) It's an archetype that changes the magus into a spontaneous caster, but doesn't replace the spell recall, improved spell recall, or greater spell access abilities.
2) There's no particular mention of how metamagic feats work for this caster, if at all. Because of the swap to spontaneous casting, applied metamagic feats increase the casting time of a standard-action spell into a full-round action, leaving them ineligible to be used for spell combat. You could still pull it off using the Start/Complete Full-Round Action standard action listed in the Combat rules of the Core Rulebook, I suppose.
3) The bonus spells ability doesn't quite math-out correctly. It says at 7th level you gain the 10th-level bonus spell of the bloodrager (essentially skipping past the 7th-level bonus spell of the bloodrager). Then it says you gain the next three bonus spells from his bloodline at 9th, 11th, and 13th levels, respectively. This doesn't make sense since we're skipping the first spell, and there's only 2 spells remaining to gain, not 3.
Pg. 118 - {POSSIBLY NOT AN ERROR} Bounty hunter archetype, dirty trick ability; Pathfinder is typically good about avoiding this, but this archetype causes the slayer to have a dead 2nd level. It grants an ability at 2nd level (dirty trick) that can't actually be used until 3rd level when it has sneak attack dice to spend.
Pg. 122 - Mongrel mage archetype, mongrel reservoir ability, 5th paragraph mentions replacing 7th-level bloodline ability of the sorcerer, but sorcerer's don't gain a bloodline ability at this level. The closest relevant level is 9th.
Pg. 130 - Sacred fist archetype (from previous page), class skills; Sense Motive listed twice.
Pg. 133 - Spell sage archetype, spell study ability, first paragraph, last sentence gives an example of how spell study works that doesn't match up with the rules for spell study. It uses cure light wounds as an example and says it'd take the spell sage 2 full rounds to cast when it would only take 1 full round. If you wanted to use a 1st-level spell that would make its example accurate (as far as casting time), you could instead replace "cure light wounds" with "summon nature's ally I".
Pg. 137 - Draining Strike table entry; add an asterisk to the end of this feat's name, categorizing it as a combat feat (as per its description).
Pg. 139 - Merciless butchery table entry; change the benefits section to "Gain know direction as a constant spell-like ability and use one other druid orison ounce per day." In Greater Skald's Vigor table entry; in the prerequisites column change "Perform (song)" to "Perform (sing)". In Stalker's Focus feat; in the prerequisites column, change "no ranks in a class" to "no levels in a class".
Pg. 141 - {POSSIBLY NOT AN ERROR} Pack Flanking feat; prerequisites column mentions animal companions, but unlike Share Healing and Improved Spell Sharing, doesn't mention eidolons, familiar's, or special mounts. Unclear if this was intentional. Also, as stated in the FAQ, this feat should have an asterisk after its name denoting it's a combat feat.
Pg. 145 - Dueling Cape Deed feat, prerequisites; the errata changed this for the table entry, but didn't mention it for the feat ability. Change the prerequisites line to "Amateur swashbuckler or panache class feature, Dodge, Sleight of Hand 1 rank."
Pg. 153 - {POSSIBLY NOT AN ERROR} Pack Flanking feat; as mentioned previously on page 141. Also, change it's header to "Pack Flanking (Combat, Teamwork)".
Pg. 177 - Climbing beanstalk spell is missing a saving throw and spell resistance entry. It's probably "None" and "No", respectively.
Pg. 181 - Familiar double spell should probably get the shadow descriptor, as it's based off of project image.
Pg. 182 - {POSSIBLY NOT AN ERROR} Focused scrutiny spell; the bonuses listed in this spell are untyped. Given it's a divination spell, they're probably insight bonuses.
Pg. 195 - {POSSIBLY NOT AN ERROR} Stunning barrier, greater spell; this spell leaves out much of its stats because it uses the stunning barrier spell as a base. It does, however, mention a duration that is identical to its standard version. This is noteworthy since the description says the spell fuctions as stunning barrier, except as noted above" as well as providing a +2 bonus to AC and saves. Based on this wording, it sounds like its duration should have been longer.
Pg. 198 - Wall of blindness/deafness spell; this spell needs the curse descriptor like its standard counterpart.
Pg. 204 - {POSSIBLY NOT AN ERROR} Investigator's kit; this kit should maybe have come with a set of thieves' tools.
Pg. 207 - Table 5-3: Alchemical Tools should probably mention the holy weapon balm from page 209, since it's not technically an alchemical weapon itself, as it functions similarly to the weapon blanche items from Ultimate Equipment which are Alchemical tools.
Pg. 208 - Dust knuckles; a couple issues:
1) What kind of poison can be placed in the vials? Is it like standard weapons where contact and injury poison can be used only?
2) It should probably mention somewhere that the price of the poison gets added to the price of the vials.
Pg. 220 - Table 5-9: Rods; the rod of potent hexes, the rod of voracious hexes, and the rod of abrupt hexes have had their prices changed in the errata and therefore are in different item categories. The rod of voracious hexes is now in the Lesser Major Rods category while the rod of potent hexes and the rod of abrupt hexes are now Greater Major Rods.
Pg. 222 - Table 5-11: Wondrous Items, greater minor wondrous items; one-way window listed twice.
Pg. 226 - Belt of superior maneuvers, in the cost for a +4 belt of superior maneuvers, change "16,00 GP" to "16,000 GP".
Pg. 232 - One-Way Window wondrous item got a price change in the errata, but didn't mention cost. Change cost from "2,000 GP" to "3,750 GP".
Pg. 236 - Swordmaster's flair wondrous item, as per the FAQ, this item should have the following sentence somewhere in its description:
"Carrying a swordmaster's flair counts as having that hand free for the purpose of abilities that require a free hand, though you still can't hold another object in that hand."
The Dizzying Defense thing is absolutely obscure.
Minor nit:
The Animal Soul feat was errata'd to read:
Benefit: You can choose not to allow spells and effects to effect you if they would not be capable of affecting both your original creature type
and the animal creature type.
Shouldn't that be: "You can choose not to allow spells and effects to affect you... " ?