Pathfinder Unchained Potential Errors


Product Discussion

51 to 100 of 141 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

djones wrote:

"Unchained Rogue has access to Ninja tricks (through the Ninja Trick talent), but can no longer take the Ki Pool Rogue talent"

Still waiting on the 29th for my PDF, can you elaborate on why Ki Pool is no longer available for the Unchained Rogue?

There's a sidebar that covers which Talents are unmodified/usable with the Unchained Rogue, and Ki Pool isn't on the list.


Arrius wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Which is a question for the CRB, not Unchained (incidentally, my take is that it's opposed to other people's Perception, which is why there isn't a set DC; you always get your weapon out). It wouldn't be under the skill if it didn't require a check.

Strangely, palming an item (weapon included, I suppose) already has a DC, with one able to substitute the DC with an opposed Perception if willing.

Could it be this carryover (and the skill trick) mean that Pathfinder originally intended to allow Sleight of Hand to draw out weapons quicker than normal?
A skill substitute to Quick Draw, in other words?

Note that the DCs in the CRB are for the action of hiding a weapon on your person. The line about drawing the weapon just tells you what kind of action it is. There is no skill check for drawing the weapon. which makes sense.


Wu Nakitu wrote:
djones wrote:

"Unchained Rogue has access to Ninja tricks (through the Ninja Trick talent), but can no longer take the Ki Pool Rogue talent"

Still waiting on the 29th for my PDF, can you elaborate on why Ki Pool is no longer available for the Unchained Rogue?

There's a sidebar that covers which Talents are unmodified/usable with the Unchained Rogue, and Ki Pool isn't on the list.

I'm willing to bet that's not a mistake.

The Unchained Rogue already full-out replaces the original Rogue.

Give it a Ki Pool like the Ninja, and there may have been concern that it ALSO would obsolete the Ninja.

I'm fine with the Ki Pool thing being a Ninja-Only trick - it helps further differentiate the class and keep it a legitimate option.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

The Acrobatics Skill in the Skill Unlocks section.

Under the "10 Ranks" level, the rules for intentional and unintentional falls appear to be identical. I assume the intentional fall should be somehow better than the unintentional one...?


Rushley son of Halum wrote:
Xethik wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:
Natural Armor stacks....
As Scavion said, natural armor does not stack. However, enhancement bonus to natural armor stacks with enhancement bonus to AC directly.
Some very specific sources of natural armor do specifically say they stack. Either bark skin or the alchemist mutagen, i'm not totally sure.

Those are not actually Natural Armor bonuses, they're an Enhancement bonus or Alchemical bonus to Natural Armor. This works identically to, say, Magic Vestments on a suit of masterwork fullplate.

The only Natural Armor that I'm aware of that explicitly stacks is on the Dragon Disciple.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
chbgraphicarts wrote:
Wu Nakitu wrote:
djones wrote:

"Unchained Rogue has access to Ninja tricks (through the Ninja Trick talent), but can no longer take the Ki Pool Rogue talent"

Still waiting on the 29th for my PDF, can you elaborate on why Ki Pool is no longer available for the Unchained Rogue?

There's a sidebar that covers which Talents are unmodified/usable with the Unchained Rogue, and Ki Pool isn't on the list.

I'm willing to bet that's not a mistake.

The Unchained Rogue already full-out replaces the original Rogue.

Give it a Ki Pool like the Ninja, and there may have been concern that it ALSO would obsolete the Ninja.

I'm fine with the Ki Pool thing being a Ninja-Only trick - it helps further differentiate the class and keep it a legitimate option.

You may be right, but for my money, I'll take the Unchained Ninja!!!

Silver Crusade

Cannon error:

Page 100, second column, under cleric: "...the neutral good deity Iomedae...". She's lawful good, right?


She is. They probably meant sarenrae

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
Which is a question for the CRB, not Unchained (incidentally, my take is that it's opposed to other people's Perception, which is why there isn't a set DC; you always get your weapon out). It wouldn't be under the skill if it didn't require a check.

my current unchained rogue in a local home campaign set in Nirmathas is built to draw concealed daggers quickly. I took the always threatening trait, weapon focus daggers and quick draw in order to draw concealed daggers as a free action... please let me know if there's now a more efficient way to do this

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

p. 10 Crippling Blow - this deals 1 point of ability damage and increases by 1 point for every 4 levels the barbarian has. However, you need to be 8th level to select this rage power. So, at 8th level does it do 3 points, plus 1 for every 4 levels above 8th (max 6 points at 20th level), or is it supposed to do 1 point at 8th plus 1 for every 4 levels above 8th (Max 4 points at 20th level).

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

p. 17 Ki Guardian - does this happen automatically? Does the ally have to be willing? If they aren't, do they get a save to use their own saving throw if they prefer? Admittedly, this might not come up often, since table talk should allow a player to say "don't include me, I have a better save, or a reason I want to suffer the full effects (like absorbing damage or whatnot)" but it's weird that it forces an ally to use the monk's save even if they don't want to. I can't think of another power that does this (unless it also lets the ally use their save if the monk's fails).

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

p. 19 foot stomp - does this work on creatures of any size? There's no save, nor CMB check to apply it to a foe, unlike the other style strikes, and it seems a bit odd that a monk could foot stomp a Colossal dragon or whatever and pin it in place, forcing them to use a standard action to break free.


JoelF847 wrote:
p. 10 Crippling Blow - this deals 1 point of ability damage and increases by 1 point for every 4 levels the barbarian has. However, you need to be 8th level to select this rage power. So, at 8th level does it do 3 points, plus 1 for every 4 levels above 8th (max 6 points at 20th level), or is it supposed to do 1 point at 8th plus 1 for every 4 levels above 8th (Max 4 points at 20th level).

Seems pretty straight-forward that it deals 3 and then grows from there.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

P. 123, the Improved Feint combat trick lets you spend stamina to feint as a move action, which is what Improved Feint does.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Ross Byers wrote:
Credits page wrote:

Authors • Dennis Baker, Jesse Benner, Ross Beyers, Logan Bonner, Jason Bulmahn, Robert Emerson, Tim Hitchcock, Jason Nelson,

Tom Phillips, Stephen Radney-MacFarland, Thomas M. Reid, Robert Schwalb, Mark Seifter, and Russ Taylor
*Ahem*

Oops

The Exchange

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
JonathonWilder wrote:
Ah, okay... well I just hope there isn't many errors, since I am really looking forward to Pathfinder Unchained being a success.

Me too

The Exchange

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
sowhereaminow wrote:

Cannon error:

Page 100, second column, under cleric: "...the neutral good deity Iomedae...". She's lawful good, right?

.

Yes she is LG. Sarenrae is NG.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I am loving the threads. This tells me as a GM and player that this book will be a good buy.


Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

In, the revised action economy, I wonder if it is an error or an intentional change that you can no longer draw a weapon as a free action on a move if you have a base attack bonus of +1 or more. You can, however, still do that on a charge, and also you can still ready a shield as a free action on a move with a base attack bonus of +1 or more. The fact that these remain leads me to believe that leaving out that clause from the draw or sheathe a weapon action is in error.


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

It looks deliberate. A character with +0 BAB drawing a weapon does not provoke opportunity attacks in the standard system, but apparenly it does in the revised action system.


There are two different versions of Uncanny Dodge, the Barbarian loses his Dex bonus against invisible opponents but the Rogue does not.

Is this an error?

And if its not, it is very confusing to have the same ability (same name) but do different things.

A clarification would be most helpful, I will be using an Unchained Barbarian (as a cohort) in my current campaign, and ATM I am looking at house ruling it to match the Rogue's Uncanny Dodge.

RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32

18 people marked this as a favorite.

A typo on page 194 refers to a 50-page section of rules as "simple."

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Morzadian wrote:

There are two different versions of Uncanny Dodge, the Barbarian loses his Dex bonus against invisible opponents but the Rogue does not.

Is this an error?

And if its not, it is very confusing to have the same ability (same name) but do different things.

A clarification would be most helpful, I will be using an Unchained Barbarian (as a cohort) in my current campaign, and ATM I am looking at house ruling it to match the Rogue's Uncanny Dodge.

They do appear to be different. Barbarians retain Dex while immobilized, while rogues do not. And rogues retain Dex vs. invisible opponents, but barbarians do not.


Shisumo wrote:

The Acrobatics Skill in the Skill Unlocks section.

Under the "10 Ranks" level, the rules for intentional and unintentional falls appear to be identical. I assume the intentional fall should be somehow better than the unintentional one...?

read carefully.

There is a 10ft. difference between intentional and unintentional falls.

Paizo Employee Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thanks everyone, and keep 'em coming guys! It looks like there are relatively few errors so far, which is excellent, and I'll catalogue the ones you guys find to make it super-easy for us to resolve them.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

In the alternate crafting rules, on page 76, the text refers to "crafting cost per pound", yet I can't find any mention of it on the table or elsewhere. Is this an error, or have I just missed something?

Liberty's Edge

On p.13, under the 'Unmodified Rage Powers' section, in addition to the Ultimate Combat section being labeled Ultimate Campaign (which got mentioned previously), it lists Sunder Enchantment as a power that may be used unaltered. Sunder Enchantment has Spell Sunder as a prerequisite...and Spell Sunder is not listed either among the unmodified or new Rage Powers.

So...either Spell Sunder should be on the list, or there should be a note that powers on the list with prerequisites not on it don't need them.

Silver Crusade

Several actions in the revised action economy section have the 'Combat' subtype (Drag, Dirty Trick, etc.), but that sub type isn't described anywhere. Are those supposed to have the 'Attack' subtype?


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

I think there's something wrong with Improved Feint's Stamina entry:

Improved Feint, normal wrote:

Prerequisites: Int 13, Combat Expertise.

Benefit: You can make a Bluff check to feint in combat as a move action.

Normal: Feinting in combat is a standard action.

Improved Feint, Stamina wrote:
You can select this feat even if you don't meet the Ability score prerequisite (Intelligence 13). You gain the benefit of the feat only as long as you have at least 1 Stamina point in your stamina pool. You can spend 5 stamina points to feint as a move action.

WHY would you spend 5 Stamina to do something that the basic feat already does?

Was this supposed to be "as a Swift Action" or something?

Because if not, this Stamina ability is pretty much absolutely worthless except for removing the Int requirement.

Dark Archive

Perhaps they meant "you can feint without making a Bluff check and automatically succeed" but the swift action reading is more likely.

Wu Nakitu wrote:
djones wrote:

"Unchained Rogue has access to Ninja tricks (through the Ninja Trick talent), but can no longer take the Ki Pool Rogue talent"

Still waiting on the 29th for my PDF, can you elaborate on why Ki Pool is no longer available for the Unchained Rogue?

There's a sidebar that covers which Talents are unmodified/usable with the Unchained Rogue, and Ki Pool isn't on the list.

Shouldn't that sidebar only apply to PFS though? Per RAW, "ki pool" is a rogue talent, so at the very least you should be able to grab it with Extra Rogue Talent.


Agathion eidolons are missing the ability to select a few animal themed evolutions: Mount and Trip. Also, they should be able to select the Serpentine base form since the Draconal Agathion has a serpentine form. Of course, if this form were added then Agathions should also be able to take the following evolutions: Poison and Constrict.


I noticed something which I think might be an error in the Template Graft section of the Unchained Monster Builder. The quick template rules for graveknights gives them a +2 to AC, a +4 to touch, and a -6 to flat-footed AC

This seems kind of strange to me, seeing as graveknights get a +4 natural armor bonus with their usual template, and are heavily armored in any case.

I'm still familiarizing myself with the grafts, so if someone knows why this is right I'd love to know. Otherwise it might be worth looking into.


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

In the Automatic Bonus Progression section, the table provides improvements to Mental Prowess and Physical Prowess at 18th level, but the corresponding text sections stop at 17th level and do not have sentences for 18th level.

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

p 187 Sign From the Gods magic item creation challenge. What does it mean when critical failure is just "-". Shouldn't it be worse than a normal failure of 1 flaw?

Paizo Employee Designer

JoelF847 wrote:
p 187 Sign From the Gods magic item creation challenge. What does it mean when critical failure is just "-". Shouldn't it be worse than a normal failure of 1 flaw?

You can't get a critical failure because you can't fail to donate to the faith if you try it.

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

Mark Seifter wrote:
JoelF847 wrote:
p 187 Sign From the Gods magic item creation challenge. What does it mean when critical failure is just "-". Shouldn't it be worse than a normal failure of 1 flaw?
You can't get a critical failure because you can't fail to donate to the faith if you try it.

I guess if you stay fully within the sub-system, that's true, so I see your point. There could be corner cases though where the PCs don't have as much wealth as they think, and try to donate counterfeit money to the faith and therefore fail. It shouldn't be hard to adjudicate a critical failure though should one happen.

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

Found a few editing/typo errors:

p. 197 in CR, AC, Saving Throws, CMD, hp, and DCs section, 4th sentence
"you can swap one save with another to better suits your monster" should be "suit" not "suits"

p. 199 in Untouchable theme "the untouchable can't be phased by most attacks." It should be "fazed", as disconcerted, rather than "phased" as in partially in the ethereal plane.


On VMC:

It says Witch and Oracle VMC users cannot pick Extra Hex and Extra Revelation as feats specifically.

Can Magus VMC users pick Extra Arcana? Can Barbarian VMC users pick Extra Rage Power?

How about Extra Arcane Pool? How about Extra Rage?


Secret Wizard wrote:

On VMC:

It says Witch and Oracle VMC users cannot pick Extra Hex and Extra Revelation as feats specifically.

Can Magus VMC users pick Extra Arcana? Can Barbarian VMC users pick Extra Rage Power?

How about Extra Arcane Pool? How about Extra Rage?

That's not really an error. Pazio just decided there were balance and/or logistic issues with that (presumably related to the effective Witch/Oracle level of those). They've done that before with the Primalist, but the Primalist's existence doesn't mean that every archetype that grants Hexes needs to say "you can take Extra Hex". Those two are creating a specific rule that doesn't affect or override the general.


kestral287 wrote:


That's not really an error. Pazio just decided there were balance and/or logistic issues with that (presumably related to the effective Witch/Oracle level of those). They've done that before with the Primalist, but the Primalist's existence doesn't mean that every archetype that grants Hexes needs to say "you can take Extra Hex". Those two are creating a specific rule that doesn't affect or override the general.

Perhaps with Witch, but not at all with Oracle.

Oracles just get a -6 modifier on their effective level. Barbarians get a 1/2 HD progression. Both get stunted qualification requirements, but only the Oracle is forbidden from taking Extra Revelation explicitly.

I think there's enough grounds for both things to be possible.


Secret Wizard wrote:
kestral287 wrote:


That's not really an error. Pazio just decided there were balance and/or logistic issues with that (presumably related to the effective Witch/Oracle level of those). They've done that before with the Primalist, but the Primalist's existence doesn't mean that every archetype that grants Hexes needs to say "you can take Extra Hex". Those two are creating a specific rule that doesn't affect or override the general.

Perhaps with Witch, but not at all with Oracle.

Oracles just get a -6 modifier on their effective level. Barbarians get a 1/2 HD progression. Both get stunted qualification requirements, but only the Oracle is forbidden from taking Extra Revelation explicitly.

I think there's enough grounds for both things to be possible.

The major difference is that Hexes, Rage Powers, Arcanas, etc. are all one-and-done; you get them, and they have an effect which doesn't get better.

With Revelations, on the other hand, many of them grow in power over time.

Looking at the Battle Mystery alone, Resiliency makes you immune to the Staggered condition when at 0 HP, the Diehard feat at Oracle 7, and at lv11, lets you make a Standard Action without bleeding out.

Weapon Mastery gives you 3! Feats for one Revelation over time - Weapon Focus, Improved Critical, and Greater Weapon Focus.

Then, of course, Skill At Arms gives you proficiency with all Martial Weapons and with Heavy Armor. I can imagine a few Clerics who would kill to get that at lv3 without mucking up their spellcasting progression by even a level.

---

Basically, Revelations are much nicer than so many other choice-based class options, it makes some sense to not allow players simply VMCing Oracle to not gain more than what they're allotted.


Improved Natural Armor (Ex): wrote:
The eidolon’s hide grows thick fur, rigid scales, or bony plates, giving it a +2 bonus to its natural armor. This evolution can be taken once, plus one additional time for every 5 levels the summoner possesses. Each additional time it’s taken, the bonus increases by 2.

I don't remember this distinction ever being misinterpreted when this line was not present; I can almost guarantee it will be misinterpreted now with its inclusion.


Archaeik wrote:
Improved Natural Armor (Ex): wrote:
The eidolon’s hide grows thick fur, rigid scales, or bony plates, giving it a +2 bonus to its natural armor. This evolution can be taken once, plus one additional time for every 5 levels the summoner possesses. Each additional time it’s taken, the bonus increases by 2.
I don't remember this distinction ever being misinterpreted when this line was not present; I can almost guarantee it will be misinterpreted now with its inclusion.

Actually its the same result either way. Natural armor bonuses don't stack, so... if you increase this to a +4 bonus or make it +2 and +4, you still get +4.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Secret Wizard wrote:
Archaeik wrote:
Improved Natural Armor (Ex): wrote:
The eidolon’s hide grows thick fur, rigid scales, or bony plates, giving it a +2 bonus to its natural armor. This evolution can be taken once, plus one additional time for every 5 levels the summoner possesses. Each additional time it’s taken, the bonus increases by 2.
I don't remember this distinction ever being misinterpreted when this line was not present; I can almost guarantee it will be misinterpreted now with its inclusion.
Actually its the same result either way. Natural armor bonuses don't stack, so... if you increase this to a +4 bonus or make it +2 and +4, you still get +4.

Hm. I think your logic is flawed. If it isn't, then if the bonuses are +2 and +2, then the second (and third, etc) such bonuses have no effect at all.

I think the intent was to say "each time after the first that you take this feat, 2 is added to the bonus to natural armor". So it will be +2 the first time, +4 the second, and so on. If that is the intent, it might have been better if they'd just said that, instead of being unclear.


They should have just made it a racial bonus to NA and been done with it.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The VMC information on the Oracle is missing the Oracle mysteries from Ultimate Magic.

It really bugs the hell out of me when something like that occurs. Particularly when in the same rulebook (PU), the section on Stamina Pool and combat tricks managed to track down every Combat feat in the entire rulebook line. (Kudos to whoever did that mountain of work, by the way!)

On an almost unrelated tangent: similarly, the wild-blooded Sorcerer archetypes in Ultimate Magic do not cover the new Sorcerer bloodlines in that same book - despite text saying that they would. :(


The RAI is pretty clear on this.

I think the way it is meant to read is that the first time you take it you get an (untyped) +2 bonus to natural armor.

The second time you take it, you don't get an [u]additional[/u] +2 (or +4, depending on readin) bonus, but the previous one increases by 2.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
DM Sothal wrote:

The RAI is pretty clear on this.

I think the way it is meant to read is that the first time you take it you get an (untyped) +2 bonus to natural armor.

The second time you take it, you don't get an [u]additional[/u] +2 (or +4, depending on readin) bonus, but the previous one increases by 2.

What's the difference between an additional plus 2 and an increase in the previous bonus by 2?


Stacking rules


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
DM Sothal wrote:
Stacking rules

Explain, please. Or point to where in which rulebook I can read them.

Never mind, I found it.

The stacking rules are general. If you apply them literally, then the second sentence of the description ("This evolution can be taken once for every five levels the summoner possesses") is effectively meaningless, and only an idiot would take this evolution more than once. That cannot be the intention of the devs. So IMO the general stacking rule (bonuses don't stack) does not apply to this case. Conclusion: it makes no difference whether you say "the original bonus is now +4" or "an additional +2 bonus is added".

51 to 100 of 141 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / Pathfinder Unchained Potential Errors All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.