Ultimate Intrigue Errata


Product Discussion

1 to 50 of 111 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

p. 95 True Deception feat

has a prereq of "Disguise 17 ranks" since you can't have more ranks than HD, that means you must have 17 HD
not very usable

Liberty's Edge

chopswil wrote:

p. 95 True Deception feat

has a prereq of "Disguise 17 ranks" since you can't have more ranks than HD, that means you must have 17 HD
not very usable

Uh...the game goes to 20th level, and thus 20 HD. That's probably the highest skill prereq I've ever seen, but only by 2 ranks (15 ranks is the prerequisite for a few Feats).

In short, that's not really errata-worthy.


3 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
Pathfinder Companion, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The metamorph alchemist archetype retains Brew Potions, but has no way to actually use it without multiclassing since you can't use Spellcraft to avoid spell prerequisites with potions, which seems like an oversight.

Dark Archive

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

p. 220 METICULOUS MATCH

no spell duration given


8 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 7 people marked this as a favorite.

p. 58 Under the Magical Child archetype spellcasting:

"(she cannot choose spells that would affect an eidolon)"

Considering that most spells can affect an eidolon your list is extremely limited. It should be:

"(she cannot choose spells that would only affect an eidolon)"

A single word can make all the difference.

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

18 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite.

p. 9, 11-12 - does the vigilante ability dual identity, and social talents quick change and immediate change allow for switching to the vigilante identity including donning or removing armor which is part of that identity? If so, does this mean the vigilante can don or remove their armor faster than the normal rules allow? In particular, how does this interact with heavy armor, which can only be hastily donned without assistance, since the vigilante must be out of sight from other creatures to preserve the vigilante's secret. While the standard vigilante doesn't have heavy armor proficiency, the heavy training vigilante talent grants the proficiency.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
JoelF847 wrote:
p. 9, 11-12 - does the vigilante ability dual identity, and social talents quick change and immediate change allow for switching to the vigilante identity including donning or removing armor which is part of that identity? If so, does this mean the vigilante can don or remove their armor faster than the normal rules allow? In particular, how does this interact with heavy armor, which can only be hastily donned without assistance, since the vigilante must be out of sight from other creatures to preserve the vigilante's secret. While the standard vigilante doesn't have heavy armor proficiency, the heavy training vigilante talent grants the proficiency.

That's actually a very good question, I'm really curious now.

*begins Eidolon summoning ritual*


The "tyrant" antipaladin archetype does not reference any of the antipaladin's abilities and spells with the [chaotic] descriptor changing to [lawful].

Such abilities include the Fiendish Boon weapon ability still granting anarchic instead of axiomatic, and spells such as protection from law, protection from law, communal, magic circle against law, and dispel law.


A Tyrant has to fight Lawful Good peaceful protesters dissidents too.


technarken wrote:
A Tyrant has to fight Lawful Good peaceful protesters dissidents too.

Doesn't matter, by the rules he wouldn't be able to cast chaotic spells, and imbuing his weapon with anarchic would weaken him substantially. :P

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

p. 31 Vigilant Defender's shared judgement ability: what is the range of this ability? Does it affect allies 200 feet away? what about 100 miles or on another plane? I would assume it should be 30 feet, 60 feet, or able to see the defender, but this needs a range.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Shamefully Overdressed:
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target creature touched

… so which is it?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Ashram wrote:
technarken wrote:
A Tyrant has to fight Lawful Good peaceful protesters dissidents too.
Doesn't matter, by the rules he wouldn't be able to cast chaotic spells, and imbuing his weapon with anarchic would weaken him substantially. :P

Yep. I don't think this is an issue, though. Clerics have spells on their list they can't cast, and as you said, anarchic is just a really poor choice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is some debate about how Enlarge Person affect a Brute Vigilante. There is a reference to a set of rules that does not seem to be printed anywhere.


Entryhazard wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
Ashram wrote:
technarken wrote:
A Tyrant has to fight Lawful Good peaceful protesters dissidents too.
Doesn't matter, by the rules he wouldn't be able to cast chaotic spells, and imbuing his weapon with anarchic would weaken him substantially. :P
Yep. I don't think this is an issue, though. Clerics have spells on their list they can't cast, and as you said, anarchic is just a really poor choice.

Clerics can be of any alignment given the right deity, Tyrants are only LE

That is, there are not spells in the Cleric list that no cleric can cast.

I'ts weird they have Protection from Law and not from Chaos.

it would have been really easy:

"The Tyrant loses all the spells with the Chaotic descriptor from her spell list, and instead adds all the spells from the Paladin list with the Lawful descriptor (but not the Good descriptor) to her spell list as Antipaladin spells of the same level."


7 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 9 people marked this as a favorite.

The Quieting Weapon spell can reduce a struck target to a whisper if it fails its save. But it then includes this line: "Because the creature can still whisper, this doesn’t interfere with verbal spell components. "

Wrong, verbal components have to be spoken in a full, loud voice, so this spell necessarily prevents verbal components or it doesn't limit you to a whisper, pick one.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Slithery D wrote:

The Quieting Weapon spell can reduce a struck target to a whisper if it fails its save. But it then includes this line: "Because the creature can still whisper, this doesn’t interfere with verbal spell components. "

Wrong, verbal components have to be spoken in a full, loud voice, so this spell necessarily prevents verbal components or it doesn't limit you to a whisper, pick one.

I see the problem here, but I don't think they're going to errata this because specific trumps general. That said it does invite stabbing yourself with a dagger of Quieting as a way to cast spells discretely.


chopswil wrote:

p. 220 METICULOUS MATCH

no spell duration given

I read the spell description, and while the duration is missing from the block, it looks like the duration is instantaneous.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Derek345 wrote:
Slithery D wrote:

The Quieting Weapon spell can reduce a struck target to a whisper if it fails its save. But it then includes this line: "Because the creature can still whisper, this doesn’t interfere with verbal spell components. "

Wrong, verbal components have to be spoken in a full, loud voice, so this spell necessarily prevents verbal components or it doesn't limit you to a whisper, pick one.

I see the problem here, but I don't think they're going to errata this because specific trumps general. That said it does invite stabbing yourself with a dagger of Quieting as a way to cast spells discretely.

Optimized: Use an undersized +1 merciful quieting club (5% chance of an accidental critical instead of 10%) for a wizard with a low Str modifier. Or you could purposely fail a save against a bestow curse targeting Str to not need the merciful quality...


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Guild agent - Pull Rank ability. Says it replaces improved evasion, but should say it replaces improved uncanny dodge.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Urushiol Druid - Toxic Secretions ability.

"For example, he could spend a total of 3 doses to create a cloud of inhaled poison that deals Constitution damage."

The cloud ability is already 3 doses and Con damage is an additional dose, so the total should be 4 doses rather than 3.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The Warlock ability Mystic Bolt should be usable with Power attack now. In playtest, they were always touch or range touch attacks, and so not being able to use that feat made sense, but now they are only touch attacks if the warlock chooses to make them touch attacks. That parenthetical can probably be eliminated, or moved to Piercing bolts, since Mystic bolt is by default a weapon attack.

Which, hey, more room!


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Might be intended, but Arcane Striker doesn't include Corrosive or Corrosive Burst.

Seems like an oversight because Mystic Bolts can deal acid damage and get the elemental damage enhancements for every other damage type they can have.


4 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

Vigliante(Psycometrist) Implements and Focus Powers:
- Last sentence, 1st paragraph: "A psychometrist can’t select an implement school more than once."

- Last sentence, 3rd paragraph: "The psychometrist can select a school he already knows, and in this case, he gains a total of two new focus powers from that school (instead of learning the base focus power from the new school)."

So which is it?


3 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

This has been mentioned in half a dozen other threads, but not here yet:

Secret Broker Occultist archetype loses Magic Circles, but keeps Outsider Contact, which it can't use without Magic Circle.


Feign Curse as written works on animals since it doesn't require an actual Bluff check. Recommend making it language dependent and/or saying it doesn't effect things immune to Bluff checks (which this technically isn't).

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

p. 68 Secret Broker - I'm not sure how to even list this, but I'm not at all clear on what this archetype actually does. The broker secrets ability I read 4 times and still can't figure out what it does. Not sure if that makes it need errata or simply clarification.

For erase secrets, what does this mean exactly when it gives the example of removing the fact "The queen and the general are having an affair" as the only thing removed. Does it also remove all of the information the target has that relate to this, such as memories of reading a journal that details the affair, actually witnessing the affair in the flesh as it were, etc.

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

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

p. 81 Criminal Reputation - is this supposed to be identical to Persuasive feat, but worse since it only applies to criminals? The Persuasive feat gives identical bonuses, but in all circumstances.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, Criminal Reputation has no reason to exist. Is it even a prerequisite for another bad feat?


Not as far as I can tell. Literally just Persuasive with a prereq and limitations.

It's weird because the feat mentions Persuasive in the description. So either the writer or editor had to know what it was and how the two compared.

Silver Crusade

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

Do they stack (don't have my book with me atm)?

And even if they don't is it needed in the Errata thread?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

Do they stack (don't have my book with me atm)?

And even if they don't is it needed in the Errata thread?

I think it's a bit insulting, if likely true, to suggest that objectively pointless feats are working as Paizo intended and business as usual rather than an error to be corrected.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

If Criminal Reputation does not stack with Persuasive, it is a pointless feat.

If it does stack, then it is a niche feat for characters who want to run criminal enterprises.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Slithery D wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Do they stack (don't have my book with me atm)?

And even if they don't is it needed in the Errata thread?

I think it's a bit insulting, if likely true, to suggest that objectively pointless feats are working as Paizo intended and business as usual rather than an error to be corrected.

And I think it's completely asinine to bring up a feat into a thread about errata and typos simply because you don't like it.


I neither like nor dislike it. I just recognize that it is objectively pointless and adds nothing to the game, and therefore is quite possibly an error. If they published a feat that was exactly like Power Attack, but only worked when wielding swords, I'd also call that out as likely errata.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Slithery D wrote:
I neither like nor dislike it. I just recognize that it is objectively pointless and adds nothing to the game, and therefore is quite possibly an error.

Then talk about THAT, not how you think it shouldn't exist just because you don't like it and think it's pointless.


Rysky wrote:
Slithery D wrote:
I neither like nor dislike it. I just recognize that it is objectively pointless and adds nothing to the game, and therefore is quite possibly an error.
Then talk about THAT, not how you think it shouldn't exist just because you don't like it and think it's pointless.

That's exactly what he/she and JoelF847 were doing.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
MeanMutton wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Slithery D wrote:
I neither like nor dislike it. I just recognize that it is objectively pointless and adds nothing to the game, and therefore is quite possibly an error.
Then talk about THAT, not how you think it shouldn't exist just because you don't like it and think it's pointless.
That's exactly what he/she and JoelF847 were doing.
No, JoelF847 might have.
JoelF847 wrote:
p. 81 Criminal Reputation - is this supposed to be identical to Persuasive feat, but worse since it only applies to criminals? The Persuasive feat gives identical bonuses, but in all circumstances.

Structered basically "is this right or an error?"

Slithery D

Slithery D wrote:
Yeah, Criminal Reputation has no reason to exist. Is it even a prerequisite for another bad feat?

Not asking if there's an error in the feat, just complaining.

Slithery D wrote:
I think it's a bit insulting, if likely true, to suggest that objectively pointless feats are working as Paizo intended and business as usual rather than an error to be corrected.

Managed to throw a stipulation that there might be an error with the feat while insulting the company that produced it.

Slithery D wrote:
I neither like nor dislike it. I just recognize that it is objectively pointless and adds nothing to the game, and therefore is quite possibly an error. If they published a feat that was exactly like Power Attack, but only worked when wielding swords, I'd also call that out as likely errata.

Emphasis mine. Brought up that it might be an error, after complaining about it and claiming that it shouldn't exist just because it's not as good as another feat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Given the great improvement in post-ACG products after that one was roundly mocked, I think there's a strong case to be made that delivering a certain measure of embarrassment and shame over their mistakes is doing them a favor. When I write or say something dumb at work, I welcome that little hit of shame and self-loathing. It helps prevent future mistakes.

Rysky wrote:
Emphasis mine. Brought up that it might be an error, after complaining about it and claiming that it shouldn't exist just because it's not as good as another feat.

The issue isn't that it "isn't as good" as another feat, it is that it is the exact same as a core feat but with a different name, serious limitations, and no compensating benefits whatsoever.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Emphasis mine. Brought up that it might be an error, after complaining about it and claiming that it shouldn't exist just because it's not as good as another feat.

Not "not as good as another feat". Literally identical to another feat except it doesn't work in certain situations and explicitly doesn't stack with the other feat.

That seems like pretty straightforward grounds for bringing it up here.

Pointing out that it's pointless because of its redundancy is just explaining why it looks like an error and why you think something needs errata is kind of an important thing to include in an errata said.

Seems to me like the 'asinine' thing is derailing this thread with an unnecessarily bitter argument though.

Silver Crusade

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

"This is doesn't seem right, shouldn't it be stronger?" is a lot different than "This feat is worthless, buff it or get rid of it."

Pointing out something is one thing, whining about it without requesting for an errata is another.

Paizo Employee Designer

12 people marked this as a favorite.

Hey guys; you're all right! While I always prefer politeness and find it to be more effective than impoliteness in convincing people, the fact that CrimRep has a missing section is correct. Stephen and I finished developing the feats before most of the subsystems, and CrimRep had a tag in it that it was supposed to be Persuasive for criminals (that part we already developed) but also with extra benefits with the influence system to be written after influence was done. Clearly that didn't occur, but the point of the matter is, you're all right: it is an errata candidate, and it also pays to be polite.

Liberty's Edge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

On that same note, I get the feeling the brute archetype for vigilante is similarly missing text. The mechanics are surprisingly restrictive for so little return.


Some clarification needed, I think, for Magic Aura, Greater:

Quote:

In either case, if the object is the subject of a greater detect magic spell, any Spellcraft check made to identify the unique spellcasting identifiers of the aura...

If cast on a creature, you can make that creature register to detect spells (and spells with similar capabilities) as though it were the subject of any number of spells that you specify, when the spell is cast. Alternatively, you can make the creature register as nonmagical, hiding all spell effects that he is currently affected by from such scrutiny. If you choose to make the creature register as being the subject of one or more spells, you can also alter the unique spellcasting identifiers of those spell auras, in the same fashion as described for objects.

This is over simplified. Per Detect Magic, Greater and how the basic version of Magic Aura works, you would indeed use Spellcraft when identifying a fake magic item created by this spell, but you would use Knowledge (Arcana) when identifying a fake magic aura of a spell effect placed on an object or person.

I also note that Detect Magic, Greater only mentions "you are able to locate and analyze the signature flourishes in a magical aura that allow you to match a spell to the person who cast it." Unless crafting an item is equivalent to casting the prereq spells (which is probably intended but isn't explicitly spelled out), DM, G wouldn't actually allow you to identify the signature of the creator. (And what happens if two or more people collaborated in its creation, do you get all signatures or just whoever used the crafting feat?)

I'll admit you can figure out the likely intent if you read both of these spells carefully back to back and have a good understanding of the differing uses of Knowledge (Arcana) vs. Spellcraft, but if you don't you might mistakenly apply Spellcraft to everything when you're up against spell auras created by MA, G.


Possible errata on page 102:

Quote:
A PC who succeeds at a discovery check learns one of the skills that can influence the NPC (starting with the skill with the lowest DC), one of his strengths, or one of his weaknesses. For every 5 by which the PC exceeds the DC, she learns an additional influence skill, strength, or weakness.

I suspect this might be errata since you'd expect your easiest success to give you the least advantage, which in this case would be the highest DC, not the lowest.

But I'm not sure because additional skills, even with higher DCs, might still prove useful if they are a skill that a player is much stronger in. And maybe the thought is that people naturally reveal what they most care about (and are most easily influenced by) first. But that still makes big successes a weird and situational/marginal benefit, though, and the more obvious (to me!) thing would be to start telling players high DCs and then work your way down with greater success.


Page 103 wrote:
If the PCs attempt a discovery check against a particularly prominent NPC in advance, the PCs can attempt the Knowledge check to receive a +4 on the discovery check in advance, as well (see Discovery Checks on page 103).

The Discover and Influence Check DCs sidebar is actually on page 104.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It might be worth having someone senior consider whether the sizes of the example organizations starting on page 144 make sense and are consistent with settlement size info and spell casting services.

A mage's guild with 520 members, but the highest level member is 9th level? A large town with 2,000 members has 5th level casting from somewhere. Even if you assume it's a cleric and put arcane casting availability a level or two below, that's an absurd percentage of arcane spell casters in anything but the largest settlements where the max caster level should be higher.

LOL at 15,000 members in a criminal syndicate. Is this a continent spanning mafia? Or the majority of the adult population of a metropolis?


Slithery D wrote:

It might be worth having someone senior consider whether the sizes of the example organizations starting on page 144 make sense and are consistent with settlement size info and spell casting services.

A mage's guild with 520 members, but the highest level member is 9th level? A large town with 2,000 members has 5th level casting from somewhere. Even if you assume it's a cleric and put arcane casting availability a level or two below, that's an absurd percentage of arcane spell casters in anything but the largest settlements where the max caster level should be higher.

LOL at 15,000 members in a criminal syndicate. Is this a continent spanning mafia? Or the majority of the adult population of a metropolis?

Agree with the population ratios also, I would interperet this as 'total number of levels' of npcs rather than numbers of individual npcs.

Liberty's Edge

Slithery D wrote:
It might be worth having someone senior consider whether the sizes of the example organizations starting on page 144 make sense and are consistent with settlement size info and spell casting services.

I don't think that's necessarily an issue, actually.

Slithery D wrote:
A mage's guild with 520 members, but the highest level member is 9th level? A large town with 2,000 members has 5th level casting from somewhere. Even if you assume it's a cleric and put arcane casting availability a level or two below, that's an absurd percentage of arcane spell casters in anything but the largest settlements where the max caster level should be higher.

Uh...why would you assume the guy in charge of the Guild is the highest level guy around? I know if I was a high level I probably wouldn't bother.

Slithery D wrote:
LOL at 15,000 members in a criminal syndicate. Is this a continent spanning mafia? Or the majority of the adult population of a metropolis?

Uh...it's listed as 'preeminent'. That's the size of 'the ruling body of a nation'. So...yes, that's gonna be continent spanning. Or otherwise absurdly large.

1 to 50 of 111 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / Ultimate Intrigue Errata All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.