Errata questions


General Discussion

51 to 100 of 421 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dekalinder wrote:
vuvko wrote:

On page 128 in "Sorcerer Spellcasting" there is a hint that Sorcerer should have Eschew Materials feat: "Because you’re a sorcerer, you can usually replace Material Casting actions with Somatic Casting actions, so you usually don’t need spell components."

Most likely it refers to the following text presented on page 196, under the "Special" section of the "Material Casting" action

"If you’re a sorcerer Casting a Spell from the spell list that
matches your bloodline, you can draw on the magic within
your blood to replace any Material Casting actions that require
material components with Somatic Casting actions. You can’t
replace a Material Casting action that requires a spell focus"

Thanks, it make sense. Then it's just not convenient way to put Sorcerer as an exception. Maybe better make it class feature so you won't miss it.


Xenocrat wrote:
Dante Doom wrote:
The power 'Counter Performance" by RAW is impossible to use since it costs two reactions to cast, but you only get one each round
This is true of counterspell but not of counter performance, which has a trigger of making a save, not identifying a spell as it is cast.

Counter spell just cost 1 reaction, so I see no problem there...

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dante Doom wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Dante Doom wrote:
The power 'Counter Performance" by RAW is impossible to use since it costs two reactions to cast, but you only get one each round
This is true of counterspell but not of counter performance, which has a trigger of making a save, not identifying a spell as it is cast.
Counter spell just cost 1 reaction, so I see no problem there...

It costs a Reaction to identify a spell as it is being cast...


Rysky wrote:
Dante Doom wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Dante Doom wrote:
The power 'Counter Performance" by RAW is impossible to use since it costs two reactions to cast, but you only get one each round
This is true of counterspell but not of counter performance, which has a trigger of making a save, not identifying a spell as it is cast.
Counter spell just cost 1 reaction, so I see no problem there...
It costs a Reaction to identify a spell as it is being cast...

Raw you don't have to identify it to counter it.

Sound and visual are perceived even without knowing what they actually do.

So, countering "the swirly color lights" (color spray) as they come out of opponents hands is perfectly acceptable.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Dante Doom wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Dante Doom wrote:
The power 'Counter Performance" by RAW is impossible to use since it costs two reactions to cast, but you only get one each round
This is true of counterspell but not of counter performance, which has a trigger of making a save, not identifying a spell as it is cast.
Counter spell just cost 1 reaction, so I see no problem there...
It costs a Reaction to identify a spell as it is being cast...

Raw you don't have to identify it to counter it.

Sound and visual are perceived even without knowing what they actually do.

So, countering "the swirly color lights" (color spray) as they come out of opponents hands is perfectly acceptable.

Countering random magic without knowing what it is just seems, off to me


Angel Hunter D wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Dante Doom wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Dante Doom wrote:
The power 'Counter Performance" by RAW is impossible to use since it costs two reactions to cast, but you only get one each round
This is true of counterspell but not of counter performance, which has a trigger of making a save, not identifying a spell as it is cast.
Counter spell just cost 1 reaction, so I see no problem there...
It costs a Reaction to identify a spell as it is being cast...

Raw you don't have to identify it to counter it.

Sound and visual are perceived even without knowing what they actually do.

So, countering "the swirly color lights" (color spray) as they come out of opponents hands is perfectly acceptable.

Countering random magic without knowing what it is just seems, off to me

With counter performance you're not really countering them though. You're just giving your check to your allies.

The way I picture this is something like this:

Let's say a banshee starts her screaming. The bard hears the awful sound, knows that SOMETHING bad is going to happen, and starts his own song on top of the screaming banshee.

His allies either resist the screaming altogether, or are saved by having it being soothed over by the singing bard.

It makes absolute sense the way they have it structured : you mask an auditory effect with an auditory performance, or a visual effect with a visual performance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Page 89:
The fighter-feat "combat grab" gives the same effect for the enhancement and the failure. Not sure, if this is intended.

Page 172:
"Survey Wildlife" has an action icon, but the description says it takes 10 minutes to do.

I think there is no explicit mention on how your "class DC" is calculated (10+level+ability), except for the character sheet. At least I could not find it.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
shroudb wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Dante Doom wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Dante Doom wrote:
The power 'Counter Performance" by RAW is impossible to use since it costs two reactions to cast, but you only get one each round
This is true of counterspell but not of counter performance, which has a trigger of making a save, not identifying a spell as it is cast.
Counter spell just cost 1 reaction, so I see no problem there...
It costs a Reaction to identify a spell as it is being cast...

Raw you don't have to identify it to counter it.

Sound and visual are perceived even without knowing what they actually do.

So, countering "the swirly color lights" (color spray) as they come out of opponents hands is perfectly acceptable.

Countering random magic without knowing what it is just seems, off to me

With counter performance you're not really countering them though. You're just giving your check to your allies.

The way I picture this is something like this:

Let's say a banshee starts her screaming. The bard hears the awful sound, knows that SOMETHING bad is going to happen, and starts his own song on top of the screaming banshee.

His allies either resist the screaming altogether, or are saved by having it being soothed over by the singing bard.

It makes absolute sense the way they have it structured : you mask an auditory effect with an auditory performance, or a visual effect with a visual performance.

That's fine for CP since you don't have to identify anything, you just know something's going on so you buff your allies.

With counterspell though you have to counter with either Dispel Magic, or the exact spell, and thus the issue. Maybe there was some unwritten "you don't have to identify spells you personally know" or something that got overlooked...


Rysky wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Dante Doom wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Dante Doom wrote:
The power 'Counter Performance" by RAW is impossible to use since it costs two reactions to cast, but you only get one each round
This is true of counterspell but not of counter performance, which has a trigger of making a save, not identifying a spell as it is cast.
Counter spell just cost 1 reaction, so I see no problem there...
It costs a Reaction to identify a spell as it is being cast...

Raw you don't have to identify it to counter it.

Sound and visual are perceived even without knowing what they actually do.

So, countering "the swirly color lights" (color spray) as they come out of opponents hands is perfectly acceptable.

Countering random magic without knowing what it is just seems, off to me

With counter performance you're not really countering them though. You're just giving your check to your allies.

The way I picture this is something like this:

Let's say a banshee starts her screaming. The bard hears the awful sound, knows that SOMETHING bad is going to happen, and starts his own song on top of the screaming banshee.

His allies either resist the screaming altogether, or are saved by having it being soothed over by the singing bard.

It makes absolute sense the way they have it structured : you mask an auditory effect with an auditory performance, or a visual effect with a visual performance.

That's fine for CP si nce you don't have to identify anything, you just know something's going on so you buff your allies.

With counterspell though you have to counter with either Dispel Magic, or the exact spell, and thus the issue. Maybe there was some unwritten "you don't have to identify spells you personally know" or something that got overlooked...

Well, quick recognition allows a free action identify per round

Not sure if it's intended that you have to take 2 skill feats to be able to counter though.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
shroudb wrote:
Rysky wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Dante Doom wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Dante Doom wrote:
The power 'Counter Performance" by RAW is impossible to use since it costs two reactions to cast, but you only get one each round
This is true of counterspell but not of counter performance, which has a trigger of making a save, not identifying a spell as it is cast.
Counter spell just cost 1 reaction, so I see no problem there...
It costs a Reaction to identify a spell as it is being cast...

Raw you don't have to identify it to counter it.

Sound and visual are perceived even without knowing what they actually do.

So, countering "the swirly color lights" (color spray) as they come out of opponents hands is perfectly acceptable.

Countering random magic without knowing what it is just seems, off to me

With counter performance you're not really countering them though. You're just giving your check to your allies.

The way I picture this is something like this:

Let's say a banshee starts her screaming. The bard hears the awful sound, knows that SOMETHING bad is going to happen, and starts his own song on top of the screaming banshee.

His allies either resist the screaming altogether, or are saved by having it being soothed over by the singing bard.

It makes absolute sense the way they have it structured : you mask an auditory effect with an auditory performance, or a visual effect with a visual performance.

That's fine for CP si nce you don't have to identify anything, you just know something's going on so you buff your allies.

With counterspell though you have to counter with either Dispel Magic, or the exact spell, and thus the issue. Maybe there was some unwritten "you don't have to identify spells you personally know" or something that got overlooked...

Well, quick recognition allows a free action identify per round

Not sure if it's...

*nods* Quick Recognition is also a 7th level Feat, whereas Counterspell is 1st level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Rysky wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Dante Doom wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Dante Doom wrote:
The power 'Counter Performance" by RAW is impossible to use since it costs two reactions to cast, but you only get one each round
This is true of counterspell but not of counter performance, which has a trigger of making a save, not identifying a spell as it is cast.
Counter spell just cost 1 reaction, so I see no problem there...
It costs a Reaction to identify a spell as it is being cast...

Raw you don't have to identify it to counter it.

Sound and visual are perceived even without knowing what they actually do.

So, countering "the swirly color lights" (color spray) as they come out of opponents hands is perfectly acceptable.

Countering random magic without knowing what it is just seems, off to me

With counter performance you're not really countering them though. You're just giving your check to your allies.

The way I picture this is something like this:

Let's say a banshee starts her screaming. The bard hears the awful sound, knows that SOMETHING bad is going to happen, and starts his own song on top of the screaming banshee.

His allies either resist the screaming altogether, or are saved by having it being soothed over by the singing bard.

It makes absolute sense the way they have it structured : you mask an auditory effect with an auditory performance, or a visual effect with a visual performance.

That's fine for CP si nce you don't have to identify anything, you just know something's going on so you buff your allies.

With counterspell though you have to counter with either Dispel Magic, or the exact spell, and thus the issue. Maybe there was some unwritten "you don't have to identify spells you personally know" or something that got overlooked...

Well, quick recognition allows a free action identify per round
...

On the plus side, you can counter that evil goblin mage at level 1 that screams "BURNING HAAAAAANDS" towards your party while spreading his hands!


Per the description of Counterspell (which differs slightly for Wizards and Sorcerers). The 'Trigger' condition effectively automatically identifies the spell (without actually identifying it so only your character knows what they're actually countering).

The wizard's Counterspell only triggers if the enemy casts a spell they've prepared (identification is not a listed trigger for either version). When you activate the ability it's wording is such that identification of the spell is unnecessary anyway. The wizard is mechanically forced by Counterspell to expend the correct spell, and never fails to do so because the ability wouldn't have triggered if they hadn't prepared it.

Identification might be necessary or at least beneficial if you ready an action to cointer a spell using Dispel Magic instead of the Counterspell ability.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cantriped wrote:

Per the description of Counterspell (which differs slightly for Wizards and Sorcerers). The 'Trigger' condition effectively automatically identifies the spell (without actually identifying it so only your character knows what they're actually countering).

The wizard's Counterspell only triggers if the enemy casts a spell they've prepared (identification is not a listed trigger for either version). When you activate the ability it's wording is such that identification of the spell is unnecessary anyway. The wizard is mechanically forced by Counterspell to expend the correct spell, and never fails to do so because the ability wouldn't have triggered if they hadn't prepared it.

Identification might be necessary or at least beneficial if you ready an action to cointer a spell using Dispel Magic instead of the Counterspell ability.

That seems even worse actually :

"hmm... I'm not sure what this dude is doing, but I feel like if I lose a random spell (that I don't know which will be still) I have prepared (and may actually want to keep it for later) I can stop him! "

Makes sense :D


It does, doesn't it?
I think there is supposed to be a clause regarding automatic spell recognition which got ommited (like that fact that everyone is supposed to he trained in unarmored defense).
Otherwise Recognize Spell and Counterspell are both nearly useless until 7th level. A 3-feat investment seems a bit harsh anyway (even if 2 of them are Skill Feats, the weakest bin in terms of combat options)

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
shroudb wrote:
Rysky wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Rysky wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Dante Doom wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Dante Doom wrote:
The power 'Counter Performance" by RAW is impossible to use since it costs two reactions to cast, but you only get one each round
This is true of counterspell but not of counter performance, which has a trigger of making a save, not identifying a spell as it is cast.
Counter spell just cost 1 reaction, so I see no problem there...
It costs a Reaction to identify a spell as it is being cast...

Raw you don't have to identify it to counter it.

Sound and visual are perceived even without knowing what they actually do.

So, countering "the swirly color lights" (color spray) as they come out of opponents hands is perfectly acceptable.

Countering random magic without knowing what it is just seems, off to me

With counter performance you're not really countering them though. You're just giving your check to your allies.

The way I picture this is something like this:

Let's say a banshee starts her screaming. The bard hears the awful sound, knows that SOMETHING bad is going to happen, and starts his own song on top of the screaming banshee.

His allies either resist the screaming altogether, or are saved by having it being soothed over by the singing bard.

It makes absolute sense the way they have it structured : you mask an auditory effect with an auditory performance, or a visual effect with a visual performance.

That's fine for CP si nce you don't have to identify anything, you just know something's going on so you buff your allies.

With counterspell though you have to counter with either Dispel Magic, or the exact spell, and thus the issue. Maybe there was some unwritten "you don't have to identify spells you personally know" or something that got overlooked...

Well, quick recognition allows a free
...

Unless he knew you were gonna do that so he shouted Burning Hands to throw you off while he cast Magic Missile instead. *scratches chin* it could happen. Sneaky Wizards.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Rysky wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Rysky wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Dante Doom wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Dante Doom wrote:
The power 'Counter Performance" by RAW is impossible to use since it costs two reactions to cast, but you only get one each round
This is true of counterspell but not of counter performance, which has a trigger of making a save, not identifying a spell as it is cast.
Counter spell just cost 1 reaction, so I see no problem there...
It costs a Reaction to identify a spell as it is being cast...

Raw you don't have to identify it to counter it.

Sound and visual are perceived even without knowing what they actually do.

So, countering "the swirly color lights" (color spray) as they come out of opponents hands is perfectly acceptable.

Countering random magic without knowing what it is just seems, off to me

With counter performance you're not really countering them though. You're just giving your check to your allies.

The way I picture this is something like this:

Let's say a banshee starts her screaming. The bard hears the awful sound, knows that SOMETHING bad is going to happen, and starts his own song on top of the screaming banshee.

His allies either resist the screaming altogether, or are saved by having it being soothed over by the singing bard.

It makes absolute sense the way they have it structured : you mask an auditory effect with an auditory performance, or a visual effect with a visual performance.

That's fine for CP si nce you don't have to identify anything, you just know something's going on so you buff your allies.

With counterspell though you have to counter with either Dispel Magic, or the exact spell, and thus the issue. Maybe there was some unwritten "you don't have to identify spells you personally know" or something that got overlooked...

Well, quick
...

Nonono.

We never joke about the Sacred fire.
We never lie about the Sacred fire.
Plus, it's fire, thus undefeatable and omnipotent.
Yelling Its name as you produce it is our duty and our right.

... Lying about fire... What a blasphemy.

Scarab Sages

Mr.Fishy wrote:
Also does everyone but the monk take a -2 penalty to AC is they are unarmored? RAW that appears to be the case.
Rysky wrote:
The Devs admitted that was an accidental omission, all characters are Trained in Unarmored.

Would it not make sense, to have 'unarmoured' be included in the 'light armor' category?

It used to be understood, in PF1, that for enhancement purposes, 'all clothes and robes were armor with an enhancement of +0'
And for barkskin, you could add it to someone with a natural armor bonus of +0.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
shroudb wrote:
Rysky wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Rysky wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Rysky wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Dante Doom wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Dante Doom wrote:
The power 'Counter Performance" by RAW is impossible to use since it costs two reactions to cast, but you only get one each round
This is true of counterspell but not of counter performance, which has a trigger of making a save, not identifying a spell as it is cast.
Counter spell just cost 1 reaction, so I see no problem there...
It costs a Reaction to identify a spell as it is being cast...

Raw you don't have to identify it to counter it.

Sound and visual are perceived even without knowing what they actually do.

So, countering "the swirly color lights" (color spray) as they come out of opponents hands is perfectly acceptable.

Countering random magic without knowing what it is just seems, off to me

With counter performance you're not really countering them though. You're just giving your check to your allies.

The way I picture this is something like this:

Let's say a banshee starts her screaming. The bard hears the awful sound, knows that SOMETHING bad is going to happen, and starts his own song on top of the screaming banshee.

His allies either resist the screaming altogether, or are saved by having it being soothed over by the singing bard.

It makes absolute sense the way they have it structured : you mask an auditory effect with an auditory performance, or a visual effect with a visual performance.

That's fine for CP si nce you don't have to identify anything, you just know something's going on so you buff your allies.

With counterspell though you have to counter with either Dispel Magic, or the exact spell, and thus the issue. Maybe there was some unwritten "you don't have to identify spells you personally know" or something that got

...

Hmm, good point.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Holy Quote Nesting Batman

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Snorter wrote:
Mr.Fishy wrote:
Also does everyone but the monk take a -2 penalty to AC is they are unarmored? RAW that appears to be the case.
Rysky wrote:
The Devs admitted that was an accidental omission, all characters are Trained in Unarmored.

Would it not make sense, to have 'unarmoured' be included in the 'light armor' category?

It used to be understood, in PF1, that for enhancement purposes, 'all clothes and robes were armor with an enhancement of +0'
And for barkskin, you could add it to someone with a natural armor bonus of +0.

Possibly, but then Monks, Sorcerers, and Wizards still wouldn’t have access to it, without investment.

“It used to be understood, in PF1, that for enhancement purposes, 'all clothes and robes were armor with an enhancement of +0'”

That’s a common house rule I saw, but I don’t believe it was ever an official rule.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Snowblind wrote:
Holy Quote Nesting Batman

This is nothing, I’ve broken a thread before.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

AFAICT the rules never say to use common sense. This seems to be a problem for some people, so it may be worth fixing.


Some people (including GMs at cons) are reportedly allowing sneak attack damage with ranged cantrips. This seems clearly wrong RAW.

Sneak Attack wrote:
You deal additional damage to flat-footed creatures (see page 322). If you Strike a flat-footed creature with an agile or finesse melee weapon, an agile or finesse unarmed attack, or a ranged attack, you deal 1d6 extra precision damage. For a ranged attack with a thrown weapon, that weapon must also be agile or finesse.

A player may be tempted to read the bold as the rule, and the italics as a specific modification in the case of strikes, but that's leads to bizarre issues. It would mean any source of damage at all (even a Fireball) would inflict extra damage, but not a Greataxe or Bastard Sword.

Instead, the entire paragraph should be read as the rule, and you have to meet each part to inflict sneak attack. A spell is never a Strike, so it can't inflict sneak attack.

Unless the devs want to FAQ or change in the final rules, of course. It seems like a bad idea to give Rogues a ranged touch attack qualifies for sneak attack at the cost of an ancestry feat, however.

Senior Designer

9 people marked this as a favorite.
AndIMustMask wrote:
i hope this trhead survives until the devs are back from gencon, so they can read and think on this thread!

Even if it doesn't survive on your end because posts get removed for various reasons, we can still read it. That's one of the perks of being "devs."

We are reading. To be honest most of the errata issues brought up here and there on this post an others are already in our errata document. Stay tuned, all, and thank you for participating so far in the playtest. It is greatly appreciated.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:

Some people (including GMs at cons) are reportedly allowing sneak attack damage with ranged cantrips. This seems clearly wrong RAW.

Sneak Attack wrote:
You deal additional damage to flat-footed creatures (see page 322). If you Strike a flat-footed creature with an agile or finesse melee weapon, an agile or finesse unarmed attack, or a ranged attack, you deal 1d6 extra precision damage. For a ranged attack with a thrown weapon, that weapon must also be agile or finesse.

A player may be tempted to read the bold as the rule, and the italics as a specific modification in the case of strikes, but that's leads to bizarre issues. It would mean any source of damage at all (even a Fireball) would inflict extra damage, but not a Greataxe or Bastard Sword.

Instead, the entire paragraph should be read as the rule, and you have to meet each part to inflict sneak attack. A spell is never a Strike, so it can't inflict sneak attack.

Unless the devs want to FAQ or change in the final rules, of course. It seems like a bad idea to give Rogues a ranged touch attack qualifies for sneak attack at the cost of an ancestry feat, however.

not sure it's actually wrong:

from page 305. The very definition of Strike clearly points out that there are magical Attacks that are Strikes.

Quote:

Strike is an action with the attack trait that allows you to

attack with a weapon you’re wielding or an unarmed attack (such
as with a fist).
You have to attack a creature within your reach if you’re using
a melee weapon or unarmed attack, or attack a creature within
range if you’re attacking with a ranged weapon. Your reach is
how far you can physically extend a part of your body to make
an unarmed attack or the farthest distance you can reach with
a melee weapon. This is typically 5 feet, but special weapons
and larger creatures have longer reaches. Your range is how far
away you can attack with a ranged weapon or with some form
of magical attack.
Different weapons and magical attacks have
different maximum ranges, and they get less effective if you
exceed their range increments.
Striking multiple times has diminishing returns. The multiple
attack penalty applies to attacks after the first, whether those
attacks are Strikes, special attacks like the grapple use of the
Athletics skill, or attacks from spells.

touch attacks cantrips have the Attack trait already. AND they are magical Attacks (which fireball is not, it's not an Attack, neither does it have the Attack trait)

thing is, is it even worth it?

a cantrip takes 2 actions but targets touch AC. A ranged attack with a shortbow takes 1 action but targets normal AC.

it does save you some money from having to buy a better weapon since cantrips scale with levels (but worse than what weapons do) AND there is only a very expensive item that adds +item bonus to ranged touch attacks and quite less than a simple magical bow.


shroudb wrote:


not sure it's actually wrong:

from page 305. The very definition of Strike clearly points out that there are magical Attacks that are Strikes.

Quote:

Strike is an action with the attack trait that allows you to

attack with a weapon you’re wielding or an unarmed attack (such
as with a fist).
You have to attack a creature within your reach if you’re using
a melee weapon or unarmed attack, or attack a creature within
range if you’re attacking with a ranged weapon. Your reach is
how far you can physically extend a part of your body to make
an unarmed attack or the farthest distance you can reach with
a melee weapon. This is typically 5 feet, but special weapons
and larger creatures have longer reaches. Your range is how far
away you can attack with a ranged weapon or with some form
of magical attack.
touch attacks cantrips have the Attack trait already. AND they are magical Attacks (which fireball is not, it's not an Attack, neither does it have the Attack trait)

I think this is defining a Strike as wielded weapon or unarmed attack (neither of which is a spell), and incidentally noting that while range defines some weapon strikes, it also applies to some spells (which are not strikes). But maybe there was some intent by someone along the way for it to work this way.

And see page 197.

Spell Attacks wrote:
Spell attacks are unarmed, but they don’t apply any special benefits from your weapons or unarmed attacks, nor do they deal any damage outside of what’s listed in the spell.

Is the only vaguely applicable and arguable sneak attack language more specific than the clear rule here? I don't know, wait and see.


Unicore wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Unicore wrote:
Malthraz wrote:
Unicore wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Unicore wrote:
The rulebook never clearly states what attributes you use when making touch attack rolls with spells. Herolab online seems to think it is your spell roll modifier. The pregens use their dex and str. THe rules in the book are all over the place, but never lay out a specific formula for calculating it.

herolab is wrong.

a touch attack is an unarmed attack targetting touch ac.

unarmed is defined as a finesse weapon.

so you can use either dex or strength, but it doesn't change the fact that it's an attack.

so prof bonusl+dex/str+misc att odifiers vs touch

I don't think people are going to take your word or mine over Herolab until something offical gets stated. The wording on page 192 is not explicit and if Herolab can get it wrong, then a lot of other folks will too.

You are probably right that people are not going to listen to us. But it is definitely a finesse strike, so Str or Dex. I took me about 20 minutes to work it out, but it is spelled out in the rules over about 3 sections.

Also this is what the iconic cleric had on their sheet +2 (1 lvl, 1 dex) for their fire power.

Mark explicitly spelled it out previously in a pre-release thread about the pre-gens, but as far as being clearly stated in the book, its just not their in a way that lets you point to one thing and say "this is how it is supposed to work," which should be there for something like attacking with spells.

But it is.

It's an attack.

An attack has defined traits and benefits from defined modifiers.

There is no notion in the rules at all that it might somehow be using caster check, that's just arbitrary.

As an example, there's no mention that fire damage ISN'T always persistent.

But you can't say "fireball does persistent damage because it doesn't say it doesn't"

I agree, my play group didn't. On page 197, it lists spell attack and...

page 197 actually does make it quite clear.

the thing i didn't know was that you add your prof bonus to spells to the attack. Which is neat, but probably needs to be somewhere more visible imo.

Quote:

Usually, such spells require a melee touch attack or

a ranged touch attack. In both cases, make an attack
roll and compare the result to the target’s TAC. Your
proficiency modifier for a spell’s attack roll is the same
as your proficiency modifier with spell rolls.
Spell attacks
are unarmed, but they don’t apply any special benefits
from your weapons or unarmed attacks, nor do they deal
any damage outside of what’s listed in the spell. Melee
touch attacks have the finesse trait (see page 182).

the above is the relevant (attack modifiers) part of the paragraph.

the 1st bolded part is probably what confused your players.

you have to point to them, that PROF MOD is different than ABILITY MOD

an attack uses your "prof mod+ability mod+circ mod+conditional mod+item mod"

attacks use str mod, ranged attacks use dex mod. finesse can use either str or dex.

what the first part gives them is that if they are, as an example, EXPERT spellcasters, they get (level+1) on their attack roll, and not their unarmed (level+0) proficiency mod.


Xenocrat wrote:
shroudb wrote:


not sure it's actually wrong:

from page 305. The very definition of Strike clearly points out that there are magical Attacks that are Strikes.

Quote:

Strike is an action with the attack trait that allows you to

attack with a weapon you’re wielding or an unarmed attack (such
as with a fist).
You have to attack a creature within your reach if you’re using
a melee weapon or unarmed attack, or attack a creature within
range if you’re attacking with a ranged weapon. Your reach is
how far you can physically extend a part of your body to make
an unarmed attack or the farthest distance you can reach with
a melee weapon. This is typically 5 feet, but special weapons
and larger creatures have longer reaches. Your range is how far
away you can attack with a ranged weapon or with some form
of magical attack.
touch attacks cantrips have the Attack trait already. AND they are magical Attacks (which fireball is not, it's not an Attack, neither does it have the Attack trait)

I think this is defining a Strike as wielded weapon or unarmed attack (neither of which is a spell), and incidentally noting that while range defines some weapon strikes, it also applies to some spells (which are not strikes). But maybe there was some intent by someone along the way for it to work this way.

And see page 197.

Spell Attacks wrote:
Spell attacks are unarmed, but they don’t apply any special benefits from your weapons or unarmed attacks, nor do they deal any damage outside of what’s listed in the spell.
Is the only vaguely applicable and arguable sneak attack language more specific than the clear rule here? I don't know, wait and see.

it's just that the whole paragrpash is the definition of Strike.

it seems weird to the definition paragraph to have unlinked stuff on it.

it would be like if in the definition of Frighened it started talking about other ways that the conditinal penalties are applied.

But yeah, as always, more clearing up is always a good thing (be that either removing the magical attack references for said place, or adding the Strike word to touch attacks)

As for your second bolded part, i actually loled reading it, because there are whole feats dedicated to increasing spell damage that simply wouldn't work the way it's worded. That part needs really to be removed as it offers only confusion imo.


shroudb wrote:


it's just that the whole paragrpash is the definition of Strike.

it seems weird to the definition paragraph to have unlinked stuff on it.
.

Wait, I've got it. You're sort of right, but it proves my point. It does include a magical attack in the definition of a strike, but a strike has to be an "action" with the attack trait. All spells with more than one action are "activities" with the attack trait. So they don't qualify for sneak attack for that reason.

Activities, pg 296 wrote:
An activity doesn’t count as any of its dependent actions or other abilities. For example, the quick condition you get from the haste spell lets you spend an extra action each turn to Stride or Strike, but you couldn’t use the extra action for an activity that includes a Stride or Strike. As another example, if you took an action that specified, “If the next action you use is a Strike,” an activity that includes a Strike wouldn’t count, because the next thing you are doing is starting an activity, not using the Strike basic action.

If there is a one action attack spell, it arguably is a Strike and qualifies for Sneak Attack. Quickened Spell will do that once per day, and Fiery Body will do it for Produce Flame for as long as it lasts. (This would also mean that Produce Flame would take the multiattack penalty when you do this.) I can't think of any other ways.


Command Undead, pg 76, states it has a 24 hour duration but none of the save affects actually last 24 hours.


Xenocrat wrote:
Command Undead, pg 76, states it has a 24 hour duration but none of the save affects actually last 24 hours.

maybe it's a persistent ongoing effect for 24h.

basically it has to critically succeed in order to "break" the spell (not break, but since it becomes bolstered you can't command it anymore)

but it ets to roll every minute (or hour if it critically fails)

like, struggling to break free for a day, and at some points you command it, on others you don't.

(or simpler, it has old language from previous editions:P)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:

Frightened

You’re gripped by fear and struggle to control your
nerves. The frightened condition always includes
a value. You take a conditional penalty equal to this
value to your checks and saving throws.
Unless specified
otherwise, at the end of each of your turns, the value of
your frightened condition decreases by 1.]
Quote:

Sluggish

Your movements become clumsy and inexact. Sluggish
always includes a value. When you are sluggish, you take
a conditional penalty to AC, attack rolls, Dexterity-based
checks, and Reflex saves
equal to the condition’s value.
Quote:

Drained

When a creature successfully drains you of blood or
some other life force, you become less healthy. Drained
always includes a value. You take a conditional penalty
equal to the value on Fortitude saves and Constitutionbased
checks.

etc, basically all conditions

emm... Saving throws (and attack rolls for that matter, but i let that slide since those can be keyed off 2 abilities instead of 1) ARE checks already.

Quote:

CHECKS

The GM will call upon you to attempt a check whenever
you need to resolve a conflict or test your aptitude at a
particular task or challenge. Examples include any attempt
to attack another creature in combat, using skills, and
resisting the effects of a dangerous spell that has been cast
upon you.
Checks are attempted against the difficulty class
(DC) of the task or challenge to determine success or failure.


GM Glyn wrote:

Telekinetic Projectial Cantrip: page 263

The Heightened (3rd) damage is 1d8 + caster modifier where all the other damage dice for this Cantrip are 1d10. Make me think the 1d8 is a typo.

Produce Flame Cantrip: page 247-248
Damage starts at 1d4, but all Heightened versions use d6s. I suspect the first 1d4 is a typo and should be a 1d6.

I am kinda on the fence on the TK cantrip at 3rd level. It starts as 1d10 and then goes to 1d8+int which is a solid damage boost over the flat 1d10. It may be that 1d10+casting stat was considered to much of a jump up at 3rd for it.


Oh, here's another: the duration of a round.
Somewhere it seems that it's still 6 seconds long, in other places it says that a minute is 6 rounds long (which means that a round is 10 seconds instead).


Megistone wrote:

Oh, here's another: the duration of a round.

Somewhere it seems that it's still 6 seconds long, in other places it says that a minute is 6 rounds long (which means that a round is 10 seconds instead).

where does it says that a minute is 6 rounds?

rules wise:

Quote:

When every action counts, you enter the encounter mode

of play. In this mode, you have turns during which you use
actions. Your turn in sequence with everybody else’s turns
makes up a round. A round is 6 seconds of time in the
game world.
Depending on the details of the encounter,
you may have the opportunity to use reactions and free
actions, both on your turn and on others’ turns.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:
Megistone wrote:

Oh, here's another: the duration of a round.

Somewhere it seems that it's still 6 seconds long, in other places it says that a minute is 6 rounds long (which means that a round is 10 seconds instead).

where does it says that a minute is 6 rounds?

rules wise:

Quote:

When every action counts, you enter the encounter mode

of play. In this mode, you have turns during which you use
actions. Your turn in sequence with everybody else’s turns
makes up a round. A round is 6 seconds of time in the
game world.
Depending on the details of the encounter,
you may have the opportunity to use reactions and free
actions, both on your turn and on others’ turns.

Page 197:

Quote:
CONCENTRATE ON A SPELL Requirements You have at least one spell active with a concentration duration, and you are not fatigued. Choose one spell with a concentration duration you have in effect. The duration of that spell continues until the end of your next turn. Some spells may have slightly different or expanded effects if you concentrate. Concentrating on a Spell for more than 10 minutes (60 rounds) ends the spell and makes you fatigued. If you take damage equal to or greater than your level from a reaction or free action triggered by this action, your spell is disrupted and immediately dismissed.

Bolding mine.

I think I had at least another instance of that somewhere, but I can't find it now.


shroudb wrote:
Megistone wrote:

Oh, here's another: the duration of a round.

Somewhere it seems that it's still 6 seconds long, in other places it says that a minute is 6 rounds long (which means that a round is 10 seconds instead).

where does it says that a minute is 6 rounds?

rules wise:

Quote:

When every action counts, you enter the encounter mode

of play. In this mode, you have turns during which you use
actions. Your turn in sequence with everybody else’s turns
makes up a round. A round is 6 seconds of time in the
game world.
Depending on the details of the encounter,
you may have the opportunity to use reactions and free
actions, both on your turn and on others’ turns.

I also saw some references to a minute being 10 rounds so this seems consistent with the other mentions I was seeing. So abilities like wildform for druids with a 1 minute duration actually are still really solid in combat powers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:

Some people (including GMs at cons) are reportedly allowing sneak attack damage with ranged cantrips. This seems clearly wrong RAW.

Sneak Attack wrote:
You deal additional damage to flat-footed creatures (see page 322). If you Strike a flat-footed creature with an agile or finesse melee weapon, an agile or finesse unarmed attack, or a ranged attack, you deal 1d6 extra precision damage. For a ranged attack with a thrown weapon, that weapon must also be agile or finesse.

That is just silly to argue (that you can sneak attack with any spell). First because the definition of the Strike Action on page 308 precludes using spells to perform them, and second because spells are cast using Verbal, Somatic, and Material casting actions; all of which are distinct actions excluded from the conditions for making a sneak attack.

The Exchange

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Are you no longer your own ally?


I've never been my own ally. Ally isn't defined in the glossary, but I do not think you are considered your own Ally based on the term's usage in the context of the paladin oaths.
The Aid and Assist actions further imply you aren't your own ally.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cantriped wrote:

I've never been my own ally. Ally isn't defined in the glossary, but I do not think you are considered your own Ally based on the term's usage in the context of the paladin oaths.

The Aid and Assist actions further imply you aren't your own ally.

1st edition errata was that "you're conisdered your own ally unless it doesn't make sense"

so a spell granting "all allies" +1 damage, would benefit you. But you obviously couldn't aid yourself.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
We are reading. To be honest most of the errata issues brought up here and there on this post an others are already in our errata document. Stay tuned, all, and thank you for participating so far in the playtest. It is greatly appreciated.

Is there an ETA on the Errata document? I can understand GenCon might have delayed things a bit, but the sooner we can get it and implement it into our playtest games the better.

Senior Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Doktor Weasel wrote:
Is there an ETA on the Errata document? I can understand GenCon might have delayed things a bit, but the sooner we can get it and implement it into our playtest games the better.

As soon as we can reasonably get it through the full process and get it to you. Gen Con is slowing us down. Not everyone is back from that show yet and it takes some time to ramp things up when folks do get back.

We just ask for a little patience. It will not be long (but may be a tad longer than you would like).


Doktor Weasel wrote:
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
We are reading. To be honest most of the errata issues brought up here and there on this post an others are already in our errata document. Stay tuned, all, and thank you for participating so far in the playtest. It is greatly appreciated.
Is there an ETA on the Errata document? I can understand GenCon might have delayed things a bit, but the sooner we can get it and implement it into our playtest games the better.

i believe the answer from the post-gencon sticky was Soon™

as they have to recover from post-con flu and whatnot, and can really get into things once most folks are able to do so.

EDIT: ninja'd!

Shadow Lodge

kaid wrote:
A round is 6 seconds of time in the game world.

Does this mean with 3 actions per round, the world just got 50% faster?

I need to figure out which Golarion markets are best impacted by this change in logistics for my morning trades...


wakedown wrote:
kaid wrote:
A round is 6 seconds of time in the game world.

Does this mean with 3 actions per round, the world just got 50% faster?

I need to figure out which Golarion markets are best impacted by this change in logistics for my morning trades...

i think that the math that allows you to make a full plate (or any item really) in 1 day (at 0 gp benefit) might be a liiiiiitle more impactful for logistics :P

Shadow Lodge

shroudb wrote:
i think that the math that allows you to make a full plate (or any item really) in 1 day (at 0 gp benefit) might be a liiiiiitle more impactful for logistics :P

Whaaaa? Do I need to sell my shares and take up short positions in Weapons & Armory ETFs??


I've seen a few references in this thread to using Dispel Magic with the Counterspell action, but I cannot figure out how that would work within the RAW.

Counterspell says you have to use the same spell.

Ready allows you to prepare a single action as a reaction, but Dispel Magic takes two actions, so that doesn't seem to work.

The Swift Dispel feat almost gets there, but is dependent upon a different trigger.

What am I missing?


When, let's say the Fighter, says that they're "Trained in a number of skills equal to 3 plus your Intelligence modifier", is this only when they go into level 1, or does this count throughout the Fighter's life? Like, if their Intelligence modifier goes up by 1, do they get an extra skill trained? Likewise, if their Intelligence modifier goes down by 1, do they lose a skill trained?


Meophist wrote:
When, let's say the Fighter, says that they're "Trained in a number of skills equal to 3 plus your Intelligence modifier", is this only when they go into level 1, or does this count throughout the Fighter's life? Like, if their Intelligence modifier goes up by 1, do they get an extra skill trained? Likewise, if their Intelligence modifier goes down by 1, do they lose a skill trained?

ability changes are retroactive.

so yes, they gain a "trained" skill when they increase Int (but not upgrade an already tained to expert or higher)

51 to 100 of 421 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Errata questions All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.