Errata questions


General Discussion

351 to 400 of 421 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

Cantriped wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Orichalcum has a higher hardness than Adamantine, so it should probably say that it overcomes adamantine resistance.

I don't think so because...

Playtest Rulebook 354 wrote:
Weapons made from adamantine treat any object they hit as if it had half as much Hardness as usual unless the object’s Hardness is greater than that of the adamantine weapon.
Already covers the fact that, for example, a master-quality adamantine katana doesn't halve the hardness of a whole slew of objects; including: A legendary-quality steel katana. Master-quality steel or cold iron armor, legendary-quality mithral armor. Anything made from orichalchum. Any stone or metal structure except less-than-master quality silver structures, and any expert-or-better quality wooden structure.

I'm talking about monster resistance that is overcome by adamantine, not cutting through objects made of adamantine. I think orichalcum should qualify as adamantine when attacking a golem or gargoyle since it's even harder.


Why should it? Adamantine weapons don't bypass resistances as a result of their Hardness (as in the game mechanic), nor do I think Orichalcum is actually 'harder' than Adamantine (as in real-world hardness). Rather I think of Orichalcum as being more 'durable' (as in having a higher Hardness in-game) because it is actually softer, but can instantly repair literal 'dents' and nicks that would have permenantly cracked an adamantine or steel item instead.

Adamantine penetrating defenses has to do with it's ability to hold an edge or point sharper than other materials (blunt weapons get a pass for balance reasons), and because it is the hardest metal (as in real-world hardness).


My previous comment about Leng's Sting poison (it's either missing some poison damage for its stages or the author forgot a line that the drained condition does stack at every stage or it's just terrible and meant to be that way) also applies to the Leng Spider's poison in the bestiary, which only applies Drained 1 at stage 1 and Drained 1 and Confused (1 round) at stage 2, which makes this a very, very weak poison for its level unless the author mistakenly thought the drained condition could stack without an explicit statement to that effect.


Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
playtest rulebook page 89 sidebar wrote:
Press: Actions with this trait allow you to follow up earlier attacks. An action with the press trait can be used only if you are currently affected by a multiple attack penalty. Some actions with the press trait also grant an effect on a failure. Effects on a failure can be gained only if the action took a –4 multiple attack penalty or worse. The effects that are added on a failure don’t apply on a critical failure. If your press action succeeds or critically succeeds, but it deals no damage and causes no other effects (typically due to resistance), you can choose to apply the failure effect instead.
Perhaps I'm just revealing my lack of system mastery, but AFAIK it's impossible to have a nonzero MAP (as per first bolded sentence) but not be at -4 or worse. So is the second bolded sentence redundant, or very careful futureproofing?

Also if the ranger with their hunt takes fighter feats then he can have a -3 on his second attack.


The Disappearance spell (8th level) doesn't state either way whether hostile action dispels it. Hostile action is a specific ending condition of 2nd level Invisibility spell, not an inherent condition of the invisibility condition.

Since it's very high level, but also 10 minute duration and frustrates blindsight/blindsense, I'm not entirely sure what was intended, but I suspect that hostility isn't supposed to end it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Xenocrat wrote:
Acid Splash, which requires an attack roll, does not have the Attack trait. Electric Arc, which does not require an attack roll, does have the Attack trait. These should be reversed for MAP purposes.

Also Electric Arc targets "one or two creatures". This doesn't answer the crucial question "which two?" Can the caster target one creature 30 feet to his North, and another 30 feet to his South? How close together do these two have to be? I suppose the visual is the arc hits one target, and then bounces to another (but no more). Is the bounce random? Can the caster specify which of several possibilities is the second target? So many questions... :-)


P130 sorcerer bloodlines

Fey
8th level spell is irresistible dance -> should this be uncontrollable dance?

Imperial
5th level spell is arcane eye -> should this be prying eye?


Found a typo:

Page 376:
"Some items, such as potions, are activated by being imbibed or otherwise consumed with an Operate Activation action. These types of consumables can also be fed or applied to you when you’re unconscious or unwilling, which requires the administering character to instead use an Interact action. In this case, the item still activates as if you had used Operate Activation, and it spends your Resonance Points."

Page 377:
"You can feed a potion to another creature only if that creature is paralyzed, unconscious, or willing. Either way, the creature drinking the potion must spend any required Resonance Points to use the potion. If it can’t, such as if it fails the flat check when overspending Resonance Points, the potion is wasted."

-----

I think this is meant to be unwilling.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

Found a typo:

Page 376:
"Some items, such as potions, are activated by being imbibed or otherwise consumed with an Operate Activation action. These types of consumables can also be fed or applied to you when you’re unconscious or unwilling, which requires the administering character to instead use an Interact action. In this case, the item still activates as if you had used Operate Activation, and it spends your Resonance Points."

Page 377:
"You can feed a potion to another creature only if that creature is paralyzed, unconscious, or willing. Either way, the creature drinking the potion must spend any required Resonance Points to use the potion. If it can’t, such as if it fails the flat check when overspending Resonance Points, the potion is wasted."

-----

I think this is meant to be unwilling.

Uh reading that and I can't seem to find a reading where unwilling makes sense. Rather than page 377 being in error by saying willing, it seems more likely page 376 is in error by saying unwilling.


Ryuujin-sama wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

Found a typo:

Page 376:
"Some items, such as potions, are activated by being imbibed or otherwise consumed with an Operate Activation action. These types of consumables can also be fed or applied to you when you’re unconscious or unwilling, which requires the administering character to instead use an Interact action. In this case, the item still activates as if you had used Operate Activation, and it spends your Resonance Points."

Page 377:
"You can feed a potion to another creature only if that creature is paralyzed, unconscious, or willing. Either way, the creature drinking the potion must spend any required Resonance Points to use the potion. If it can’t, such as if it fails the flat check when overspending Resonance Points, the potion is wasted."

-----

I think this is meant to be unwilling.

Uh reading that and I can't seem to find a reading where unwilling makes sense. Rather than page 377 being in error by saying willing, it seems more likely page 376 is in error by saying unwilling.

Paizo due to squicky wording separated the terms "Unwilling" off from things like "Unconscious" due to how that can seem squicky with regards to things like unconscious automatically meaning willing. It is a bit... Uh... Odd, because I think the only way it really would mean anything bad is if taken out of context, but Paizo chose to do it that way, thus we need to assume that anytime they say Unconscious they automatically want to follow up with "or unwilling"


3 people marked this as a favorite.

when crafting ammunition, are they made in batches (of the ammunition count in their weapon entry)? the only thing i and a player could find that is actually batch-crafted are "consumables", which arrows and other ammunition aren't marked as.

this raised the question of whether you have to craft arrows one at a time, or ten at a time (I'm going with the latter as if you are crafting exactly the thing that's in the weapon chart, as otherwise a level 1 character would take a full month to make a basic set of arrows)?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
HWalsh wrote:
Paizo due to squicky wording separated the terms "Unwilling" off from things like "Unconscious" due to how that can seem squicky with regards to things like unconscious automatically meaning willing. It is a bit... Uh... Odd, because I think the only way it really would mean anything bad is if taken out of context, but Paizo chose to do it that way, thus we need to assume that anytime they say Unconscious they automatically want to follow up with "or unwilling"

My first reaction to this was "squicky? Is that even a word in English?" Imagine my surprise when I looked it up and discovered it is. :-) However, it means "disgusting or disturbing" or "very unpleasant". Not quite sure how it fits here.

An example: I have a healing potion. You are wounded. If you are unconscious I can feed you the potion without hassle. If you are conscious, but unwilling, I would have to hold you down and force it down your throat. I don't think that means that "unconscious" automatically means "willing". It's just that your willingness or unwillingness is not an issue. Now, if you want to assert that I shouldn't "force" a healing potion down your throat if you're unconscious, because that's "squicky", well, okay. Hope you have a nice afterlife.


Ed Reppert wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Paizo due to squicky wording separated the terms "Unwilling" off from things like "Unconscious" due to how that can seem squicky with regards to things like unconscious automatically meaning willing. It is a bit... Uh... Odd, because I think the only way it really would mean anything bad is if taken out of context, but Paizo chose to do it that way, thus we need to assume that anytime they say Unconscious they automatically want to follow up with "or unwilling"

My first reaction to this was "squicky? Is that even a word in English?" Imagine my surprise when I looked it up and discovered it is. :-) However, it means "disgusting or disturbing" or "very unpleasant". Not quite sure how it fits here.

An example: I have a healing potion. You are wounded. If you are unconscious I can feed you the potion without hassle. If you are conscious, but unwilling, I would have to hold you down and force it down your throat. I don't think that means that "unconscious" automatically means "willing". It's just that your willingness or unwillingness is not an issue. Now, if you want to assert that I shouldn't "force" a healing potion down your throat if you're unconscious, because that's "squicky", well, okay. Hope you have a nice afterlife.

I didn't choose the wording.

Basically in earlier editions an unconscious target was automatically assumed to be willing for the purposes of harmless spells. Paizo didn't like the possible out of context connotations that unconscious meant willing (hence squicky) so they changed all such wording to: "unconscious or unwilling"


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

There are times when I think Paizo is being too politically correct. :-(


I can attest that Unconsious = Willing sets a bad mechanical precedent on other games I've played/run. Even when it does properly specify the rule only applies to harmless or beneficial effects.


"Holy symbol" has been replaced by "religious symbol" in general, but it still says the former on page 387 (Divine Prayer Beads (twice)) and page 390 (Forge Warden). I'm told it also appears in Doomsday Dawn.

It's unfortunate because it encourages people to look in vain for "holy symbol" in the equipment list. It might be worth putting in a "holy symbol - see religious symbol" entry in that list for the PF1 people?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Basically in earlier editions an unconscious target was automatically assumed to be willing for the purposes of harmless spells. Paizo didn't like the possible out of context connotations that unconscious meant willing (hence squicky) so they changed all such wording to: "unconscious or unwilling"

No, they changed the wording to "unconscious or willing" (pg. 376 is in error). Separating the concepts means that unconsiousness no longer implies willingness. This cuts off the "squicky" conceptual issue while leaving the mechanics mostly the same.

On the plus side, you can waterboy the fighter mid-fight. Just put easy-squeeze nozzles on all your potion bottles!


Okay not sure why you brought up all the squicky stuff. You seemed to think willing was in error and should be unwilling. But that doesn't make sense. Feeding a potion to an unconscious, paralyzed or willing target would be simple. Feeding it to an unwilling target that is not unconscious or paralyzed would be difficult. It makes sense that you can only do so in the case where they are unconscious, paralyzed or willing.

Now the previous example that you posted for page 376, which is possibly the reason you though willing was wrong on 377, doesn't make sense. Having such consumables applied to you when you are unconscious makes sense, having them applied to you when you are unwilling does not.

So like I said rather than 377 being wrong and needing to be unwilling, I believe it is 376 that is wrong and should be willing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

On pages 177 and 414, the definition of the Clumsy trait uses the phrase "ability checks." I don't believe there is such a thing any more, as the phrase appears nowhere else. Unless it's meant to use "ability" in some more general sense than just "ability score" and I'm just not getting it.


The Drained, Sluggish, and Stupefied conditions are inconsistent and in two cases appear to be redundant or to misunderstand that saves are "checks" in the Playtest.

Checks, p 290 wrote:

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.

The rest of the section establishes that all checks involve your relevant proficiency modifier, your relevant attribute, bonuses, and penalties. Saves are listed in the chart of proficiency related checks. From this we can conclude that saves are checks, and they are checks based on an attribute (wis, dex, or con). Similarly, an attack is a dex or str based check.

Now we get to the condition redundancies and inconsistencies.

Drained, p 321 wrote:
You take a conditional penalty equal to the value on Fortitude saves and Constitution-based checks.

This is redundant, as Fortitude saves are already included under Constitution-based checks.

Sluggish, p 324 wrote:
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.

This is also redundant, as Reflex saves are already included in Dexterity-based checks.

Stupefied, p 324 wrote:
You take a conditional penalty equal to the value on spell rolls; spell DCs; and Intelligence-, Wisdom-, and Charisma-based checks.

Here we have our inconsistency - Wisdom-based checks would include Will saves, but they are not included. Perhaps the intent is that Stupefied and only Stupefied should not penalize the associated check. If that is the case, it should put an "except for Will saves" exclusion here. Alternatively, Will saves should be explicitly added to ensure uniformity of treatment and make it clear to those who don't understand the universal application of "check" language that they are included.


On page 88, Weapon Legend specifically gives the fighter legendary proficiency in unarmed attacks, which have not been mentioned before in the fighter entry. If unarmed attacks need to be mentioned separately from weapons and fighters are supposed to be good at them, they should be mentioned previously; if they're a type of simple weapon or fighters aren't supposed to be good at them then they shouldn't be mentioned here either.


page 88, Weapon Specialization wrote:

Your proficiency rank for all simple and martial weapons increases to master, and you gain access to the critical specialization effects of all weapon groups (see page 183). Your proficiency rank for all exotic weapons increases to expert.

You can choose one weapon group and increase your proficiency rank to legendary for all simple and martial weapons in that weapon group, and to master for all exotic weapons in that weapon group. You gain the critical specialization effects of all weapons in that weapon group.

page 88, Weapon Legend wrote:
Your proficiency rank for all simple and martial weapons and unarmed attacks increases to legendary, and your proficiency rank for all exotic weapons increases to master. You gain access to the critical specialization effects of all weapon groups.

I believe the first bolded phrase above ("and you gain access...") should be cut. It renders the second and third bolded parts redundant, with significant mechanical impact.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Misc monk feat stuff:

On page 100, Guarded Movement should almost certainly not have the explicit prerequisite "Monk 4." It's already a fourth-level monk feat.

page 102, Tangled Forest Stance wrote:
While you’re in Tangled Forest Stance and can act, every enemy in your reach that tries to move away from you must succeed at an Acrobatics or Athletics check against your class DC or be immobile for that action, free action, or reaction with the move trait (attempting this check is a free action).

I bet you meant to say something like "unless you choose to let them."

page 103, Shattering Strike wrote:
If the target has Hardness, you deal 2 Dents instead of one if you exceed its Hardness.

What if you deal enough damage to give it 2 (or more) dents anyway? Does it take 2 (literal reading), 3 (one extra dent), or 4 (double dents)?


The term 'stack' is used on page 107 (shield ally), page 170 (quiet allies), and page 366 (king's sleep), but is never defined.


Shock property rune:
As written, even a non crit causes the initial target to suffer the 2d6 persistent damage and the crit effect just enhances the arc damage. (as opposed to all other Greater element runes only enhancing the critical effects)

Not even sure if it's intended as a damage boost

(greater property runes in general don't stack up to their cost, too little enhancement over normal element runes)


Quote:

DEITY’S PROTECTION FEAT 14

Prerequisites channel energy, Advanced Domain
When you call upon your deity’s power to fulfill the promise of
their domain, you gain divine protection. After you cast a domain
power, you gain resistance to all damage until the start of your
next turn. The amount of resistance is equal to your number of
daily uses of channel energy.

i assume that there's a "used" word missing there in the end. Or is this suppossed to go off your maximum amount of daily uses (not even with that wording it makes sense though)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The 2 different mentions in the book of what "Sick" does (one says that it's a penalty to all checks, the other says it's a penalty to all checks and DCs)

led me to:

Quote:

For tasks opposed by another character, the DC is based

on one of the target’s modifiers, as defined in the task. A
DC derived in this way is equal to 10 plus the creature’s
modifier for that type of roll. All modifiers, bonuses, and
penalties that would apply to the character’s rolls for a task
also apply to its DC unless noted otherwise.

and to :

Quote:

Armor Class

Armor Class (AC) is a special type of DC used to defend
against attacks.

(also described as a DC in the table at p.291

short version: All DCs are derived from a check+10. AC, as an example, is just a Dex check+armor item modifiers+etc that you slap a +10 to make it a DC. All penalties to checks are applied to the derived DCs. So, a penalty to Dex checks, applies a penalty to AC (as seen in Sluggish condition, that's exactly what happens).

This means that "Sick" (penalty to all checks) and "Frightened" (penalty to all checks) also apply a penalty to all your DCs. So they also apply a penalty to AC

which if it's intended, you might want to make it a bit more apparent (like using the Sick wording that saying checks and DCs that is used in the example for both Sick and Frightened Descriptions (neither has it)


Quote:

SHATTER DEFENSES FEAT 6

Requirements The target is frightened and you are
wielding a melee weapon.
When you attack a foe afflicted by fear, your blow
knocks the foe off-balance. Make a Strike with the required
weapon against the required target. That Strike gains the
following enhancement and failure effect.
Enhancement The foe becomes flat-footed until the end of
your next turn. If the target is already flat-footed, it instead
becomes sluggish 1 until the end of your next turn as long
as it remains flat-footed.

what happens if it's only flatfooted vs YOUR attacks (as an example with dread striker rogue feat)?

does the sluggish condition apply only for you, and the flatfooted condition for the rest of the party?
does it become sluggish for all?
does it only apply flat footed for all?

what happens if he loses the flatfooted condition and it gains it again before the end of your next turn (as an example with moving in and out of flank)?
does the sluggish condition disappear and reappears?
does it gets replaced by general flatfooted?
do both conditions just disappear?


page 114, Wild Stride wrote:
You can ignore the effects of nonmagical difficult terrain and reduce the effects of nonmagical greater difficult terrain, treating it as if it were difficult terrain instead. Difficult terrain or greater difficult terrain effects of hazardous terrain affect you normally.

Should "hazardous" be "magical"?


page 116, Snare Savant wrote:

Prerequisites expert in Crafting, Snare Crafting feat

You gain the formulas for three common or uncommon snares (see page 357). Each time your proficiency rank in Crafting improves, you gain three more common or uncommon snare formulas.

If you take this at a later level with master or legendary proficiency, you get screwed by the fact that the last sentence isn't retroactive (i.e. you only get 3 formulas, not 6 or 9).

I might try "For each prof rank you are above trained, you gain the formulas for three common or uncommon snares (see page 357). Each time your prof rank improves, you gain three more."


On page 281, Weapon Expert says "Choose one fighter weapon group." The word 'fighter' should not be in there.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Complaints about the PDF's Table of Contents / navigation key: Exploration Mode, Downtime, and Conditions should all be on the same level as Encounter Mode, not under it. They're hard (non-intuitive) to find there. Similarly, Familiars should be on the same level as Animal Companions, not under it.

Sczarni RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

In the Playtestiary, on page 119, the Mercenary Scout's kukri and shortbow both deal 2d6+2 damage. However, the weapons are not listed as magical, so they should probably only do a single damage die (unless I'm missing something).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tamago wrote:
In the Playtestiary, on page 119, the Mercenary Scout's kukri and shortbow both deal 2d6+2 damage. However, the weapons are not listed as magical, so they should probably only do a single damage die (unless I'm missing something).

PCs get extra damage dice from magic weapons, but monsters and NPCs get extra damage dice from level, because Reasons. See the Vile Necromancer, also a level 3 creature, on the same page - he also gets 2d4 from his nonmagical sickle.

Sczarni RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
Tamago wrote:
In the Playtestiary, on page 119, the Mercenary Scout's kukri and shortbow both deal 2d6+2 damage. However, the weapons are not listed as magical, so they should probably only do a single damage die (unless I'm missing something).
PCs get extra damage dice from magic weapons, but monsters and NPCs get extra damage dice from level, because Reasons. See the Vile Necromancer, also a level 3 creature, on the same page - he also gets 2d4 from his nonmagical sickle.

If that's the case, then it's implemented very inconsistently. The Cleric of Rovagug is also a 3rd level Creature, but only has 1d12+3 damage with his greataxe. And Henah is a 5th level Creature, but she only deals 2d12+4 damage with her +1 greataxe. I would expect that if higher-level NPCs got more damage, it should be at least 3d12 (2d12 base plus an extra die from the magic weapon).

That makes it very confusing to run the encounters, since at this point I'm not really trusting the statblock.


Tamago wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Tamago wrote:
In the Playtestiary, on page 119, the Mercenary Scout's kukri and shortbow both deal 2d6+2 damage. However, the weapons are not listed as magical, so they should probably only do a single damage die (unless I'm missing something).
PCs get extra damage dice from magic weapons, but monsters and NPCs get extra damage dice from level, because Reasons. See the Vile Necromancer, also a level 3 creature, on the same page - he also gets 2d4 from his nonmagical sickle.

If that's the case, then it's implemented very inconsistently. The Cleric of Rovagug is also a 3rd level Creature, but only has 1d12+3 damage with his greataxe. And Henah is a 5th level Creature, but she only deals 2d12+4 damage with her +1 greataxe. I would expect that if higher-level NPCs got more damage, it should be at least 3d12 (2d12 base plus an extra die from the magic weapon).

That makes it very confusing to run the encounters, since at this point I'm not really trusting the statblock.

I suspect the correct answer is that they have to hit average DPR numbers by level, so the bigger the dice the fewer they get of them. Those with weaker weapons will get extra dice sooner.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Monk level 18 feat, Diamond Fists, adds a circumstance bonus to damage if fists are already forceful. However, forceful adds a circumstance bonus to damage, and they don't stack.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Don't try to figure out How Henah has such a pathetic AC score for her level and kind of armor she is wearing...

10 (Base) +8 (+1 Plate) +1 (Dex Cap) +5 (Level) = 24
In game stat... 20 (Maybe it is actually cursed -1 armor and she is untrained?)

Also her HP are determined incorrectly for a Human (8) with 5 level of paladin (10*5) and Con bonus of +1 (1*5) Her HP should be 63. Giving her 15 extra hit points because reasons make my maths hurt.

At least her damage accidentally works.

I've actively stopped looking at her numbers because I'm sure the rest of them are wrong and will make the maths want to cry as well.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

While there is no prohibition against repeating spell casting types (e.g. having a spell with two Verbal components), it is never explicitly stated that it is allowed. That's not technically an error but it seems to be confusing enough people that I think it should get stuck in an update somewhere.


Ed Reppert wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Paizo due to squicky wording separated the terms "Unwilling" off from things like "Unconscious" due to how that can seem squicky with regards to things like unconscious automatically meaning willing. It is a bit... Uh... Odd, because I think the only way it really would mean anything bad is if taken out of context, but Paizo chose to do it that way, thus we need to assume that anytime they say Unconscious they automatically want to follow up with "or unwilling"

My first reaction to this was "squicky? Is that even a word in English?" Imagine my surprise when I looked it up and discovered it is. :-) However, it means "disgusting or disturbing" or "very unpleasant". Not quite sure how it fits here.

An example: I have a healing potion. You are wounded. If you are unconscious I can feed you the potion without hassle. If you are conscious, but unwilling, I would have to hold you down and force it down your throat. I don't think that means that "unconscious" automatically means "willing". It's just that your willingness or unwillingness is not an issue. Now, if you want to assert that I shouldn't "force" a healing potion down your throat if you're unconscious, because that's "squicky", well, okay. Hope you have a nice afterlife.

The problem was the original wording for the willing/unwilling stuff was something like an unconcious person is always considered willing. That rubbed a LOT of people wrong as it has a lot of really bad/uncomfortable connotations. So basically they scrap some realism to say if you are unconscious you can choose to allow somebody to give you a potion or not. Hell they give you the choice to accept a resurrection or not as well.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
While there is no prohibition against repeating spell casting types (e.g. having a spell with two Verbal components), it is never explicitly stated that it is allowed. That's not technically an error but it seems to be confusing enough people that I think it should get stuck in an update somewhere.

I agree with this.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
kaid wrote:
The problem was the original wording for the willing/unwilling stuff was something like an unconcious person is always considered willing. That rubbed a LOT of people wrong as it has a lot of really bad/uncomfortable connotations. So basically they scrap some realism to say if you are unconscious you can choose to allow somebody to give you a potion or not. Hell they give you the choice to accept a resurrection or not as well.

It would never occur to me to conflate a game situation with the kind of thing you're talking about here. Never, that is, until I saw it in this thread.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ed Reppert wrote:
kaid wrote:
The problem was the original wording for the willing/unwilling stuff was something like an unconcious person is always considered willing. That rubbed a LOT of people wrong as it has a lot of really bad/uncomfortable connotations. So basically they scrap some realism to say if you are unconscious you can choose to allow somebody to give you a potion or not. Hell they give you the choice to accept a resurrection or not as well.
It would never occur to me to conflate a game situation with the kind of thing you're talking about here. Never, that is, until I saw it in this thread.

And there would have been a very simple fix for this (that now that I think of it could be used in PF2). Instead of "willing" being the key word, make it "defenseless". Then define "defenseless" as being either willing to accept an effect from a given source (in other words, you voluntarily rendered yourself defenseless against it) or unable to resist at all (by being unconscious, helpless, etc.). Then the whole issue of "unconscious = willing" would never come up.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
playtest rulebook page 92, Shatter Defenses wrote:

Make a Strike with the required weapon against the required target. That Strike gains the following enhancement and failure effect.

Enhancement The foe becomes flat-footed until the end of your next turn. If the target is already flat-footed, it instead becomes sluggish 1 until the end of your next turn as long as it remains flat-footed.

Failure The foe becomes flat-footed until the start of your next turn. If the target is already flat-footed, it instead becomes sluggish 1 until the start of your next turn as long as it remains flat-footed.

These are fine as long as the foe wasn't flat-footed already or was already going to be flat-footed through the end/start of your next turn. But if the foe was already flat-footed for a short time, say because you just used Intimidating Strike to get them into the required frightened condition, then Shatter Defenses does not extend that and just makes them sluggish for the same short time. In the Intimidating Strike case that renders Shatter Defenses completely useless.

I suggest replacing "instead" with "also" for both Enhancement and Failure.

Credit to Arthirios for first reporting the problem.


Plugging the errata version of the dying rules:

Nothing in the "you succeed your saving throw" text that states that you gain 1 HP and lose the unconscious condition (or that you don't!). There are a couple of threads on this.


The Barbarian's 9th level class feature Raging Resistance fails to actually require that you be raging to benefit - as written you you permanently have those damage resistances. Either change the name or add a raging requirement.


Xenocrat wrote:
The Barbarian's 9th level class feature Raging Resistance fails to actually require that you be raging to benefit - as written you you permanently have those damage resistances. Either change the name or add a raging requirement.

i always thought this was intentional.

in pf1 DR was always active as well and not tied to rage


shroudb wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
The Barbarian's 9th level class feature Raging Resistance fails to actually require that you be raging to benefit - as written you you permanently have those damage resistances. Either change the name or add a raging requirement.

i always thought this was intentional.

in pf1 DR was always active as well and not tied to rage

It might be, but the name is unfortunate in that case.


page 273, Anarchic rune wrote:

For example, if your attack with a

+1 anarchic greatsword is a critical hit and you rolled a 2, 8, 9,
3, and 6, the 2, 8, and 6 would each be treated as a 10, and the
9 and 3 would each be treated as a 1, for a total of 32 damage.

This example incorrectly treats a greatsword as a d10 weapon. The bolded number should be 12, and the italicized number should 38.


Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
page 88, Weapon Specialization wrote:

Your proficiency rank for all simple and martial weapons increases to master, and you gain access to the critical specialization effects of all weapon groups (see page 183). Your proficiency rank for all exotic weapons increases to expert.

You can choose one weapon group and increase your proficiency rank to legendary for all simple and martial weapons in that weapon group, and to master for all exotic weapons in that weapon group. You gain the critical specialization effects of all weapons in that weapon group.

page 88, Weapon Legend wrote:
Your proficiency rank for all simple and martial weapons and unarmed attacks increases to legendary, and your proficiency rank for all exotic weapons increases to master. You gain access to the critical specialization effects of all weapon groups.
I believe the first bolded phrase above ("and you gain access...") should be cut. It renders the second and third bolded parts redundant, with significant mechanical impact.

I belatedly notice that update 1.1 cut the second bolded phrase. That's... really weird. Cutting both second and third would at least be consistent (because then you get all crit specs with Weapon Specialization's first paragraph and nothing later tries redundantly to re-give you some/all) but this isn't.

I respectfully advocate putting the now-deleted second bolded phrase back in and cutting out the first bolded phrase instead. Then Weapon Specialization gives you just the crit spec effects in your specialty and Weapon Legend gives you all the rest and all is well in Rulesland.

351 to 400 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.