Errata questions


General Discussion

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

In reviewing the Errata changes, I noticed that the spell Breath of Life was not updated.

In Errata version 1.2 the Dying condition includes the statement: 'You lose the dying condition upon returning to 1 or more Hit Points.'.

The text under Breath of Life (Page 208 of the Rulebook) states: 'The target regains 4d8 plus your spellcasting ability modifier Hit Points, reduces its dying condition to dying 3, and gets a +2 conditional bonus to its next recovery save.'

Since the Playtest no longer keeps track of negative hit points, the Breath of Life spell should bring the character above 0 Hit Points. According to the Errata, the character should lose the dying condition. The Breath of Life spell should remove the text: "reduces its dying condition to dying 3".


Speaking of Breath of Life, does Massive Damage (page 296) count as a death effect, or can BoL save you from it? I think it should be the former.


The general rules for the Scent ability (rulebook page 302) do not include a default range, yet almost nothing in the rulebook that grants scent specifies a range.

While many (most?) creatures in the Bestiary with scent specify a range of 30', some leave it unspecified: mastodon, goblin dog, hell hound, any kind of horse, hydra, hyaenodon, hyena, jabberwock, manticore, owlbear, rat swarm, sandpoint devil, serpentfolk (and degenerate), shoggoth, viper, ball python, giant anaconda, giant viper, warg, winter wolf, wererat rogue, werewolf fighter, wolf, and yeti.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Some rituals (such as Planar Binding or Geas) allow targets of the ritual to make will saves to resist the effects. However, there's no listed way to calculate this DC.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Demon Armor (page 386) has horns that function as weapons with the deadly trait, but no damage die is listed for the trait.


Quote:

INSTRUMENT OF ZEAL FEAT 16

Prerequisites righteous ally (blade)
Your righteous blade becomes an instrument of divine zeal.
Whenever you critically hit a foe with Blade of Justice or a
Retributive Strike, your attack adds an extra damage die, and
the target is slowed 1 on its next turn.

you can't critically hit someone with blade of justice (it has no roll).

you can critically hit someone under the effects of blade of justice.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
shroudb wrote:

Stone fist Elixir has the Polymorph tag.

According to tag descriptions, it should be changed to Morph tag.

Polymorph usually indicates complete change while slight alterations (changing your hands to be harder) are Morphs.

Balance wise, it means that an alchemist can't atm use stonefist elixir +any mutagen (notably bestial) simultaneously, which is one more nail in the the class' coffin (only goblins are allowed more than d4 unarmed damage until level 8...)

There's another issue with the Stone Fist Elixir. It doesn't remove the non lethal trait from your fist attacks. As such, an Alchemist is left without any means to do lethal unarmed damage (barring Feral Mutagen at 8th level)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
Brew Bird wrote:
There's another issue with the Stone Fist Elixir. It doesn't remove the non lethal trait from your fist attacks. As such, an Alchemist is left without any means to do lethal unarmed damage (barring Feral Mutagen at 8th level)

This Feral Mutagen doesn't seem to be in the list of Alchemical items. An oversight, no doubt. Perhaps it's meant to refer to Bestial Mutagen.


The description for darkvision states that the creature sees in black and white even in any light.
So does this mean that the creature is colour blind?


evilericuk wrote:

The description for darkvision states that the creature sees in black and white even in any light.

So does this mean that the creature is colour blind?

I saw your thread asking this and answered before seeing this collated thread. Basically, Creatures with Darkvision do not see in black in white across all Light levels, Darkvision does not mention reducing their sight in Bright Light to greyscale. The difficulty is determining Dim Light, since the entry in the Senses section conflicts with the Ancestry descriptions ...


Hm, I kind of like idea Darkvision = Colorblind, although perhaps in normal light it would be like typical real Human colorblind-ness, i.e. LESS colors not none... On the basis that Darkvision is replacing one color photoreceptor with "Infrared" receptor or whatever.

Relatedly, in regards "disabilities"/senses,
IMHO Sign Language should be treated more as just another language (that shares written form with normal language). The rules should not need to suggest GMs grant characters Free Feats just for growing up around deaf/signing people, it's not egregious to spend your Language slot on Sign... And the Feat itself is over-powered as the "standard" since it automatically gives you Sign for ALL languages, which isn't inherent to "talking sign with deaf family". We don't need pan-dimensional universal communication between deaf people/beings (or if that is intention, it's simpler to make Sign Language single universal language, and grant Deaf/Mute characters independent fluency in written/Lip-Reading form of 'host' culture language). Having Feat exist to automatically know Sign version of all Languages you know is fine, but IMHO the 'standard' shouldn't rely on that, but rather just use Language 'slot' system.

Since raising INT to 14 at later levels will be very common given Stat Boost system, I wonder if there should be explicit distinct rules to cover that, i.e. if your present location would be more relavent than your background/race language access? I also think the basic "Common" list should be pared down, making things like Ancestry/Region/Class more relatively important. Undercommon, Draconic, Elven just don't seem like universal Inner Sea languages, although right region (e.g. near Kyonin for Elven), or Class/Dedication/Race/Religion can reasonably treat them as such... And Class/Race/Region/Religion/Feat language access thus becomes more important.

I also see specific problem with Ethnic language for Nidalese (Shadowtongue), the only Common access for it is via Nidalese Ethnicity. That is reasonable to exist (allowing ethnic Nidalese who grew up in Cheliax to still know ethnic tongue), but it should ALSO be available via Region (Nidal) for any Varisian, Chelish etc who grew up in Nidal (the former being key aspect of Nidal demographics AFAIK). This issue seems to exist because of 1-sided organization of listing major languages and then the multiple regions they exist in, as opposed to inverse approach of listing regions and the languages they contain - Which raises question, will Absalom background have access to all Humanoid (and not) tongues?

Ethnic Taldane could also have Common access to Ancient Azlanti to represent Azlanti supremacist cult tendency, also making up for otherwise lack of bonus ethnic language for them? And likewise for ethnic Osirioni / Ancient Osirioni, or perhaps associated to the Ancient Osironi cult Religions? (the Osirioni ethnic description is vague to point of meaningless, it doesn't even imply relationship to NotEgypt)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber

Agree regarding sign language being a language in the same sense that Taldane or Shoanti or Varisian is a language. Also agree, in theory, that different regions would develop different versions of sign language, but I wonder if it would be more practical, for game purposes, to ignore that and just have one universal sign language which is the same everywhere. Plus perhaps some specialty sign languages for specific groups, like thieves or soldiers.

In general I think players should specify in their PC's backstory where they grew up, and to what they were exposed in growing up. This would inform what languages and other things to which the PC might have access. For example, we (or "the game") treat Taldane as a common language all across the Inner Sea reason for two reasons: in the background/history of the region, it is a common language, and for game purposes we need such a language or the game gets bogged down because the players can't talk to each other. But the game assumes that if you "know" a language, you are perfectly fluent in it, and that's not always the case. A Varisian who grows up in a caravan moving around that region may be able to make himself understood in Taldane, but he's not going to be as fluent in it as a native speaker. The game ignores that, and that's fine, but it's still true (or would be, if Golarion really existed). OTOH, the Varisian is going to be more fluent in Varisian, and probably Shoanti, than somebody from Oppara.

As for access to Ancient Azlanti, how would that work? Azlant died more than 10,000 years ago, and the only native speaker to survive for any length of time, so far as we know, was Aroden, and it's been a while since he's been around. Even when he was around, why would he speak the language if no one else understood it? Maybe he might teach it to a few, but I doubt it would be commonly known. And as usage faded, so would knowledge, over the years.

Certain languages might be taught, as Latin and Greek were taught long after the collapse of the Roman Empire. That can be accounted for in the PC's back story. But it seems to me there should be a reason in that backstory why the PC knows that language, not just that the player wants his PC to know it.

Absalom will be an interesting case. Not addressed (so far) in PF2, and AFAIK has no "native" language of its own. Come to think on it, that seems odd. The greatest city in the world, been around for 5,000 years or so, and never developed its own language. That's not just odd, it's damn near unbelievable. Unless of course Absalom's "own language" is Taldane.


BTW, I do think shift from Polyglot->"Mwangi language" is good, more analagous to Taldane, both spoken by varying tribes/nationalities which are still related/mutually intelligible. "Polyglot" just felt like it weakened Mwangi identity and left it diffuse, like if Taldane was just only called "Common".

I also wonder if there is value in separately indicating regions' Native language(s) and non-Native languages that nonetheless have easier Common access for that Region. I know Taldane is default "Common", but it still seems reasonable to specify the regions where it is actually Native (i.e. Taldor, Cheliax, Andoren, etc) and naturally Common access... both to smoothly function if anybody plays with game assumption where Taldane is NOT Common, and potentially relevant for other mechanics which hinge on Region:NativeLanguage correlation... as well as indicating any territories where Taldane/Common may be less useful within Taldane/Common assumption game.

For Mwangi, it seems reasonable that it would have non-Native status but Common access in neighboring Nex, Geb, Mana Wastes (an angle that opens more narrative routes vs. past treatment), and that same status is perhaps more appropriate for Sodden Lands where it isn't actually native AFAIK (?).


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ed Reppert wrote:
Brew Bird wrote:
There's another issue with the Stone Fist Elixir. It doesn't remove the non lethal trait from your fist attacks. As such, an Alchemist is left without any means to do lethal unarmed damage (barring Feral Mutagen at 8th level)
This Feral Mutagen doesn't seem to be in the list of Alchemical items. An oversight, no doubt. Perhaps it's meant to refer to Bestial Mutagen.

Feral Mutagen is an Alchemist Feat that affects Bestial Mutagen, that was clarified in the update document.


So I was looking at some spells. One i loved to cast in older editions of DND.

Continual Flame. It can be heightened. But there is no benefit of it being heightened since it is any object touched with no size restriction. Except it costs more gold to cast the spell heightened. I guess if you want to blow your gold and higher spell level slots.

Is there something I am missing on this spell for it be be heightened or was there something they forgot to add in or changed before the book was printed?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Windleaf666 wrote:

So I was looking at some spells. One i loved to cast in older editions of DND.

Continual Flame. It can be heightened. But there is no benefit of it being heightened since it is any object touched with no size restriction. Except it costs more gold to cast the spell heightened. I guess if you want to blow your gold and higher spell level slots.

Is there something I am missing on this spell for it be be heightened or was there something they forgot to add in or changed before the book was printed?

My guess is that it's for dealing magical darkness of higher and higher levels, since Magical light only shines in magical darkness of a lower level than itself.


I just downloaded the pdf a few days ago, so I'd assume my version includes any errata, but idk. Anyway, here's some things that jumped out at me:

- Page 45 says Advanced Alchemy grants you the Alchemical Crafting feat, then goes on to say “You can use this feat to create common alchemical items...” This could be referring to either alchemy feat. Change it to “You can use Advanced Alchemy to quickly create….”

- Page 46 says “You can empower only a 1st level bomb.” Then, it goes on to talk about empowering a 3rd level alchemist’s fire. Change it to “You can only empower a bomb with a level that is up to your Alchemist level.” - or somesuch.
--- Is there any limit on the number of bombs you can empower? As written, it seems to apply to every daily preparation, Quick Alchemy, and normally crafted infused bomb, ad infinitum.

- On page 64, change “At 1st level, you learn one 1st-level occult spell of your choice” to “At 1st level, you learn two1st-level occult spells of your choice” (this is how it works for every other caster class).

- On page 175, change “If an item takes damage equal to or exceeding the item’s Hardness, the item takes a Dent.” to “If an item takes damage equal to or exceeding the item’s Hardness in a single hit, the item takes a Dent.”

- Page 176 says “If you’re not wearing armor, substitute your proficiency in unarmored defense,” but it does not say what you substitute that for. Do you substitute that for the armor bonus, or just for the armor proficiency? When using unarmored defense, is the AC formula effectively 10 + Dex mod + (unarmored defense proficiency x 2)? Or is it this, but only for Monks? If so, then this needs to be more clearly stated, and should also be represented in Table 6-3. (If not, then Monks are really up a creek.)
--- Why isn’t the formula stated on page 97?

- 178 leads me to assume that all unarmed attacks always count as “fists,” and therefore 180 leads me to assume that all unarmed attacks are always considered agile and finesse. However, all but two Stances list those standard traits. This dichotomy is confusing. Please insert a line that clearly states whether a Monk uses Strength, Dex, or his choice for unarmed attack / damage rolls, and whether a Stance can remove these standard traits. (“Specific trumps general” makes me assume that this is the case, but it’s definitely worth clarifying since this is kind of a core element of the class.)

- Does the standard Ki Strike actually cost any spell points? It doesn’t say so, let alone how many. However, it does mention choosing between treating ki powers as divine or occult… but doesn’t mention how this choice changes anything.

- Continual Flame lists material costs for heightened versions, but says nothing about any benefits to doing so.
--- Speaking of which, the book only says that a torch sheds bright light in a 20ft radius. Does it also shed dim light for any distance beyond that? As written, it doesn’t appear so….

- Spiritual Weapon’s entry says “Attacks with the weapon use your attack modifier with that type of weapon, but substitute your spellcasting ability modifier instead of the normal ability modifier.” … Is this supposed to be “use your weapon proficiency modifier with that type of weapon...?”

-----------
- In the individual spell / power descriptions, PLEASE add a tag for which list(s) the spell is on. It would be incredibly cumbersome to have to flip back and forth between the spell descriptions and the spell list just to know whether an interesting spell is a valid option for a character or not.
--- You should also seriously consider separating the various types of powers from the normal spell descriptions. After all, they have different mechanics AND different sources.
- (Since each power has a unique source (usually a class feat), is there even any reason to keep power descriptions separate from their sources?)

.

Btw, where should I provide my general feedback on the rules?


B.S. wrote:
I just downloaded the pdf a few days ago, so I'd assume my version includes any errata, but idk.

It doesn't, because updating the PDF every two weeks would be insane, and any expectations that they do, don't account for the massive amount of work involved in layout and editing. Not to mention any places where the page numbers change would be rife for confusion.

On your specific points, I'm not sure I see the need for errata for many of them (most of the rest have already been errata'd). Most of the justifications that you're making involve a lot of bending over backwards to misread the rules, like arguing that all unarmed attacks are fists, when the actual text specifies that other abilities grant access to "special, more powerful unarmed attacks" which indicate they don't follow the preceding statement.


Quote:

Use the statistics for a fist even if you’re kicking, kneeing, or attacking with another part of your body.

- pg 178

In other words, treat all unarmed attacks as fists, even if it's actually a knee, etc instead of a fist.

Saying that certain features can make unarmed attacks more powerful is not quite the same as saying they can change any aspect of them, including removing traits.


B.S. wrote:
Quote:

Use the statistics for a fist even if you’re kicking, kneeing, or attacking with another part of your body.

- pg 178

In other words, treat all unarmed attacks as fists, even if it's actually a knee, etc instead of a fist.

Saying that certain features can make unarmed attacks more powerful is not quite the same as saying they can change any aspect of them, including removing traits.

Well in that case, all unarmed attacks do 1d4 damage, because they're all treated as a fist, which does 1d4 damage. I don't think this is a reasonable read, and I would find it hard to believe if someone at my gaming group came to me with this reading of it, claiming to be sincere.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Again, removing good traits is not the same as making something "more powerful." That's just how the language works.

To be clear: my contention is not that this is RAW, nor RAI. My contention is simply that, at least on the surface, the text seems unnecessarily contradictory. And since the text has not yet been finalized, it would be wise to modify it so that there's no room for misinterpretation.

401 to 421 of 421 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Errata questions All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.