Typos / Mistakes / Etc in 2E Books Collection

[tivadar27]

Regarding goblin song:

CRB page 48 wrote:

You sing annoying goblin songs, distracting your foes with

silly and repetitive lyrics. Attempt a Performance check
against the Will DC of a single enemy within 30 feet. This has
all the usual traits and restrictions of a Performance check.

I'd suggest either clarifying the flavor text to include other things besides singing or clarifying the rules text to say "Performance (Sing) check".

[Fumarole]

Bestiary page 39 - The giant bat's wing attack is listed as doing piercing damage, but this should probably be bludgeoning.

[Cellion]

The Demilich (Bestiary p.222) has a Trap Soul ability. When a targeted creature succeeds its Fort save against Trap Soul, it becomes enervated 2. Enervated has been removed as a condition.

[ZomB]

Staves:
The staff of fire appears under statted compared to all other staffs. Likely should cost 90 gp and be level 4.

The rare staff of power likely should have a rare cost premium applied of at least 50% in line with the staff of the magi.

[Quandary]

This text from Chapter 7 on spellbooks seems like it is out of tune with actual rules:

Quote:

Although spellbooks play a central role in a wizard’s daily routine, other prepared spellcasting classes have been known to use spellbooks to record uncommon or even rare spells. Such a resource allows a caster to treat the spell like any other common spell, so long as they can reference the book during their daily preparations.

Yet Learn a Spell says:

Quote:

If you have a spellbook, Learning a Spell lets you add the spell to your spellbook; if you prepare spells from a list, it’s added to your list; if you have a spell repertoire, you can select it when you add or swap spells.

There is no requirement to scribe them into spellbook (although that doesn't seem to cost any extra) and have that spellbook on hand when preparing spells. When I first read this I thought "wow what a change, Clerics using spellbooks", but if that concept was considered at one point it doesn't seem to have consistently translated to actual rules.

(the Chapter 7 sidebar seems more like "background explanation" than authoritative rules, but I can't say which SHOULD be correct)

[Ravingdork]

Core Rulebbook p. 304 - Sustain a Spell action

Omits information regarding whether you can sustain multipe spells at once, or whether you can sustain the same spell multiple times in the same round.

[David knott 242]

Ravingdork wrote:

Core Rulebbook p. 304 - Sustain a Spell action

Omits information regarding whether you can sustain multipe spells at once, or whether you can sustain the same spell multiple times in the same round.

What is the effect of sustaining a spell? Depending on the exact wording, sustaining a spell more than once in the same round might not do anything.

[tivadar27]

David knott 242 wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

Core Rulebbook p. 304 - Sustain a Spell action

Omits information regarding whether you can sustain multipe spells at once, or whether you can sustain the same spell multiple times in the same round.

What is the effect of sustaining a spell? Depending on the exact wording, sustaining a spell more than once in the same round might not do anything.

It's relevant for things like Spiritual Weapon, where when you sustain, you attack. Note that by RAW, you can sustain multiple times in a round. I think that was likely intentional, but it'd be good to have clarification (probably doesn't need errata if that's the intention).

[Ravingdork]

tivadar27 wrote:

David knott 242 wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

Core Rulebbook p. 304 - Sustain a Spell action

Omits information regarding whether you can sustain multipe spells at once, or whether you can sustain the same spell multiple times in the same round.

What is the effect of sustaining a spell? Depending on the exact wording, sustaining a spell more than once in the same round might not do anything.

It's relevant for things like Spiritual Weapon, where when you sustain, you attack. Note that by RAW, you can sustain multiple times in a round. I think that was likely intentional, but it'd be good to have clarification (probably doesn't need errata if that's the intention).

This. I believe there is nothing wrong with maintaining multiple spells. However, if you can sustain the same casting of a spell in the same round, then flaming sphere just became the most powerful evocation spell in the game.

For example, at 3rd level it could do 9d6 damage (3d6 damage three times) without having to deal with limitations others do, like the multiattack penalty.

[Fuzzy-Wuzzy]

In the Lost Omens Character Guide, all the Uncommon human ancestry feats (starting page 11) have their Uncommon tag in the wrong color (red not orange), at least in the PDF. I haven't check the rest of the Guide exhaustively but it's correctly orange in at least some places.

[Fuzzy-Wuzzy]

It is arguably inconsistent that the elven ancestry feat Ancestral Longevity (CRB page 40) has a prereq of "at least 100 years old," while the elven heritage Ancient Elf (LOCG page 25) has no such prereq. Apparently you can't be born long-lived, but you can be born ancient.

This actually matters a tad in that half-elves probably shouldn't ever be able to pick up Ancient Elf via their ancestry feat Elf Atavism. (Or maybe their ~150-year lifespan is long enough. I don't care much which way it goes, but an age prereq would make it clear.)

[Fuzzy-Wuzzy]

Lost Omens Character Guide page 45, Cunning Climber wrote:

You can take the Legendary Climber feat even if you don't have the Quick Climb feat, provided you meet its other prerequisites.

AFAICT the CRB, LOCG, and LOWG do not contain a Legendary Climber feat, nor anything with Quick Climb as a prereq.

[tivadar27]

I'm going to suggest a couple things, feel free to disagree, but with an update coming out on Wednesday:
1. We postpone additional suggestions until we see what's in that update, it may cover some of them.
2. We close this thread and open a new one for errors still remaining. May require reposting some things, but at least we'd have an idea what had already been addressed.
3. We start different threads for different books... Probably 1 thread per book is a good idea.

Thoughts? We've got 2 full days to decide :-P.

[CrystalSeas]

I like the "1 thread per book" option best because it helps future-proof these threads.

When you buy a new book (in the future) the possible errata are easier to look through, and make notes in your copy of that book.

Also, it might be useful to ask Paizo to lock this thread once the errata come out. No one can "close" a thread but them.

[Ed Reppert]

Write in a book?! Horrors!

[CrystalSeas]

Ed Reppert wrote:

Write in a book?! Horrors!

I know, right?

What I actually do is cover the pages with little sticky notes with circles and arrows and a paragraph explaining what each one is.

And colors. Different colors of sticky notes mean different things (typo versus error versus unclear).

[Fumarole]

That's what PDFs are for. They're easy to highlight, strikethrough, annotate, etc.

[Alsolomir]

Ok, I hope this is ok but I have some items that need clarification from some other sources and they were not mentioned in the errata podcast. They might be FAQ items but I think they need changed in the book to clarify. I also suspect that one might be errata for certain spells and only have a couple examples of something that I think might be multiple spells.

1. Do spells and other actions or activities require a flat check for concealment even if they do not have an attack roll. example magic missile or ranger "hunt prey." I'm assuming no, but this should be clarified.

2. Do spells that have the "attack" trait add to multiple attack penalty even if they do not include an spell attack roll? Examples include the spell "Chill Touch."

3. I suspect because of the above question that some of the spells are missing the "attack" trait and other spells should not have that trait but do. I think this trait was intended to indicate that it has a spell attack roll. Examples include "Abyssal Plaque" has attack trait but doesn't have spell attack, "Chill Touch" has attack trait but doesn't have spell attack, "Death Knell" has attack trait but doesn't have spell attack, "Disintegrate" doesn't have attack trait but does require spell attack, "Polar Ray" does not have the attack trait but does require an spell attack. There might be more and if this wasn't the intention behind the "attack" trait then I have no idea what that trait means.

4. "Telekinetic Projectile" should have Ranged Spell attack rather than ranged attack.

5. The Wizard dedication archetype "Arcane school spell" does not give access to "Hand of the Apprentice" since universal wizard is not a school of magic. Was this intended?

[Alsolomir]

Here is my entire list of spells that need to be looked at for the 'attack trait'

These spells (or focus spells) have the attack trait but do not have a spell attack roll;

Abyssal Plague
Chill Touch
Death Knell
Ghoulish Cravings
Goblin Pox
Mariner's Curse
Outcast's Curse
Spider Sting
Savor the Sting
Touch of Undeath
Force bolt

These spells (or focus spells) do not have the attack trait but do require a spell attack roll;

Disintegrate
Polar Ray
Tangle Foot

It should be noted that similar or almost identical spells such as Force Bolt and Magic Missile are marked differently. Magic missile does not have the 'attack' trait and does not require an attack roll. Force Bolt does have the 'attack' trait, does not require an attack roll but is nearly identical to Magic Missile.

Spiritual Guardian and Spiritual Weapon both have the 'attack' trait and specifically say that they apply to multi attack penalty. Weapon of Judgement does not have the attack trait but also specifically says that it applies to the multi attack penalty.

[Alsolomir]

To make this even more complicated. Even though basic attack actions like strike and shove have the attack trait no class obtained attack actions have the trait, such as, Channel Smite, Double Slice, Exacting Strike, Brutish Shove, Snagging Strike ...etc. These are obviously attack actions and should probably contain the 'attack' trait.

If the 'attack' trait is not intended to indicate that something has an attack roll and therefore applies to multi attack penalty then I have no idea what this trait is intended to do...

The biggest problem from this is that there are whole groups of GMs applying multi attack penalties to spells that do not have attack rolls because on page 446 under 'Multiple Attack Penalty' it states, "Every check that has the attack trait counts toward
your multiple attack penalty, including Strikes, spell attack
rolls, certain skill actions like Shove, and many others." This really needs to be addressed since it is too much to errata simply.

[Rysky]

The Feats you mentioned don’t have the Attack trait because they’re modifiers on attacks/Strikes, so that would be redundant.

[Fumarole]

Fires of the Haunted City - page 24.

Age of Ashes AP spoiler:

Forgemaster Halrig is incorrectly referred to as Forgemaster Kalrig.

Quote:

Treasure: With the knowledge that

Brigven was responsible, Forgemaster Kalrig has a
path forward. To reward the PCs, she teaches them the
recipes for a pair of weapon runes: a kin-warding rune
and greater bloodbane rune (see page 73). If the PCs
also secure Brigven’s confession and capture him alive
(whether they fnd him here or later in the Hidden
Forge), Halrig offers to enhance one of the PCs’
weapons into a +2 greater striking weapon for free.

[The Gleeful Grognard]

Attack trait pg.629
"An ability with this trait involves an attack. For each attack you make beyond the first on your turn, you take a multiple attack penalty."

If in question, look it up :P

RAW

- If you roll a d20 when using something that has an attack trait it is an attack roll. You also apply your MAP if applicable. (this is described further in the section that outlines what an attack is)

- If you use something with an attack trait, even if you aren't making an attack roll, it increases your MAP.

[Asgetrion]

Fumarole wrote:

Bestiary page 39 - The giant bat's wing attack is listed as doing piercing damage, but this should probably be bludgeoning.

I noticed the same, but you beat me to it! :)

Indeed, Giant Bat (Bestiary p. 39) lists fangs doing slashing damage and wing does piercing damage; that makes no sense. Other "bat-like" creatures such as the Deculi inflict piercing damage with fangs and bludgeoning with wings.

[3Doubloons]

I made a quick pass over the errata document to strike out the things that were addressed. There may still be some in the FAQ section, since I wasn't in a great position to look at the thread for what they referred to. We may also want a clearer indication of what's been addressed and what hasn't; I'll experiment with some when I have time.

As usual, the repository is available here: https://github.com/alexbrault/Pathfinder2EOversights/

[Spamotron]

Core Rule Book pages 80 and 81

True Debilitating Bomb says:

" If you instead apply one of the effects listed in Debilitating Bomb, the target avoids the effect only if the result of its saving throw is a critical success."

Perfect Debilitation says:

" When you use Debilitating Bomb, your target avoids the condition the bomb imposes only if it critically succeeds at its saving throw."

That looks redundant and confusing to me.

Nethys Links:

True Debilitating Bomb

Perfect Debilitation

[DemonicDem]

Rough Rider Goblin Feat: (https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=45)
"You are especially good at riding traditional goblin mounts. You gain the Ride feat, even if you don’t meet the prerequisites."

But the Ride feat has no prereqs.(https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=835)

[Ezekieru]

Spamotron wrote:

Core Rule Book pages 80 and 81

True Debilitating Bomb says:

" If you instead apply one of the effects listed in Debilitating Bomb, the target avoids the effect only if the result of its saving throw is a critical success."

Perfect Debilitation says:

" When you use Debilitating Bomb, your target avoids the condition the bomb imposes only if it critically succeeds at its saving throw."

That looks redundant and confusing to me.

Nethys Links:

True Debilitating Bomb

Perfect Debilitation

Yeah, they need to make it more clear how Perfect combos into True. 'Cause if it doesn't, there no need to take Perfect at all.

[tivadar27]

For those posting things for CRB, please see thread here.

We've both moved this to the rules forum and are trying to make it specific to CRB. For those with issues with other books, I actually suggest starting up a thread in the Rules forum for that particular book...

[Quandary]

I think we need to have a Lock, please...

[VestOfHolding]

I would agree with a lock. We have thoroughly exhausted the thread's original purpose, and other questions that people are finding are more worth the regular smaller threads or Discord/Reddit posts that people normally make.

[Aratorin]

Lost Omens World Guide Pg. 108.

Saga Lands

Under Languages it lists "Elvish". This is the only use of that word to describe the language of Elves in both this book and the CRB. It should be "Elven".

[Garulo]

CRB - Bookmarks "Englare" should be "Enlarge" (entry is correct)

[Ed Reppert]

Garulo wrote:

CRB - Bookmarks "Englare" should be "Enlarge" (entry is correct)

Why do I picture Jean-Luc Picard when I read this? :-)

[Naikos]

The Scare to Death skill feat has the fear trait, which says that all effects with the fear trait also have the emotion and mental trait, but then it doesn't have the mental trait.

[Umutuku]

APG Typo

Witch Archetype: The 18th feat is shown as "Master Wizard Spellcasting" instead of "Master Witch Spellcasting".

I have the PDF. Not sure if the typo is in the hard copy.

[Phalton]

APG Typo, unless I'm misinterpreting something.

Poisoner Archetype has Improved Poison Weapon listed at both 10th and 12th level under Additional Feats.

If I interpret the rules correctly, once it's available at 10th, a character of at least 10th level or higher with Poisoner Dedication has access to it, so the 12th level entry is redundant.

[Martigan Drake]

Crushed Moth wrote:

Core Rulebook

* p.75: In Perpetual Infusions: "Bomber: Choose two of the following formulas: lesser acid flask, lesser alchemist’s fire, lesser bottled lightning, lesser liquid ice, lesser tanglefoot bag, lesser thunderstone." Should be lesser frost vial. The name was changed after the playtest.

Same mistake in the PF2E module "The Fall of Plaguestone" on page 45 in

"I17. Experimental Laboratory" section : "Rewards: There are ... It contain a wide variety of formulas, including all of the items found in this adventure (acid flask, ... , elixir of life, liquid ice, mistform elixir, ...).

Should be lesser frost vial. The name was changed after the playtest.

[Falgaia]

Likely APG Misprint on the Vigilante archetype on a particularly important feat, copied from the original thread it was in:

The Vigilante Archetype's Quick Change feat is available for access at 7th level with the requirement that the player must have a Master Proficiency in Deception to acquire it. This implies the feat would have the Skill trait, as most Skill Feats at Level 7 share these traits, and yet the feat does not have the Skill trait. Assuming the lack of Skill trait is correct, there would be no mechanical way to take the feat at Level 7 when access to it is unlocked, as Class feats are acquired at even levels. So, was this feat meant to have the skill trait, or was it intended to be a Level 8 feat? Either case would likely require errata.

[Moth Mariner]

Lost Omens Character Guide, p.127
Pathfinder Venture-Captain (Khoumrock Blackthane) has the trait Human, despite clearly being a Dwarf.

[PlantThings]

APG Typo, pg. 231

The Dread Secret spell lists a duration "until the start of your next turn" that does not seem to apply anything.

The two lingering effects Dread Secret causes is losing a chosen resistance that lasts "until the end of your next turn" and frightened, which has its own duration ruling unless specified otherwise. If this is a case where the duration is referring to the frightened condition, it is unclear.

[Perpdepog]

Bestiary 3, pg 119, the Green Man's vine attack is missing the "Reach 30 feet" trait which I presume it should have, since you get it in the Nature Incarnate spell, and it seems weird that someone turning into a thing at level 19 would be better at it than the actual thing at level 24.

[HyperMissingno]

Does anyone have the Gods and Magic book/pdf? On the Archives of Nethys it lists Charon as having Crushing Despair as a 4th level cleric spell. Crushing Despair is a 5th level spell. I dunno if that's an error on the book/pdf's part or a typo on the archive's part. He's on page 130.

Edit, Naderi, who is also supposedly on the same page, also has Crushing Despair listed as a 4th level spell she gives to her clerics.

[CrystalSeas]

Charon is on page 128 of Gods And Magic, under "Horsemen"
Cleric spells are 1st grim tendrils; 4th crushing despair; 9th weird

Naderi is on page 130 of Gods And Magic, under "Other Gods"
Cleric spells are 1st soothe; 4th crushing despair; 5th drop dead

[Laclale♪]

True neutral Deity's Divine living runes can't use divine decree and divine wrath.

[Dubious Scholar]

CRB - Monk's Abundant Step (p.160) is a 6th level feat. The focus spell (p.401) is 4th level.

Per the focus spell rules on p.300, this means you can't cast Abundant Step at 6th level (the minimum to cast a 4th level focus spell is 7).

This seems like an obvious error - either the feat should be 8th level or the spell 3rd.

[Malikor]

Advanced Player's Guide

p.202 Concealing Legerdemain reads: Conceal an Object using Stealth instead of Thievery

It should say: Conceal an Object using Thievery instead of Stealth

[Laclale♪]

AdventurePath

Luminous Ooze has missing point.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=504
When tempo HP of Lightning Catcher ends?