Typos / Mistakes / Etc in 2E Books Collection


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

201 to 250 of 300 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Halfling and Orc Weapon Familiarity are missing the line "For the purpose of determining your proficiency".

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

@VestOfHolding: maybe it's actually not such a bad idea to also track FAQ candidates in this repo? The Paizo forums are basically a swamp into which questions sink away.

Or, alternatively, use this as a central location for developer clarifications etcetera, rather than relying on a raft of bookmarks.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Equipment - Torch

The torch doesn't list a duration, lanterns and other items list 6 hours but a torch has no duration. I don't believe this is intentional as an everburning torch still exists and sunrods exist.


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

The rules language for what happens when a character is reduced to zero hit points has some weird effects when a character is downed by another creature's reaction. There is also no explanation of what is supposed to happen when a character is downed by an effect not created by any combatant in the fight.


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

Here is a good suggested rewording of the rule mentioned above.


Rysky wrote:
Zapp wrote:
Since I haven't read the entire thread,
You might want to do that, especially on a thread about collecting mistakes.

Nah, I'll simply wait until somebody collates all the relevant entries in a single place.

I simply took for granted you did that as you collected all the info from the various discussions, which is why I asked where.

Apparently not. Yet anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Zapp wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Zapp wrote:
Since I haven't read the entire thread,
You might want to do that, especially on a thread about collecting mistakes.

Nah, I'll simply wait until somebody collates all the relevant entries in a single place.

I simply took for granted you did that as you collected all the info from the various discussions, which is why I asked where.

Apparently not. Yet anyway.

I'm not quite sure whether to read that as a response to me, or the person you're actually quoting, but please see the following replies to your last post all providing what you asked for in different forms:

Here.

Here.

And here.

The second link is the most helpful if you have any trouble seeing the color difference on links.


I didn't see this in the archives of nethys, but my CRB pg 135 gives Poison Resistance the 1 action symbol.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paradozen wrote:
I didn't see this in the archives of nethys, but my CRB pg 135 gives Poison Resistance the 1 action symbol.

With no duration, I guess you do the action once and it lasts forever. ;)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

core rulebook page 331 disrupt undead is missing the cantrip tag.


VestOfHolding wrote:
I'm not quite sure whether to read that as a response to me, or the person you're actually quoting, but please see the following replies to your last post all providing what you asked for in different forms:

You should most definitely see it as a response to the person I was quoting. He seemed to get upset by my ask for some reason, so I wanted to explain to him that reading through the entire thread was obviously never going to be an option. All the info-collating threads I'm used to reserve the first post for a continually-updated summary without having to read all the discussion. Since I believe this particular forum software locks posts after a certain time, I wanted to ask the thread where these summaries were kept instead. I never doubted they existed, and so I found his dismissive response to just read the thread to be moderately ludicrous.

Had he instead responded in a friendly constructive way, like you did, he would instead have gotten the response I do direct toward you: thank you! :-)


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zapp wrote:
VestOfHolding wrote:
I'm not quite sure whether to read that as a response to me, or the person you're actually quoting, but please see the following replies to your last post all providing what you asked for in different forms:

You should most definitely see it as a response to the person I was quoting. He seemed to get upset by my ask for some reason, so I wanted to explain to him that reading through the entire thread was obviously never going to be an option. All the info-collating threads I'm used to reserve the first post for a continually-updated summary without having to read all the discussion. Since I believe this particular forum software locks posts after a certain time, I wanted to ask the thread where these summaries were kept instead. I never doubted they existed, and so I found his dismissive response to just read the thread to be moderately ludicrous.

Had he instead responded in a friendly constructive way, like you did, he would instead have gotten the response I do direct toward you: thank you! :-)

Sorry, squire, but I have to back Rysky up on this: by your own admission, you came to this thread, didn’t find what you wanted in the first place you looked, didn’t bother checking if anyone was doing collation, and then stated essentially “because I didn’t look at everything, here’s something I’ve noticed that might already have been noticed but I can’t be bothered to check if it’s been mentioned already”.

That feels very dismissive of the work everyone else has put into the thread. While you might not have intended it that way, your post wasn’t friendly or constructive, but feels lazy and dismissive.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Fighters seem to jump from expert to legendary (level 19) proficiency in unarmed attacks. None of their other abilities improve it and even their weapon groups state that their proficiency improves for "simple and martial weapons".

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber

There is a discrepancy between the description of the Bard class, page 96, and the text about substituting components in the Magic chapter, page 303.

The former indicates that you can play instruments instead of speaking for spells requiring verbal component, which thus seems to stay relevant and the spell would keep the Concentration trait.

The latter states that playing an instrument can replace the verbal component. In this case, the spell does not get the Concentration trait.

My guess is that the latter is correct, since playing an instrument instead of speaking would bring almost zero benefits otherwise. Also the first wording is a bit ambiguous, while the second is clearer.

Sovereign Court

I'm not sure if I'm overlooking it or if it's just not there. On page 518 there's a table with temperature consequences, like "minor cold damage". How much damage is minor or moderate cold or fire damage?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The beginning of the Environment section has table laying out Minor/Moderate/Major/Massive Environmental damage, which standardizes what different situations would do, although they can add their own nuances beyond that, the basic damage tiers are universal. Like Basic Saving Throws or Basic Spellcasting Archetype progression.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:


My guess is that the latter is correct, since playing an instrument instead of speaking would bring almost zero benefits otherwise. Also the first wording is a bit ambiguous, while the second is clearer.

Doesn't sound right, playing an instrument (perform skill) has the concentration tag. I cannot imagine using it while crafting magic would become less taxing than both verbally speaking chanting the spell and playing the instrument normally.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

P. 499 near the top: "Don't do this if it's absolutely clear another check matters more sense than perception ..." -- I think this should be "makes more sense than".


The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:


My guess is that the latter is correct, since playing an instrument instead of speaking would bring almost zero benefits otherwise. Also the first wording is a bit ambiguous, while the second is clearer.
Doesn't sound right, playing an instrument (perform skill) has the concentration tag.

It's not the perform skill/action unless you're making a roll. "You are skilled at a form of performance, using your talents to impress a crowd or make a living": you're neither playing to impress or make a living [or even necessarily anything pleasant].

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
I cannot imagine using it while crafting magic would become less taxing than both verbally speaking chanting the spell and playing the instrument normally.

Your way would make it HARDER than either as it would then have 2 traits [manipulate and concentrate] so the substitution would be one never used as there's almost no benefits in doing so. [only someone physically mute gains a benefit]

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber

Alas. Mark Seifter clarified that the Concentration trait stays even if verbal is substituted.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
Alas. Mark Seifter clarified that the Concentration trait stays even if verbal is substituted.

If so, I question why anyone would use it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Alas. Mark Seifter clarified that the Concentration trait stays even if verbal is substituted.
If so, I question why anyone would use it.

The only mechanical reason to ever cast a spell with an instrument is to bypass material components. They threw in the other options for verbal and somatic for thematic reasons (what do you mean I have to waive my instruments around in mystical patterns while I play and take my mouth off my wind instrument to mutter a word?), not for additional mechanical benefit.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Bestiary pages 166-167, Ghost.

In the general presentation, Frightful Moan is a 2-action activity, but in both detailed stat blocks p167 (commoner and mage), it is a 1-action option.

Grand Lodge

Fall of Plaguestone, page 5:

(I don't think this is much of a spoiler, but putting in in a spoiler tag just in case.)

Block text A:
"Keldaran" is referenced, but I can't find this name anywhere else. Is it supposed to be Bort?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Grim Ranger wrote:

Fall of Plaguestone, page 5:

(I don't think this is much of a spoiler, but putting in in a spoiler tag just in case.)

** spoiler omitted **

Going by the posts following Shadowfoot's question here, its an error that probably refers to an earlier draft of an NPC's name. Will need to scroll down a bit, as I can't seem to link directly to that post.

Silver Crusade

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

Death's Call Domain Power p. 391

Quote:
Seeing another pass from this world to the next invigorates you. You gain temporary Hit Points equal to the triggering creature’s level plus your Wisdom modifier. If the triggering creature was undead, double the number of temporary Hit Points you gain . These last for the duration of the spell, and the spell ends if all the temporary Hit Points are depleted earlier.

Is that based off Wisdom even if it's not your casting stat, such as Champion?


The spell Charm (Core rules, PDF, add the page later) has its entries for successes and failures in the wrong order (critical failure describes the effect of a critical success, same for success and failure).

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Leyren wrote:
The spell Charm (Core rules, PDF, add the page later) has its entries for successes and failures in the wrong order (critical failure describes the effect of a critical success, same for success and failure).

Charm isn’t an attack you roll, the target has to make a Will Save, the 4steps are describing what happens when they do.


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.


Bestiary

* p.112: The Ancient Red Dragon is Huge, not Gargantuan as it's supposed to be.

I'm quite sure one of the dev team already confirmed it as a real error in an another thread, but I want to make sure that it will be fixed ASAP in he 2nd printing, hence the reprisal here.


I took a quick look and see this anywhere. If I take a spellcaster and multiclass into another caster, can I take a feat like Cantrip Expansion from my original class AND my multiclass one? I assume it's the same feat even if it shows up on different lists [meaning I couldn't take it twice], but it wouldn't hurt for it to be clarified.


VestOfHolding wrote:

please see the following replies to your last post all providing what you asked for in different forms:

Here.

Here.

And here.

The second link is the most helpful if you have any trouble seeing the color difference on links.

Unless I'm mistaken all three links lead to the same summary?

Thank you, but that wasn't really what I wanted - it contains every little spelling mistake and what not.

While that's great, what I'm looking for is the short list of errors with game impact only. Something you can hand out to your players.

Maybe I'm in the wrong thread, but I couldn't find anywhere else where this stuff was discussed. So let me ask while I'm here:

Does a curated list of things that really need errata exist yet?

Silver Crusade

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

Not at the moment outside of individual threads on each subject, but i suspect that to change when they activate the FAQ system for 2e.


Rysky wrote:
Leyren wrote:
The spell Charm (Core rules, PDF, add the page later) has its entries for successes and failures in the wrong order (critical failure describes the effect of a critical success, same for success and failure).
Charm isn’t an attack you roll, the target has to make a Will Save, the 4steps are describing what happens when they do.

Ugh. Sorry. I must have still been in "New Edition Confusion" when I read that spell. :-/

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Leyren wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Leyren wrote:
The spell Charm (Core rules, PDF, add the page later) has its entries for successes and failures in the wrong order (critical failure describes the effect of a critical success, same for success and failure).
Charm isn’t an attack you roll, the target has to make a Will Save, the 4steps are describing what happens when they do.
Ugh. Sorry. I must have still been in "New Edition Confusion" when I read that spell. :-/

No worries, we're all still there ^w^


Rysky wrote:
Not at the moment outside of individual threads on each subject, but i suspect that to change when they activate the FAQ system for 2e.

Oh, I didn't expect something official (if by "they" you mean Paizo?) I was asking about a fan-compiled list.

And individual threads ≠ collected list :-)

Thanks though - now I know not to keep looking!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the bard's "lingering performance" probably shouldn't have the "focus pool" prerequisite. While playing in bard you'll always have a focus pool, if you're MC'ing in, this is a first level feat that doesn't seem like it should be prohibited from MC (all the other bard schools aren't...).

On top of this, if things do stay the same, clarification on whether as an MC bard if you take the "Multifarious Muse" feat and go maestro, if you are still required to have the prerequisites.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

FAQ candidate
Poison weapon rogue feat [4] states it requires a free hand but does not state that it draws the poison.

Is the RAI that it is meant to use an already drawn poison but reduce the action cost of application from 3 to 1, or does the feat make the character able to draw the required poison from any location (Such as a backpack) as a part of the action?

RAW it cannot be used to poison anything as it doesn't state it draws an item and it cannot work if you already have a weapon and poison in hand.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
tivadar27 wrote:

I think the bard's "lingering performance" probably shouldn't have the "focus pool" prerequisite. While playing in bard you'll always have a focus pool, if you're MC'ing in, this is a first level feat that doesn't seem like it should be prohibited from MC (all the other bard schools aren't...).

On top of this, if things do stay the same, clarification on whether as an MC bard if you take the "Multifarious Muse" feat and go maestro, if you are still required to have the prerequisites.

1) Lingering Composition is a Focus Spell, so you need Focus Points to even use it.

2) You'd get it, but couldn't use it without Focus Points.

3) This thread is for collecting typos and mistakes, not discussing the altering of abilities to be more appealing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:

I think the bard's "lingering performance" probably shouldn't have the "focus pool" prerequisite. While playing in bard you'll always have a focus pool, if you're MC'ing in, this is a first level feat that doesn't seem like it should be prohibited from MC (all the other bard schools aren't...).

On top of this, if things do stay the same, clarification on whether as an MC bard if you take the "Multifarious Muse" feat and go maestro, if you are still required to have the prerequisites.

1) Lingering Composition is a Focus Spell, so you need Focus Points to even use it.

2) You'd get it, but couldn't use it without Focus Points.

3) This thread is for collecting typos and mistakes, not discussing the altering of abilities to be more appealing.

2) You're wrong, it's unclear whether you'd get it. The prerequisite is "Focus Pool", it's unclear whether it could be selected without meeting that prerequisite. Once selected, however, it would clearly "increase your focus pool by 1" so from 1 to 0.

3) It's for discussing mistakes. I think it's worth asking if that was a mistake vs a design decision. In the playtest the feat worked differently, so it's a fair question to ask...

Please consider what I've said before you accuse me of trying to make something more appealing and not contributing to the actual topic...

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
tivadar27 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:

I think the bard's "lingering performance" probably shouldn't have the "focus pool" prerequisite. While playing in bard you'll always have a focus pool, if you're MC'ing in, this is a first level feat that doesn't seem like it should be prohibited from MC (all the other bard schools aren't...).

On top of this, if things do stay the same, clarification on whether as an MC bard if you take the "Multifarious Muse" feat and go maestro, if you are still required to have the prerequisites.

1) Lingering Composition is a Focus Spell, so you need Focus Points to even use it.

2) You'd get it, but couldn't use it without Focus Points.

3) This thread is for collecting typos and mistakes, not discussing the altering of abilities to be more appealing.

2) You're wrong, it's unclear whether you'd get it. The prerequisite is "Focus Pool", it's unclear whether it could be selected without meeting that prerequisite. Once selected, however, it would clearly "increase your focus pool by 1" so from 1 to 0.

3) It's for discussing mistakes. I think it's worth asking if that was a mistake vs a design decision. In the playtest the feat worked differently, so it's a fair question to ask...

Please consider what I've said before you accuse me of trying to make something more appealing and not contributing to the actual topic...

2) It's not unclear at all, you pick Maestro Muse through Multifarious you get it, there's no Focus Pool prerequisite for it. Cut and dry.

3) Again, this is a thread is for collecting typos and mistakes. "I don't like this/i think it should work like this" deserves its own thread.


Rysky wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:

I think the bard's "lingering performance" probably shouldn't have the "focus pool" prerequisite. While playing in bard you'll always have a focus pool, if you're MC'ing in, this is a first level feat that doesn't seem like it should be prohibited from MC (all the other bard schools aren't...).

On top of this, if things do stay the same, clarification on whether as an MC bard if you take the "Multifarious Muse" feat and go maestro, if you are still required to have the prerequisites.

1) Lingering Composition is a Focus Spell, so you need Focus Points to even use it.

2) You'd get it, but couldn't use it without Focus Points.

3) This thread is for collecting typos and mistakes, not discussing the altering of abilities to be more appealing.

2) You're wrong, it's unclear whether you'd get it. The prerequisite is "Focus Pool", it's unclear whether it could be selected without meeting that prerequisite. Once selected, however, it would clearly "increase your focus pool by 1" so from 1 to 0.

3) It's for discussing mistakes. I think it's worth asking if that was a mistake vs a design decision. In the playtest the feat worked differently, so it's a fair question to ask...

Please consider what I've said before you accuse me of trying to make something more appealing and not contributing to the actual topic...

2) It's not unclear at all, you pick Maestro Muse through Multifarious you get it, there's no Focus Pool prerequisite for it. Cut and dry.

3) Again, this is a thread is for collecting typos and mistakes. "I don't like this/i think it should work like this" deserves its own thread.

Can you provide a rules reference that when something lets me choose a feat, I don't need to meet that feat's prerequisites? To your second point... again, if you want to read my previous response, feel free...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Zapp wrote:
VestOfHolding wrote:

please see the following replies to your last post all providing what you asked for in different forms:

Here.

Here.

And here.

The second link is the most helpful if you have any trouble seeing the color difference on links.

Unless I'm mistaken all three links lead to the same summary?

Thank you, but that wasn't really what I wanted - it contains every little spelling mistake and what not.

While that's great, what I'm looking for is the short list of errors with game impact only. Something you can hand out to your players.

Maybe I'm in the wrong thread, but I couldn't find anywhere else where this stuff was discussed. So let me ask while I'm here:

Does a curated list of things that really need errata exist yet?

I'm now very confused, and you are indeed in the wrong thread. Please read more of the thread next time.

I did some updating yesterday, and the list is now caught up to Crushed Moth's post about the lesser frost vial.

Repo here.

EDIT: Ok, to back up a little, you will note that there is a list of possible FAQ/Errata/etc material at the bottom of all of these links. I think that's the closest you'll get. Just note that it's more haphazard, and, as stated in the first post of this thread, is not necessarily the main focus of this.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
tivadar27 wrote:
Can you provide a rules reference that when something lets me choose a feat, I don't need to meet that feat's prerequisites?

Multifarious Muse does not have any prerequisites other than being a Level 2 Bard Feat.

MULTIFARIOUS MUSE wrote:
FEAT 2 BARD Your muse doesn’t fall into a single label. Choose a type of muse other than that of your own. You gain a 1st-level feat that requires that muse, and your muse is now also a muse of that type, allowing you to take feats with the other muse as a prerequisite. You don’t gain any of the other effects of the muse you chose. Special You can take this feat multiple times. Each time you do, you must choose a different type of muse other than that of your own.

Emphasis bolded.

You take Multifarious Muse (no prereqs), you pick Maestro (no prereqs), you get Lingering Compostion, it wouldn't matter how many prerequisites Lingering Composition might have. You're not picking it. You're picking Maestro and Maestro gives you Lingering Composition.


Rysky wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:
Can you provide a rules reference that when something lets me choose a feat, I don't need to meet that feat's prerequisites?

Multifarious Muse does not have any prerequisites other than being a Level 2 Bard Feat.

MULTIFARIOUS MUSE wrote:
FEAT 2 BARD Your muse doesn’t fall into a single label. Choose a type of muse other than that of your own. You gain a 1st-level feat that requires that muse, and your muse is now also a muse of that type, allowing you to take feats with the other muse as a prerequisite. You don’t gain any of the other effects of the muse you chose. Special You can take this feat multiple times. Each time you do, you must choose a different type of muse other than that of your own.

Emphasis bolded.

You take Multifarious Muse (no prereqs), you pick Maestro (no prereqs), you get Lingering Compostion, it wouldn't matter how many prerequisites Lingering Composition might have. You're not picking it. You're picking Maestro and Maestro gives you Lingering Composition.

No, you "gain *a* first level feat", not "you gain *the* first level feat". You're selecting it from a limited list (which, currently, is of size 1). In 1e, this would definitely *not* work as you say it does RAW. You could only take a feat without the pre-reqs when it was given specifically by name. It's unclear what the intentions are for 2e.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Ah okay, I see what's going on, I actually did read that as "the", not "a". My sincere apologies.

In that case back to the beginning, no you could not select LC until you had a Focus Pool.


Rysky wrote:

Ah okay, I see what's going on, I actually did read that as "the", not "a". My sincere apologies.

In that case back to the beginning, no you could not select LC until you had a Focus Pool.

And this is in part why I'm asking if this was a mistake/oversight... As I said, this worked differently in the playtest and it's unclear, at least to me, if it's intentionally this way now. Not to mention, it took a good 3-4 back-and-forths between us for you to understand how this *should* work... so at the very least, additional clarity there would be good (such as explicitly stating you have to meet the pre-requisites).

Silver Crusade

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

But the thing is it's not a misreading of interpretation A vs Interpretation B, I quite literally misread one word as another that completely changed how the feat functioned.

Since it's letting you pick, rather than giving you a feat straight out you still need to meet the prerequisites. And since the prerequisite is having a Focus pool so you can take something that costs Focus I don't believe it is in error.

I don't know how Bards worked in the Playtest but I'm guessing Resonance, which every class had, not just the casters, so that's why the perquisite was added.


You'd guess wrong. In the playtest, Lingering gave 2 Focus points straight-up. And when you misreading "a" vs "the" changes the entire meaning of a feat, then I'd say a clarification is warranted.

Note: You seem to be arguing that the only things allowed to be addressed in this thread are ambiguous rules, and not, potentially, rule oversights/misprints, yet there are plenty others of those throughout the thread (fighters not getting unarmed combat improvements consistently, abilities that should/shouldn't have the rage tag...)

Silver Crusade

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

Because the only issue was me mistaking one word for another, not a word missing or the book itelf using the wrong one.

201 to 250 of 300 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Typos / Mistakes / Etc in 2E Books Collection All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.