Typos / Mistakes / Etc in 2E Books Collection

[Matt Haddix]

Page 293: Unholy water: You can throw unholy water like a bomb, dealing 1d6 good damage to celestials and other creatures weak to evil damage.

Should be evil damage.

[Dubious Scholar]

Emanation spells seem to have some inconsistency.

A number of them clearly intend to include the caster in the effect (e.g. Invisibility Sphere), while others definitely do not (e.g. Divine Wrath).

This then leads to the question of Heal and Harm, which use emanation as the template for the 3-action version. Does a cleric using Harm with 3 actions hurt themselves?

There seems to be a lack of clarity on whether emanation does or doesn't include the caster, so while 99% of them are obvious RAI, RAW is... not - I can see it going both ways to odd effects.

[Franz Lunzer]

Dubious Scholar wrote:

Emanation spells seem to have some inconsistency.

A number of them clearly intend to include the caster in the effect (e.g. Invisibility Sphere), while others definitely do not (e.g. Divine Wrath).

This then leads to the question of Heal and Harm, which use emanation as the template for the 3-action version. Does a cleric using Harm with 3 actions hurt themselves?

There seems to be a lack of clarity on whether emanation does or doesn't include the caster, so while 99% of them are obvious RAI, RAW is... not - I can see it going both ways to odd effects.

Harm [AAA] wrote:

You disperse negative energy in a 30-foot emanation. This targets all living and undead creatures in the area.

Heal [AAA] wrote:

You disperse positive energy in a 30-foot emanation. This targets all living and undead creatures in the burst.

Emanation wrote:

An emanation issues forth from each side of your space, extending out to a specified number of feet in all directions. For instance, the bless spell’s emanation radiates 5 or more feet outward from the caster. ...

Burst wrote:

A burst effect issues forth in all directions from a single corner of a square within the range of the effect, spreading in all directions to a specified radius. ...

So, for harm the RAW is clear: a cleric doesn't harm themself.

It is actually the 3-action casting of heal that is having both emanation and burst mentioned.
I would speculate that the burst mentioned is there to include the caster in the emanation, but the definition of burst isn't compatible with emanations. It could be the Devs intended Heal to be a burst, noticed that this would mean Heal would affect a smaller area compared to Harm, changed it to an emanation but left the second sentence in there untouched.

[Ascalaphus]

Bless is a 5ft emanation that affects you and allies in the area.

Okay, maybe that one uses the "you and" to smuggle you into the emanation.

But to me it's far from obvious how emanations are intended to work. On the face of it I'm not convinced it's done consistently.

Synaptic pulse is also an emanation that first says it affects all enemies in the area, then talks about all creatures. Can the spell distinguish your allies from your enemies?

[Franz Lunzer]

Synaptic pulse seems to have another problem:

Heightened (9th) You can target up to five creatures.

So, how many creatures can you target with the unheightened casting?
Does it get worse at higher level?

[Xenocrat]

Franz Lunzer wrote:

Synaptic pulse seems to have another problem:

Heightened (9th) You can target up to five creatures.

So, how many creatures can you target with the unheightened casting?
Does it get worse at higher level?

This doesn't appear in the actual CRB under Synaptic Pulse. It does appear (correctly so) in the following spell, Synesthesia. Are you seeing this on AoN? That's where the error lies, then.

[Quandary]

Entangle is another spell that doesn't use normal 4-degrees formatting, but puts those results in paragraph text. Seemingly there is no effect on both Save and Crit Save, but given the broad effort to normalize the 4-degree formatting, it's useful for spells to 100% follow this whenever possible. When there is no distinction in Save vs Crit Save I don't think those need separate lines, they can be listed together for 'no effect' or whatever but using as much of the 4-degree formatting as is relevant to spell seems preferable for consistency.

[Psiphyre]

Possible oversight/FAQ candidate:

Looking at the Sprite category/family in the Bestiary (p.308-309) --

All three are listed as CN.

Is this correct? In 1st Edition, only Sprite was CN, whereas both Pixie & Grig were NG.

Of course, in 2nd Edition it may've been decided to have them all be CN, but their descriptions (particularly the Grig's) don't seem to line up well with CN...
Although, it could just be me. :/

<shrug>

[Cintra Bristol]

For the Emanations issue a few posts before this one, if the decision is that Emanations do include the center of the area, then the Weapon Storm spell's emanation version needs errata to let the caster exclude themselves.

(Divine Wrath as mentioned above is actually okay - since the Alignment damage won't harm the caster by definition of which alignments you can select and how aligned damage works. And I think Harm is working as intended - if you are an undead caster or otherwise healed by negative energy then it heals you, if you're a living caster who is damaged by negative energy then you have a choice to make...)

[Psiphyre]

Also from the Bestiary (--> inconsistent terminology?):

On the first page of the Werecreature section (p.328), under the "Afflicted and True Werecreatures" subsection (beginning of the third paragraph):

Affected werewolves received their curse from the bite of another werecreature (which could've been an afflicted or true werecreature). An afflicted werecreature may be unaware of its curse because...

Spoiler:

The subsection discusses the difference between afflicted & true werecreatures and how they may contract the curse. It is not really about any specific kind of werecreature (e.g. werebear, wererat, or werewolf), so it's possible that "affected werewolves" may be older terminology (or even placeholder text from a template) for "afflicted werecreature" that got missed - maybe even a holdover from a previous draft. <shrug>

...Or not?
Wouldn't make much sense, though...

[S. J. Digriz]

Someone may have found this before me, but the staff of necromancy lists enervation as a spell that it can cast, but this spell does not exist on any spell list.

Pg. 595

"Type greater staff of necromancy; Level 10; Price 900 gp
• 3rd blindness, vampiric touch
• 4th grim tendrils, enervation"

[rainzax]

CRB p438

Iomedae
(Devotee Benefits)
Divine Font: heal
Divine Skill: Intimidation
Favored Weapon: longsword
Domains: confidence, might, truth, zeal
Cleric Spells: 1st: true strike, 2nd: see invisibility, 4th: fire shield

The See Invisibility spell is already on the Divine list. Every other deity adds spells from other lists to their Cleric Spells. I can recommend swapping out "2nd: See Invisibility" for "6th: Collective Transposition". Building on the precedent of Asmodeus granting 1st/4th/6th Cleric spells (instead of 1st/2nd/4th like most other deities), and given that Iomedae is at least as major a deity as Asmodeus, and given that almost every other 2nd, 3rd, 5th, and 6th level spell was either unthematic or already on the Divine list, thusly I base my recommendation. Specifically, this could help avoid the Anathma of "abandon a companion in need" by swapping places with them.

Cheers.

[Xenocrat]

rainzax wrote:

CRB p438

Iomedae
(Devotee Benefits)
Divine Font: heal
Divine Skill: Intimidation
Favored Weapon: longsword
Domains: confidence, might, truth, zeal
Cleric Spells: 1st: true strike, 2nd: see invisibility, 4th: fire shield

The See Invisibility spell is already on the Divine list. Every other deity adds spells from other lists to their Cleric Spells. I can recommend swapping out "2nd: See Invisibility" for "6th: Collective Transposition". Building on the precedent of Asmodeus granting 1st/4th/6th Cleric spells (instead of 1st/2nd/4th like most other deities), and given that Iomedae is at least as major a deity as Asmodeus, and given that almost every other 2nd, 3rd, 5th, and 6th level spell was either unthematic or already on the Divine list, thusly I base my recommendation. Specifically, this could help avoid the Anathma of "abandon a companion in need" by swapping places with them.

Cheers.

Iomadae isn’t a trillionth as significant as Asmodeus.

[Brew Bird]

On page 11 of the Bestiary, the Pleroma has a ranged attack, but no range is listed. The "Sphere of Oblivion" entry doesn't clarify the range either.

[Matrix Sorcica]

Bestiary, p. 220.

Lich is stated as getting cold 20, physical 15 (except magic bludgeoning) resistances, but the example lich only has cold 10, physical 10 (except magic bludgeoning).

[Dubious Scholar]

Sorcerers are supposed to be able to use downtime to swap out spells. However, while the Sorcerer's repertoire entry points to p.281, there is no section for that.

I find it unlikely that the cost is intended to be a month (the closest applicable entry is retaining class features, but that seems intended for major things like druid order).

[Syri]

* p.217 gives Ambusher animal companions a bonus to initiative . . . but animal companions don't have their own initiative in this edition.

[VestOfHolding]

Oh dang, looks like I have more work to do this weekend, lol.

[Tender Tendrils]

p592. Many staves can be found in multiple versions, with more powerful versions that contain more spells and can hold more charges

The text in bold seems not to be the case - all staves seem to simply have a number of charges equal to the level of spells the wielder can cast, regardless of which version of the staff you have.

[Fumarole]

All of the staves in this book, perhaps.

[Tender Tendrils]

Fumarole wrote:

All of the staves in this book, perhaps.

Well, the staff statblocks don't even have an entry about charges - there's just the paragraph at the start of the staff section that describes how your maximum spell level determines the charges for any staff you wield.

[Syri]

Bestiary
Statblocks are supposed to list languages, then skills, then ability modifiers, but
* p.178, 179: The three gnoll statblocks list skills, then languages, then ability modifiers
* p.312: Treerazer lists languages, then ability modifiers, then skills.

Core Rulebook
* p.225: Druid Dedication needs to say what druid anathema it does and doesn't come with. It seems intended to not come with the anathema against wearing metal armor, but surely it must be intended to come with the anathema against teaching Druidic to non-druids.

[The Gleeful Grognard]

Tender Tendrils wrote:

Fumarole wrote:

All of the staves in this book, perhaps.

Well, the staff statblocks don't even have an entry about charges - there's just the paragraph at the start of the staff section that describes how your maximum spell level determines the charges for any staff you wield.

Yes, that is why it says can. Specific always overrides general, the extra wording covers their but from a design perspective.

[ClanPsi]

p455 it says: "Reach greater than 10 feet is measured normally; 20-foot reach can reach 3 squares diagonally, 25-foot reach can reach 4, and so on."

I believe it should read: "... 30-foot reach can reach 4, and so on."

Counting diagonally:
5+10+5+10+...

5 feet
15 feet (exception)
20 feet
30 feet

[Syri]

* p.194, 207: The flavor text of sorcerer's defensive robes says they "help you get out of the way before an attack", but wizard's defensive robes instead "help you avoid attacks". If their class features have the same name and do the same thing, they should probably be unified to have the same text, just as both classes' magical fortitude class feature has the same text. The sorcerer wording sounds really clunky compared to the wizard's, imo.

[Syri]

* p.87: The giant instinct's titan mauler ability says "You gain access to one weapon one size larger than you". This needs an addendum that if you are Small, you instead gain access to a Large weapon, not a Medium one.

[Fuzzy-Wuzzy]

p. 91: Terrifying Howl makes you attempt to Demoralize each creature in range, and I don't recall any rule letting you intentionally fail a skill check, so it really screws your allies (and your mount). Presumably it should read "each enemy" or "each non-ally" or "each creature you wish to."

[The Gleeful Grognard]

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

p. 91: Terrifying Howl makes you attempt to Demoralize each creature in range, and I don't recall any rule letting you intentionally fail a skill check, so it really screws your allies (and your mount). Presumably it should read "each enemy" or "each non-ally" or "each creature you wish to."

There are a number of abilities that can effect allies. I would imagine this is the intent here as well.

Otherwise it would just be a straight upgrade to intimidating glare (well, except that it has the auditory trait)

[tivadar27]

Shifting rune, in general, could use some clarification. Does it have any effect on Handwraps/can it be used with them? How does it affect specific magic weapons that might have other abilities (if you get it through a Champion for example, or try to put it on a magical staff)?

[Quandary]

OK, the situation for Spontaneous Caster Multiclass Archetype seems really dubious, only granting choice of 1 spell known with 1 slot (only expandable later with Breadth and any Class Feats that expand Repertoire) ...Which to be succinct, doesn't feel very Spontaneous at all. Errata granting additional spell known and/or slot (especially for Sorceror, whose Class baseline for slots is higher), and/or also granting Signature spell (even in limited form, e.g. = CHA mod) for Sorceror seems desirable. Not strictly hewing to 1 slot = 1 spell known/repertoire doesn't seem worst of worlds here, and unique 'bonus slots/repertoire' which aren't multiplicable with Breadth seem like they could be part of solution.

But there is also specific error I noticed regarding Cantrip wording (they get choice of 2 Cantrips with Dedication).
Compare Basic Spellcasting to the Dedication wording for Cantrips:

Quote:

Basic: Each time you gain a spell slot of a new level from the sorcerer archetype, add a spell of the appropriate spell level to your repertoire:

a common spell of your bloodline’s tradition, one of your bloodline’s granted spells, or another spell you have learned or discovered.

Dedication/Cantrip: You gain a spell repertoire with two common cantrips from the spell list associated with your bloodline, or any other cantrips you learn or discover.

...

Notice how unlike Basic Spellcasting wording, Cantrip wording doesn't mention anything about Granted spell access.
(if it is already on list, the specific Bloodline has zero impact on Cantrips or Spells, since MC doesn't give Granted Cantrip/Spells for free)

So not only does the Archetype not automatically grant 'free' Granted Spells/Cantrips,
but unless the Bloodline's Granted Cantrip is ALREADY on the standard tradition spell list, then you can't actually learn it.

This is relevant for Diabolic, Demonic, and Fey Cantrips (which are off-list of Divine and Primal, respectively).

EDIT: I don't think any Cleric Domains currently grant Cantrips, but there doesn't seem any strict rule in how many or which spell levels are granted by Deity, so plausibly a future Deity could grant off-list Cantrip. Perhaps there should be provision for this in all Caster Dedication to account for any potential off-list access to Cantrips due to specific choices?

[Quandary]

The situation around Unarmed vs Simple proficiency is known and impacts several classes, but I noticed one situation that seems like it would be impacted by the specific Errata approach chosen...

Ruffian Rogue applies Sneak Attack to Simple Weapons in addition to normal Finesse/Agile. I thought MC Barbarian:Animal Instinct would be natural fit for Ruffians with natural attacks seeming simple/brutal as fits Ruffian, but currently I don't think most of the Animal Instinct attacks would qualify since they aren't Simple (some Animals offer weaker secondary Agile attack, but those work just as well with non-Ruffian rogues).

So if the Errata on Unarmed attacks lets them count as Simple in general (just being specific sub-category that CAN be higher proficiency), that would enable Ruffian + non-Finesse natural attack Sneak Attacks which seems appropriate IMHO.

[tivadar27]

Quandary wrote:

The situation around Unarmed vs Simple proficiency is known and impacts several classes, but I noticed one situation that seems like it would be impacted by the specific Errata approach chosen...

Ruffian Rogue applies Sneak Attack to Simple Weapons in addition to normal Finesse/Agile. I thought MC Barbarian:Animal Instinct would be natural fit for Ruffians with natural attacks seeming simple/brutal as fits Ruffian, but currently I don't think most of the Animal Instinct attacks would qualify since they aren't Simple (some Animals offer weaker secondary Agile attack, but those work just as well with non-Ruffian rogues).

So if the Errata on Unarmed attacks lets them count as Simple in general (just being specific sub-category that CAN be higher proficiency), that would enable Ruffian + non-Finesse natural attack Sneak Attacks which seems appropriate IMHO.

As a note, I think this is a good idea, but also specifically hope they don't change the wording for the Thief archetype (allowing Dexterity to damage on unarmed), as it'll put Rogue/Monks a bit too far above their compatriots to be anywhere near competitive.

[Quandary]

OK, that gets into slightly different issue, but I will add that to my thread I'm writing on that...

[Aenigma]

I'm not sure whether this is a typo or not. The magic sense feat that a sorcerer and a wizard can gain at level 12 allows them to sense the presence of magic auras as though they are always using a 1st-level detect magic spell. When they seek, they gain the benefit of a 3rd-level detect magic spell. But while the detect magic spell can be heightened to 4th level, in the description of magic sense the heightening to 4th level isn't mentioned. Is it an error that should be corrected?

[Rysky]

No, it’s not mentioned because you don’t get it.

[Aenigma]

Then I'm really not sure why does the magic sense feat exist in the first place. The arcane sense feat simply allow me to cast detect magic at will. I can even heighten it to 4th level. So can I assume that magic sense is a trap feat that should be avoided at all cost?

[Rysky]

It helps if you actually read the feat.

MAGIC SENSE FEAT 12 wrote:

You have a literal sixth sense for magic. You can sense the presence of magic auras as though you were always using a 1st-level detect magic spell. This detects magic in your field of vision only. When you Seek, you gain the benefits of a 3rd-level detect magic spell on things you see (in addition to the normal benefits of Seeking). You can turn this sense off and on with a free action at the start or the end of your turn.

You don’t cast it, you have Detect Magic on constantly.

[Aenigma]

Yeah, but since detect magic is a cantrip, after taking the arcane sense feat, I can cast it infinitely. So having detect magic(which cannot even be heightened to 4th level) on constantly doesn't seem like that good to me. Simply taking arcane sense sounds like a better idea.

[Rysky]

Detect Magic is a Cantrip, you could already cast it infinitely. With Arcane Sense you don’t need to spend actions or remember to cast it, it’s always on.

All the 4th level version of the Cantrip does is let you pinpoint-ish the source of the highest level magic. So it has uses and isn’t invalidated by the Feat.

Since Arcane Sense goes off your field of vision i’d day the 4th level version isn’t that necessary, since you can narrow your sight as needed for more accuracy.

[Aenigma]

I think you miswrote something. With magic sense, detect magic is always on. But with arcane sense, it isn't always on.

[Rysky]

I did, those were supposed to say Magic Sense.

On Arcane Sense, it’s a 1st level Skill Feat that anyone can take, even non-casters. But you don’t get the 4th level version till Legendary proficiency.

[FowlJ]

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

Otherwise it would just be a straight upgrade to intimidating glare (well, except that it has the auditory trait)

One of those is a 1st level skill feat and the other is a 10th level class feat that requires intimidating glare to begin with. It would be very strange if it wasn't intended to be an upgrade.

[Stephen Sheahan]

Bestiary pg 256/257- Orc Brute(creature 0) has Str +3 Dex +2; Orc Warrior (Creature 1) has Str +4, Dex +2

both get +7 to hit with primary listed Melee weapons and with fists
(damage mod tracks up for stronger warrior properly, to hit mod doesn't)

warrior should be at least +8, probably +9, for consistency

(Orc Warchief (creature 2)str +4 is +10)

[Stephen Sheahan]

Also inconsistent that Orc Brutes and Warriors have con+3 but Warchief is +1

[Fuzzy-Wuzzy]

CRB page 68, Initial Proficiences wrote:

Each class entry specifies your character’s initial proficiency rank in Perception, saving throws, attacks, defenses, and either spells or class DC. You gain the trained proficiency rank in at least one skill that is important to your class, and you can choose other skills to gain trained proficiency in—the exact number depends on your class. If your class would make you trained in a skill you’re already trained in (typically due to your background), you can select another skill to become trained in.

The bolded part is not accurate, as monks just get 4+Int skills of their choice. No way to tell if the rule needs editing or if monks are supposed to have a fixed skill too.

(My vote is they get Athletics & Acrobatics & 4+Int to choose. What's that? I don't get a vote? Darn.)

[The Gleeful Grognard]

Faq candidate

Splash damage scales with creature size, exponentially if an alchemist with yhe right feats.

(A 5ft splash on a gargantuan creature is... odd... a 10ft splash is silly levels)

[Fuzzy-Wuzzy]

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

Splash damage scales with creature size, exponentially if an alchemist with yhe right feats.

I can't find the rules you're referring to. Citation(s)?

[Franz Lunzer]

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

Splash damage scales with creature size, exponentially if an alchemist with yhe right feats.

I can't find the rules you're referring to. Citation(s)?

I would guess from the Splash trait

Quote:

...If an attack with a splash weapon fails, succeeds, or critically succeeds, all creatures within 5 feet of the target (including the target) take the listed splash damage. ...

and Expanded Splash:

Quote:

... it deals splash damage to every creature within 10 feet of the target.

[Staffan Johansson]

Aenigma wrote:

Yeah, but since detect magic is a cantrip, after taking the arcane sense feat, I can cast it infinitely. So having detect magic(which cannot even be heightened to 4th level) on constantly doesn't seem like that good to me. Simply taking arcane sense sounds like a better idea.

Detect magic does not have a duration. It's a single ping for magic within 30 ft that tells you if there is any unfamiliar magic around or not. If you want to keep a constant scan for magic up, you need to use the exploration activity Detect Magic, and be reduced to half speed. This is noisy, because detect magic has a verbal component which has to be spoken in a "strong voice". I would also rule that just like the more generic Repeat a Spell activity, doing so for too long would be fatiguing - essentially, you're taking three actions per two rounds (two actions to detect magic one round, one action to Stride the next) instead of the default exploration movement of taking a single action per round (Stride).

Magic Sense gives you an always-on detect magic. If there's any unfamiliar magic within 30 ft, you know it. You can then Seek and in addition to the normal Seek effects, you gain the benefits of 3rd-level detect magic on things you see - this means you know what item/location has what aura, instead of just "There's a Transmutation effect nearby." That's a pretty big power-up compared to the spell. Should you need to scan for unseen magic, you can then take the time to cast detect magic normally and gain the benefits of a 4th level spell as well.

[Fuzzy-Wuzzy]

Franz Lunzer wrote:

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

Splash damage scales with creature size, exponentially if an alchemist with yhe right feats.

I can't find the rules you're referring to. Citation(s)?

I would guess from the Splash trait

Quote:

...If an attack with a splash weapon fails, succeeds, or critically succeeds, all creatures within 5 feet of the target (including the target) take the listed splash damage. ...

and Expanded Splash:

Quote:

... it deals splash damage to every creature within 10 feet of the target.

Where does those rules say or imply that splash damage scales with creature size as claimed?