CRB Typos / Mistakes / Etc Post Errata 1.0


Rules Discussion

101 to 150 of 157 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Goldryno wrote:

From what I can tell, DemonicDem appears to be correct. He is looking at the rules in alignment aura above the part you're quoting which state

"Alignment Aura
The strength of an alignment aura depends on the level of the creature, item, or spell. The auras of undead, clerics and other divine spellcasters with a patron deity, and creatures from the Outer Sphere are one step stronger than normal (faint instead of none, for example)."

(Although I'm not convinced the feat really needs a change, encounter building guidelines state character level +/- 4 are acceptable... but ultimately that's not really my call to make)

Ah, good catch. That was buried off in another part of the rules that I forgot about.

Liberty's Edge

The Magical Weapon - Holy Avenger pg. 601

This Weapon, unlike any other in that section, is missing the Magical Trait.
It has the Uncommon, Divine, Evocation, Lawful, and Good Traits but not the Magical Trait.

Seems like a simple oversight since the Holy Avenger is unique in this regard and it is CLEARLY an iconic Magic Weapon.


Themetricsystem wrote:

The Magical Weapon - Holy Avenger pg. 601

This Weapon, unlike any other in that section, is missing the Magical Trait.
It has the Uncommon, Divine, Evocation, Lawful, and Good Traits but not the Magical Trait.

Seems like a simple oversight since the Holy Avenger is unique in this regard and it is CLEARLY an iconic Magic Weapon.

CRB PG. 633 "Magical Trait" wrote:

magical (trait) Something with the magical trait is imbued with magical energies not

tied to a specific tradition of magic. A magical item radiates a magic aura infused
with its dominant school of magic.
Some items or effects are closely tied to a particular tradition of magic. In
these cases, the item has the arcane, divine, occult, or primal trait instead of the
magical trait. Any of these traits indicate that the item is magical.
535
magical hazards 520–522

Holy Avenger does have the Divine trait, which does indicate that it is a magical weapon. Doesn't need to have the Magical trait. :)


The Only Sheet wrote:
The Malyass root paste is 3 actions in the CRB, and not mentioned in the list of Poisons to fix in the Errata v1.0 PDF..

The 1.0 errata only mentioned fixing injury poisons; malyass root paste is a contact poison, so it's unclear whether it's intended to be three actions as is RAW, one action as are all other contact poisons in the CRB, or two actions as some exceptional balancing measure unlike other contact poisons.

Belladonna is, conversely, an ingested poison that was printed with an activation of only one action like all other ingested poisons in the CRB, but was oddly included in the errata's list of injury poisons to change "from three actions to two". This may have been an error.

----

The 1.0 errata's unarmed attack rule is intended to communicate that clerics get expert unarmed attack proficiency when they become expert in their favored weapon, but I've seen people struggle to realize this from the errata's wording; the phrase "a specific set of weapons" could use revision, or perhaps a specific example, to make it clearer that even a set of one weapon, such as a favored weapon, qualifies as a set of weapons, as that intent does not immediately occur to all readers.

----

This isn't a typo report; I just want to clear up a misunderstanding from earlier in the thread:

Quandary wrote:

re: Divine Spells and "Deity Weapon"/"Favored Weapon", I realized there can also be other cases where those aren't clearly defined: Trick Magic Item (Religion), Innate Spells, or anything allowing to cast Divine spells like Magaambyan Archetype.

So there probably should be general rule to account for Divine spells assumption of Deity Alignment and Favored Weapon,
Quandary wrote:

How Divine Sorcerors resolve Divine spells referencing "Deity Alignment" and "Favored Weapon" isn't clear.

I don't believe any Deity they casually "worship" (or even as Multiclass:Cleric/Champion) should affect their Sorceror spellcasting.
Using own Alignment doesn't make sense with Divine Bloodlines defacto affiliated to Alignment by Creature Type irrespective of Caster's Alignment.
So it seems each Divine Bloodline should specify "effective Deity Alignment" (Angel: Good, Demon: Chaotic Evil, Devil: Lawful Evil, Undead: Evil?) and at the same time specify "effective Favored Weapon", with Bloodline-specific weapon seeming more flavorful than generic Alignment association.

When you read these spells, the explicitness of "You can’t cast this spell if you don’t have a deity or if your deity is true neutral." and "Requirements You have a deity." suggests an intent that in the Lost Omens setting, no matter if you're a bard or sorcerer, these spells specifically require you to worship a deity, meeting their alignment requirements and following their anathema, as we know from Gods & Magic's abilities that benefit requirement-abiding deity-worshipers of all classes, not just champions and clerics. This makes sense to me, saves the Paizo devs time instead of having to write up extra rules and specifications for all these different sources of divine and occult spells, and makes it so that Trick Magic Item doesn't let you cheaply devalue the thematic strength of how a NG deity's divine lance, no matter if the cleric casting it is True Neutral or Chaotic, explicitly requires that you deal Good damage, because that's the energy type your deity's power is connected to.

How to resolve these spells RAW is clear: If a spell requires a deity, you are required to either worship a deity or choose a different spell to cast. Casual worship indeed doesn't affect your spellcasting, as CRB page 437 says that devout worship means abiding by anathema, so you must meet mechanical requirements to gain mechanical benefits like deity-exclusive spells. Planar concepts like alignment, and a deity's alignment over just a mortal's, are just that powerful in the Lost Omens setting. I think the CRB doesn't spend many paragraphs making a big deal about it because of course, GMs who don't want to set their campaigns in the Lost Omens setting are free to houserule otherwise.


-The Cleric focus spell downpour has the effect that: "Creatures with weakness to water that end their turns in the area take damage equal to their weakness." However, it is unclear what this actually does. Water is not a damage type, so creatures can't be weak to it in a conventional sense. Clay Golems are "harmed by water", is that all the effect does in the core game? Wouldn't the Clay Golem be harmed by downpour even if it didn't have the added text about water weakness? It's pretty weird that creatures like fire elementals ignore an area of heavy magic rain.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Henro wrote:
-The Cleric focus spell downpour has the effect that: "Creatures with weakness to water that end their turns in the area take damage equal to their weakness." However, it is unclear what this actually does. Water is not a damage type, so creatures can't be weak to it in a conventional sense. Clay Golems are "harmed by water", is that all the effect does in the core game? Wouldn't the Clay Golem be harmed by downpour even if it didn't have the added text about water weakness? It's pretty weird that creatures like fire elementals ignore an area of heavy magic rain.

There is a similar issue with hydraulic push and the "water" tag generally. Water elementals can attempt to counteract magical fire, but it doesn't seem like water has any additional damage effect on fire creatures.


Henro wrote:
Clay Golems are "harmed by water", is that all the effect does in the core game? Wouldn't the Clay Golem be harmed by downpour even if it didn't have the added text about water weakness?

Right, clay and stone golems take no damage but instead or even any spell effect from magic with the water trait; their golem antimagic ability instead deals 5d10 untyped damage to them. Though, there are the odd cases where "However, some complex effects might have parts that affect you even if you’re immune to one of the effect’s traits; for instance, a spell that deals both fire and acid damage can still deal acid damage to you even if you’re immune to fire."


Message cantrip

Spellblock says "Duration see below" but nothing in the body mentions or really even implies anything about duration.
"See below" is usually used when it is complicated or contingent, so I might guess that the target choosing to communicate back to you might end or reduce duration of the spell, but it seems it still needs a max duration atop of that... Although personally I would prefer if statblock states 'generic' duration with direction to vairations e.g. "X min or less, see below". That helps anybody who might want to search for X duration buff spells, for example.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:

Message cantrip

Spellblock says "Duration see below" but nothing in the body mentions or really even implies anything about duration.

Yeah, Message is weird. I think the duration is because technically the spell lasts long enough for the target to reply, but doesn't strictly have a duration:

Quote:

The target can give a brief

response as a reaction, or as a free action on their next turn
if they wish

Honestly I'd just call it "instantaneous" and be done with it.


Page 600 - 601

The item "flametongue" is sometimes spelt with a space between the words "flame tongue"


Survival Skill: Sense Direction

Success You gain enough orientation to avoid becoming hopelessly lost. If you are in an environment with cardinal directions, you have a sense of those directions.

But Failure isn't specified, which doesn't clearly direct GMs how to handle result. Fairly enough, as Secret check, the degree of accuracy should never directly be revealed to the player (whether CritSuccess, Success, or Fail/CritFail). And it's not even a Knowledge check, it doesn't provide direct awareness of info to character or player, it serves as metagame mediation of character knowledge/action coherence. Assuming character believes themselves competent, they reasonably believe they are acting congruent with their will (or undertanding congruent with actions) along the way, but the check is to determine whether was true or not.

I'm not sure if it needs CritFail or not, but what happens on normal Fail seems important to note. Plausibly, a normal Fail might occur half-way thru a day's travel (thus, backtracking would take remainder of day, as well as additional successfull Sense Direction), so perhaps a CritFail would entail 2x the distance before realizing you travelled in wrong direction? CritSuccess and Success make distinction between knowing cardinal directions "exactly" and in general "sense", which seems useful to specify more precisely i.e. is latter <45*? If so, perhaps Failure could be 45*-90* off, while CritFail might be 90*-180* off? Or CritFailure could just result in complete inability to understand the wrong direction you took, thus forcing to randomly wander to return to starting position or other destination?

I actually am posting this because I noticed Reddit question where somebody seemed to believe the check DOES convey info to the player/character, which they thought undermined validity of Secret check. (this based on Success saying you "know" exactly or have a sense, which is less than ideally phrased since the player/character shouldn't be told any such result directly) IMHO, lack of explicit Failure result contributes towards that interpretation, which is based on normal game expectations of more direct and concrete player/character knowledge. Obviously as Secret check this shouldn't deal in such direct concrete player/character knowledge, but it deserves better guidance how to handle Success and Failure.


Spell: Dinosaur Form

Source Core Rulebook pg. 329

4th level description states "and your damage bonus is +9"

5th level description states "and your damage bonus is +6"

7th level description states "and your damage bonus is +15"

Either the 4th and 5th level damage bonus values have been swapped or the 5th level damage bonus is incorrect.


DireLemming wrote:

Spell: Dinosaur Form

Source Core Rulebook pg. 329

4th level description states "and your damage bonus is +9"

5th level description states "and your damage bonus is +6"

7th level description states "and your damage bonus is +15"

Either the 4th and 5th level damage bonus values have been swapped or the 5th level damage bonus is incorrect.

This has been discussed elsewhere and is likely intended. The 5th level version gives you double the damage dice, which more than makes up for the reduced modifier in all cases.


The level 1 spell from Gods & Magic pg 107 Befuddle does not have a Saving Throw type listed or have it mentioned in the description.

Silver Crusade

This thread is for CRB specifically, it’d be best to start a new thread for different books.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps Subscriber

On page 491, under "Adjudicating The Rules"
If you're not sure what action a task uses, look for the most similar basic action. If you don't find one, make up an undefined action (page XXX) adding any necessary traits (usually attack, concentrate, manipulated, or move).

Anybody have any idea what page was being referred to?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
CrystalSeas wrote:

On page 491, under "Adjudicating The Rules"

If you're not sure what action a task uses, look for the most similar basic action. If you don't find one, make up an undefined action (page XXX) adding any necessary traits (usually attack, concentrate, manipulated, or move).

Anybody have any idea what page was being referred to?

Well, either page 30, or a page that was cut to make the book appropriate for younger audiences. :-)

Liberty's Edge

Henro wrote:
-The Cleric focus spell downpour has the effect that: "Creatures with weakness to water that end their turns in the area take damage equal to their weakness." However, it is unclear what this actually does. Water is not a damage type, so creatures can't be weak to it in a conventional sense. Clay Golems are "harmed by water", is that all the effect does in the core game? Wouldn't the Clay Golem be harmed by downpour even if it didn't have the added text about water weakness? It's pretty weird that creatures like fire elementals ignore an area of heavy magic rain.

It's the only creature currently, if my search of AoN is to be believed, but the ink-based variant of the living graffiti (Extinction Curse #1) has a weakness to water.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps Subscriber

Since page 30 is irrelevant, looks like it must be "think of the children". :-)

Anybody else with an idea?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CrystalSeas wrote:

Since page 30 is irrelevant, looks like it must be "think of the children". :-)

Anybody else with an idea?

Other Actions

Source Core Rulebook pg. 462
"Sometimes you need to attempt something not already covered by defined actions in the game. When this happens, the rules tell you how many actions you need to spend, as well any traits your action might have. For example, a spell that lets you switch targets might say you can do so “by spending a single action, which has the concentrate trait.” Game masters can also use this approach when a character tries to do something that isn’t covered in the rules."


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps Subscriber
CrystalSeas wrote:

On page 491, under "Adjudicating The Rules"

If you're not sure what action a task uses, look for the most similar basic action. If you don't find one, make up an undefined action (page XXX) adding any necessary traits (usually attack, concentrate, manipulated, or move).
graystone wrote:

Other Actions

Source Core Rulebook pg. 462
"Sometimes you need to attempt something not already covered by defined actions in the game. When this happens, the rules tell you how many actions you need to spend, as well any traits your action might have. For example, a spell that lets you switch targets might say you can do so “by spending a single action, which has the concentrate trait.” Game masters can also use this approach when a character tries to do something that isn’t covered in the rules."

Ta dah!

Thank you graystone.


Quandary wrote:

Virulent Afflications says:

You must succeed at two consecutive saves to reduce a virulent affliction’s stage by 1.
A critical success reduces a virulent affliction’s stage by only 1 instead of by 2

Is intent for CritSuccess to bypass two consecutive save requirement, or count as 2 consecutive saves?
As is, it seems functionally identical to normal Save, yet if intented for CritSuccess to be identical to normal Success why not directly say so?
Or state that one cannot Critically Succeed on a Virulent Affliction, instead of tweaking it's mechanics to "effectively" be equal to normal Success?

a critical success vs a virulent poison reduces its stage by one step (instead of the usual 2 steps vs a normal poison). A regular success vs a virulent poison reduces its stage by effectively 1/2 a step since you need to succeed twice in a row before reducing the affliction stage.


I noticed the language around Spell Repertoire is misleading/confusing re: "learning" a spell (with Learning a Spell being specific skill action meant to gain access from scroll/etc).

The "meat" of Spell Repertoire speaks of "choosing" eligible spells to "add" to Repertoire, but the 2nd sentence (and clearly a rules text, not just "fluff" introduction) says "At 1st level, YOU LEARN two 1st-level spells of your choice..." which confuses the distinction to Learn a Spell.

Similar confusing wording happens in description of Bloodline Granted Spells:
"Granted Spells You automatically add the spells listed here to your spell repertoire, in addition to those you gain through sorcerer spellcasting. At 1st level, you gain a cantrip and a 1st-level spell. YOU LEARN THE OTHER SPELLS on the list as soon as you gain the ability to cast sorcerer spells of that level."

This is directly contributing to players conflating the two topics, and I persistently see people misunderstanding the relation of Learn a Spell to Repertoire (no relation actually). Most of the Repertoire wording avoids "learn", but these instances still are stuck in there... But seem simple enough to replace and get rid of that confusing language.


In Sorceror Bloodline there is distinction of "Bloodline Spells" (which are Focus spells) and "Granted Spells" (which are normal spells added to Repertoire), but there is a naturally latent tendency to lump them together in one category "spells you (can) get from Sorceror Bloodline" which is problematic when the formal terms are ignored.

I noticed some wording that seemed to conflate the two:

"When you gain access to a new level of spells, your first new spell is always your bloodline spell, but you can choose the other spells you gain. At 2nd level, you select another 1st-level spell; at 3rd level, you gain a new bloodline spell and two other 2nd-level spells, and so on."

"As you gain new spells in your spell repertoire, you might want to replace some of the spells you previously learned. Each time you gain a level and learn new spells, you can swap out one of your old spells for a different spell of the same level. This spell can be a cantrip, but you can’t swap out bloodline spells. "

The first passage clearly seems to actually be talking about Granted Spells, since Bloodline (Focus) spells don't automatically exist for each spell level. The second passge demonstrates the same terminology confusion, since as Bloodline (Focus) spells are enabled by Feats (or Class Features) they aren't eligible to be "swapped" with other spells, to the extent they can be Retrained that is Retraining a Feat or Class Feature (Bloodline).


As I understand it, there is meant to be distinction in how Bows (1+ Hand rating) and Crossbows (2 Hand rating) are flexible in regards your "off hand" when not actively shooting with the weapon, with Bow users meant to freely use "off hand" for other purposes... but I think the Reload rules actually undermine that:

Reload wrote:
Switching your grip to free a hand and then to place your hands in the grip necessary to wield the weapon are both included in the actions you spend to reload a weapon.

Note it doesn't directly say you are required to already be wielding it in 2H, and while the "switching your grip to a free hand" part (which is a free action normally anyways) is then superfluous (if you already had free hand) the broader action seems it could still work fine (resulting in Reloaded and Regripped in 2H weapon). Problem being, that ends up being functionally indistiguishable from 1H+ rating bows.

Directly, I think it should need to state you are required to properly wield weapon (2H for crossbow) before Reloading, but maybe a simpler/clearer approach is if Reload got rid of all the details of dropping and replacing hands, and just said Reloadiing happens while properly Wielding a weapon with hands it requires... I.e. you never "remove hands" from wielding the weapon, Reload is just part of Wielding a Weapon.


Should this thread (and APG and other specific Errata threads) be moved to Product Discussion? Clearly they are Rules related, but I think Product is better place, and I think gets less traffic/thread churn so these threads will stay more visible "on top" which is helpful for new posters who don't know where to report Errata issues. (stickying them would be nice too)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:
Should this thread (and APG and other specific Errata threads) be moved to Product Discussion? Clearly they are Rules related, but I think Product is better place, and I think gets less traffic/thread churn so these threads will stay more visible "on top" which is helpful for new posters who don't know where to report Errata issues. (stickying them would be nice too)

I think the limited traffic works against the effort to collect questions for the exact reason why there are less traffic: people are more likely to come here than there.

Now I don't think it'd be a bad idea to put a recap of book specific questions in that products discussion, as there would be less clutter, but I think the main place to collect should be here.


Well the distinction IMHO is this thread isn't for "questions" or discussions, it's just about stuff that is wrong or bad or whatever and bringing that to Paizo's attention. So Paizo can see the issues and do Errata for them or not as they see fit, but there isn't really any "answer" expected, outside of the result of Errata process... As opposed to "Rules Discussion" which is about discussion and questions.

Anyhow, I just had hard time digging up (finding) this thread, kind of seems like the fact nobody has posted anything in this thread since April undercuts the "attract lots of attention" theory, but YMMV. I have requested stickies, since the only other "permanently prominent" option is in the Product's own Discussion page but I don't think Paizo really wants Errata reports there. I guess if "new Errata system" ever happens these threads will be moot, but we'll see on that. Blame COVID.


Quandary wrote:
Well the distinction IMHO is this thread isn't for "questions" or discussions, it's just about stuff that is wrong or bad or whatever and bringing that to Paizo's attention. So Paizo can see the issues and do Errata for them or not as they see fit, but there isn't really any "answer" expected, outside of the result of Errata process... As opposed to "Rules Discussion" which is about discussion and questions.

Any and every thread outside of dev locked threads are open to discussion and questions, even if that isn't the creators intent. There are question and discussions now in Product Discussion.

As to why it fell off the top it's because the questions have already been asked and what's left to do but listen to the crickets and watch the tumbleweeds: It's not like new content has been added to the book past stealth errata so what's to add from posters? If the devs ever actually get back into the business of errata fixing and question answering, all they have to do is search for errata [around 30 down] or CRB [around 4 down]to find this thread. If they somehow can't, they just have to ask and the community should be MORE than willing to point out where questions are collected.

"new Errata system": Well they had a system that worked [FAQ flags] and specifically removed it before a replacement so I don't think "Blame COVID" works for that [you don't take the old tires off your car before you get the new ones is you have places to go...]. Errata wasn't exactly flying off the 'shelves' before covid [though I'm sure it isn't helping either.


Clarification would be good on the italicized part:

CRB page 215 wrote:
Support Benefit Your bear mauls your enemies when you create an opening. Until the start of your next turn, each time you hit a creature in the bear's reach with a Strike, the creature takes 1d8 slashing damage from the bear. If your bear is nimble or savage, the slashing damage increases to 2d8.

Specifically, is the slashing damage additional damage to your Strike or separate damage?

If it's additional damage, it will double on a critical hit, it will not have resistances/weaknesses applied separately, and the bear will not be affected by "if you hit me you take fire damage"-type abilities.

If it's separate damage, it will not double on a critical hit, it will have resistances/weaknesses applied separately, and the bear will be affected by "if you hit me you take fire damage'-type abilities.

There are good arguments on both sides.

Personally I think RAW makes it separate damage but that it would be easier to adjudicate as additional damage, so I don't even know which I'm rooting for.

Please restrict discussion to the thread linked above and not here, unless you're pointing other rules instances of the same ambiguity.


I suspect this is a leftover from renaming an item:

In Alchemical Items on p. 549 (and the summary table on 543-44), the Wisdom-boosting alchemical mutagen is called Serene Mutagen. But in the Alchemist class feature Perpetual Infusions (p. 74-75), it's still called Bullheaded Mutagen.


How many minions (total) can you have at once?

According to the Animate Object and Create Undead rituals (pages 409 & 411), "You can have a maximum of four minions under your control."

But the Controlling Undead sidebar on page 123 says "You can't have more than four undead minions at a time."

The 'minions' glossary entry on page 634 doesn't mention the issue at all.

AFAICT, if the rituals are correct the Controlling Undead text needs to change and the glossary entry needs to mention this rule---it's silly for a very general rule to appear only under two rituals.

OTOH, if the undead limit really is on undead only, and you can have as many non-undead minions as you want, the rituals should each drop their restriction.


Can you look at Lightning Storm
Ligntning doesn't strike the same place twice or does it?
Surely the subsequent bolts are supposed to come down anywhere within RANGE, not within the AREA of the original bolt again.

Is this Core Rule Book - where should I put this APG issue?


No, I think Lightning Storm is doing exactly what it's supposed to.


Gortle wrote:

Can you look at Lightning Storm

Ligntning doesn't strike the same place twice or does it?
Surely the subsequent bolts are supposed to come down anywhere within RANGE, not within the AREA of the original bolt again.

Is this Core Rule Book - where should I put this APG issue?

Lightning very rarely only strikes once, but that is neither here nor there.

The spell works as it reads, you choose where the area is and from then on the lightning strikes that area each round.

Otherwise there would be zero reason to have two clouds given that you can only have one lightning bolt a round.


There's plenty of reasons to have two clouds. It's double the area where you can call down that single lightning bolt per turn.

That said, they're pathetic, nonmovable areas, and you have to wait for your turn to call the lightning down, rather than doing so as a reaction to someone entering the area. Foes are just going to skirt the area or move through it, nearly always denying the caster any benefit of the sustain.

Hard, hard pass on this spell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nik Gervae wrote:


Hard, hard pass on this spell.

Oh yeah, totally. But in terms of what the spell description says and what they intended, "AREA" is correct.


Nik Gervae wrote:
There's plenty of reasons to have two clouds. It's double the area where you can call down that single lightning bolt per turn.

Not if you could call lightning down anywhere in range. I am saying that having two clouds is showing that it is intended design not an editing mistake.

Not saying the design intent was right/good (it is alright if you have a grappler in the party or are fighting in confined spaces/use it for area denial) but that design intent is clear due to the multiple cloud element.

Wayfinders

I elaborate more Here, but the Rogue feat Poison Weapon has its Special benefit scaling with "rogue level", which isn't actually a thing. It's pretty obvious what it means when you're a full Rogue, but it's less clear as an MC Rogue and even murkier as a Poisoner. The latter isn't CRB, of course, but it's what prompted this realisation in the first place.

It looks weird having "an" followed by "MC", but I feel like saying "a McRogue" would mess with the tone...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

CRB p592 for Staves

Quote:


Staves are also staff weapons (page 280), included in their
Price. They can be etched with runes as normal for a staff.
This doesn’t alter any of their spellcasting abilities.

Highlighted by recent debates in the Magus playtest whether staves are meant to be Specific Magic Weapons (p581) or regular staves for purpose of adding runes

Language clarifying Fundamental and Property Runes, or just Fundamental Runes and noting they are Specific Magical Weapons for the purpose of enchanting with runes


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Asethe wrote:

CRB p592 for Staves

Quote:


Staves are also staff weapons (page 280), included in their
Price. They can be etched with runes as normal for a staff.
This doesn’t alter any of their spellcasting abilities.

Highlighted by recent debates in the Magus playtest whether staves are meant to be Specific Magic Weapons (p581) or regular staves for purpose of adding runes

Language clarifying Fundamental and Property Runes, or just Fundamental Runes and noting they are Specific Magical Weapons for the purpose of enchanting with runes

Tied to this, does a Staff retain the Staff trait when Shifted into a non-staff weapon (and what does this say about other weapons being able to gain the Staff trait)? Is the Staff trait required to access a magic staff's spell abilities? (Or are they dormant while a staff is Shifted?)

Would a Bo Staff (or Staff Shifted into one) interact w/ these rules differently?

Does Shifting make a permanent transformation? (Irregardless of the rune's future presence)
Can one-handed weapons w/ the two-handed trait be Shifted into two-handed weapons? (Mainly for PFS rigor)

Thanks


Castilliano wrote:

Tied to this, does a Staff retain the Staff trait when Shifted into a non-staff weapon (and what does this say about other weapons being able to gain the Staff trait)? Is the Staff trait required to access a magic staff's spell abilities? (Or are they dormant while a staff is Shifted?)

Would a Bo Staff (or Staff Shifted into one) interact w/ these rules differently?

Does Shifting make a permanent transformation? (Irregardless of the rune's future presence)
Can one-handed weapons w/ the two-handed trait be Shifted into two-handed weapons? (Mainly for PFS rigor)

Thanks

To get that answered, you're probably better off raising it as a new forum topic, and hoping that one of the devs browsing the boards at the moment is kind enough to respond


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Asethe wrote:
Castilliano wrote:

Tied to this, does a Staff retain the Staff trait when Shifted into a non-staff weapon (and what does this say about other weapons being able to gain the Staff trait)? Is the Staff trait required to access a magic staff's spell abilities? (Or are they dormant while a staff is Shifted?)

Would a Bo Staff (or Staff Shifted into one) interact w/ these rules differently?

Does Shifting make a permanent transformation? (Irregardless of the rune's future presence)
Can one-handed weapons w/ the two-handed trait be Shifted into two-handed weapons? (Mainly for PFS rigor)

Thanks

To get that answered, you're probably better off raising it as a new forum topic, and hoping that one of the devs browsing the boards at the moment is kind enough to respond

LOL

Those have been forum topics several times over.
And the devs seldom answer for PF2 except in the most egregious cases (like obvious game-changing errors, not simply interpretations), which these are not.


Castilliano wrote:
Asethe wrote:
Castilliano wrote:

Tied to this, does a Staff retain the Staff trait when Shifted into a non-staff weapon (and what does this say about other weapons being able to gain the Staff trait)? Is the Staff trait required to access a magic staff's spell abilities? (Or are they dormant while a staff is Shifted?)

Would a Bo Staff (or Staff Shifted into one) interact w/ these rules differently?

Does Shifting make a permanent transformation? (Irregardless of the rune's future presence)
Can one-handed weapons w/ the two-handed trait be Shifted into two-handed weapons? (Mainly for PFS rigor)

Thanks

To get that answered, you're probably better off raising it as a new forum topic, and hoping that one of the devs browsing the boards at the moment is kind enough to respond

LOL

Those have been forum topics several times over.
And the devs seldom answer for PF2 except in the most egregious cases (like obvious game-changing errors, not simply interpretations), which these are not.

Didn't say it was a great idea, but it's more likely to get an answer than burying it in a thread compiling language and spelling clean up


On pages 256 and 258, Additional Lore is listed as having "trained in Lore" as a prereq. This was not problematic when every background gave a Lore. But several of the rare backgrounds on pages 50-51 of the APG---Amnesiac, Feral Child, Haunted, and Royalty---do not provide a Lore, thereby rendering their takers incapable of ever taking Additional Lore. (Also the Returned rare background supplies the Additional Lore feat for Boneyard Lore, which is illegal without having first trained some other Lore.)

I post this as CRB errata both because the prereq was silly in the first place (though I'd leave Additional Lore listed under Lore feats in the table even without it) and because the problem is only readily fixable in the CRB.

EDIT: Okay, it doesn't render those backgrounds' takers completely incapable of taking Additional Lore, but they have to first have Int 12 and take Skill Training to get a trained Lore. They shouldn't have to do that.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Asethe wrote:

CRB p592 for Staves

Quote:


Staves are also staff weapons (page 280), included in their
Price. They can be etched with runes as normal for a staff.
This doesn’t alter any of their spellcasting abilities.

Highlighted by recent debates in the Magus playtest whether staves are meant to be Specific Magic Weapons (p581) or regular staves for purpose of adding runes

Language clarifying Fundamental and Property Runes, or just Fundamental Runes and noting they are Specific Magical Weapons for the purpose of enchanting with runes

This is basically a conspiracy theory propped up by Themetricsystem and like 1/2 other people.

It would be great to get 100% definitive word on though, just so we can have threads about staves without hearing this!


Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
(Also the Returned rare background supplies the Additional Lore feat for Boneyard Lore, which is illegal without having first trained some other Lore.)

Backgrounds seem to ignore prerequisites. Take Droskari Disciple/Ustalavic Academic/Hermean Expatriate that grants you Skill Training without requiring you to have an int of 12. Grand Council Bureaucrat grants you Group Impression without giving you trained in Diplomacy. Nirmathi Guerrilla grants Terrain Stalker without trained in stealth.

Additionally, Deep Backgrounds allows skill and feat options picked separately so there is no guarantee and feat with have it's prerequisite skill. [or if you have a skill feat/background skill at all]


graystone wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
(Also the Returned rare background supplies the Additional Lore feat for Boneyard Lore, which is illegal without having first trained some other Lore.)
Backgrounds seem to ignore prerequisites. Take Droskari Disciple/Ustalavic Academic/Hermean Expatriate that grants you Skill Training without requiring you to have an int of 12. Grand Council Bureaucrat grants you Group Impression without giving you trained in Diplomacy. Nirmathi Guerrilla grants Terrain Stalker without trained in stealth.

I believe those are all from APs, whose authors are known to mess up, and which may have been written before Paizo realized that backgrounds should grant the prerequisite skills (they didn't in the playtest). I don't consider APs to set precedent for rulebooks.

graystone wrote:
Additionally, Deep Backgrounds allows skill and feat options picked separately so there is no guarantee and feat with have it's prerequisite skill. [or if you have a skill feat/background skill at all]

Actually, Deep Backgrounds does guarantee that if you have a skill feat you are trained in that skill. See the third bullet point on page 186 of the GMG.


Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
I believe those are all from APs, whose authors are known to mess up, and which may have been written before Paizo realized that backgrounds should grant the prerequisite skills (they didn't in the playtest). I don't consider APs to set precedent for rulebooks.

Ustalavic Academic, Hermean Expatriate, Grand Council Bureaucrat and Nirmathi Guerrilla are World Guide, not an AP. Only Droskari Disciple as an AP.

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Actually, Deep Backgrounds does guarantee that if you have a skill feat you are trained in that skill. See the third bullet point on page 186 of the GMG.

Oops. Remembered that wrong: must have been thinking of the non-skill feats.


graystone wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
I believe those are all from APs, whose authors are known to mess up, and which may have been written before Paizo realized that backgrounds should grant the prerequisite skills (they didn't in the playtest). I don't consider APs to set precedent for rulebooks.
Ustalavic Academic, Hermean Expatriate, Grand Council Bureaucrat and Nirmathi Guerrilla are World Guide, not an AP. Only Droskari Disciple as an AP.

My bad. But lore books are still subservient to rule books in my mind. YMMV.

101 to 150 of 157 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / CRB Typos / Mistakes / Etc Post Errata 1.0 All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.