Watch and Learn lets you as a reaction add your level to an untrained task whenever your ally succeeds at a dex or strength skill, but the dedication gives you this benefit all the time to all untrained skills.
Captivator allows you to learn Occult innate spells from the Illusion or Enchantment school. It doesn't say anything about those spells needing to be common. So can a Captivator just pick uncommon, rare or even unique spells as innate spells?
Same question for the Runescarred archetype, which also lets you learn spells as innate spells and doesn't have any limit by rarity by RAW.
For the Pathfinder Society Guide, should the Calligraphy Wyrm have the dragon trait instead of the beast trait? They had the dragon type in 1e, and Faerie Dragons in the Advanced Player's Guide have the dragon trait.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Blave wrote: Captivator allows you to learn Occult innate spells from the Illusion or Enchantment school. It doesn't say anything about those spells needing to be common. So can a Captivator just pick uncommon, rare or even unique spells as innate spells?
Same question for the Runescarred archetype, which also lets you learn spells as innate spells and doesn't have any limit by rarity by RAW.
If you have Access to them, you can.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Captivator doesn't override the rules regarding uncommon, rare, or unique things.
Fetchling Darkvision is missing the bit about being only black and white. Is this intentional? Can fetchlings see color in darkness?
The SRD links the Fetchling's Darkvision to the Universal Creature rules for Darkvision, which includes the bit about "such vision is in black and white only".
|
6 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Blave wrote: Fetchling Darkvision is missing the bit about being only black and white. Is this intentional? Can fetchlings see color in darkness? Mark Seifter, while he was still employed by Paizo, actually mentioned that that was intentional in one of his Arcane Mark streams. Fetchlings are the only ancestry that can see in the dark in full color.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
This missed the Lost Omens Character Guide batch but Clan Edge is in need of updating after the Core Rulebook second printing. It still refers to Parry weapons requiring an Interact action to gain the AC bonus, but the interact portion was removed to prevent provoking Attack of Opportunities.
Knights of Lastwall, Pg 43, first paragraph, last sentence.
You say, "... from whence..."
Whence by itself is fine. It means "from where," so you're effectively saying, "To this day, Clarethe is the only knight who knows from from where the oath’s power flows."
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Is it an oversight that the Throwing Shield has no legal way to have Weapon runes, or intended?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
HammerJack wrote: Is it an oversight that the Throwing Shield has no legal way to have Weapon runes, or intended? I think it does.
Quote: When thrown in this way, the shield is a martial thrown weapon... So I don't see why those modified shields can't have weapon runes just like a javelin or chakram can.
While throwing it it's a weapon, but not while it's lying still in the rune etcher's shop. Whereas a javelin is always a weapon not just while it's being thrown.
Detect Creator, why not Detect Reanimator?
Ascalaphus wrote: While throwing it it's a weapon, but not while it's lying still in the rune etcher's shop. Whereas a javelin is always a weapon not just while it's being thrown. Hmm. That is a tricky problem.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Yeah if you compare this to the shield augmentation from Grand Bazaar, that one specifically lists that you can put runes on it.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
The Raven Black wrote: DemonicDem wrote: The Raven Black wrote: I go with useful rather than useless as the RAI myself.
Also I see nothing in the feat that suggests that the DC changes.
Cognitive Crossover is probably the most OP RK thing if the DC is the same. Especially with stuff like Loremaster. Why would that be ?
It is a 4th level Skill feat after all. And it uses your Reaction. It needs to pack some punch. Late because I don't check the forums, sorry.
It just increases your chances of rolling a success on RK compared to most other options in the game, on a skill feat.
It's almost on-par with the Knowledge domain initial focus spell.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
The cleric feat "Holy Castigation" could use some clarification:
The current wording is Quote: You combine holy energy with positive energy to damage demons, devils, and their evil ilk. Heal spells you cast damage fiends as though they were undead. The problems I see are as follows:
- this doesn't technically let you target fiends with Heal (outside the 3-action version which targets all living creatures in a 30-foot emanation without the qualifying word "willing"),
- it's unclear how it's supposed to work exactly, as the interaction between positive energy and non-undead being damaged as if they were undead is not clearly defined.
- it's non-optional - with this feat your Heals can now never heal fiends.
My recommendation would be to change the wording to the following: Quote: You combine holy energy with positive energy to damage demons, devils, and their evil ilk. When casting a Heal spell you (may chose to have it) treat fiends as though they were undead and had negative healing. NB: the part in parentheses is optional, see below
What does this do:
- it now allows fiends to be targeted by treating them as undead for the entire spell (including targeting), not just the damage part
- by referencing the negative healing ability, it clarifies how the fiend can actually be damaged by positive energy even though it is not undead
- (optional) the part in parentheses gives the caster the choice of whether to actually heal or damage a fiend, e.g. if one of your party members was a (half) fiend, or if the party (temporarily) had a fiend as an ally. I'd personally include it but I'm not sure whether or not that is intended.
Alternatively, the words "were undead and had negative healing" could be replaced with "had the undead trait", but I feel that my wording is easier to understand (and is more in line with the wording of the Heal spell, which also just references undead, not "creatures with the undead trait").
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Have a problem with priests of Urgathoa. Her anathema is listed as destroying undead. Being an evil deity, she should understand the necessity of self-defense and advancement by assassination. I wouldn't think that your enemy being undead should be a problem.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Undying One wrote: Have a problem with priests of Urgathoa. Her anathema is listed as destroying undead. Being an evil deity, she should understand the necessity of self-defense and advancement by assassination. I wouldn't think that your enemy being undead should be a problem. Consider that to the goddess of undeath, who commands her followers to embrace eternal unlife, an undead creature is a sacred thing. It is possible that this undead creature is just as if not more sacred in her eyes than you.
On the other hand, she certainly understands sell defence. In another thread around here somewhere (blood lords I think) I argued that Urgathoas anathema not to sacrifice your own life means you might be allowed to destroy a undead but only if it would be the only alternative to dying (rather than say subjecting it to your will or submitting to its will).
I'm not sure we can assume that all evil creatures espouse the value of Klingon promotions solely by virtue if being evil. In any case all you have to do to get around it is not actually kill the target.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Baccali Alpaca:
LOTG wrote: Use statistics for a riding pony with a ranged spit Strike that has a range of 10 feet and deals 1d3+1 bludgeoning damage. I've been waiting for so long to dust off my lucky aluminum trihedral!
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Purifying Icicle has a fortitude save entry that isn't clear what it applies too.
It stumped us during a game the other day so we just played it like a regular spell attack. Are we missing something here? It reminded me of very similar spells, Searing Light and Chilling Darkness, that I looked back to for clues, but no luck.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
PlantThings wrote: Purifying Icicle has a fortitude save entry that isn't clear what it applies too.
It stumped us during a game the other day so we just played it like a regular spell attack. Are we missing something here? It reminded me of very similar spells, Searing Light and Chilling Darkness, that I looked back to for clues, but no luck.
It probably should have the ATTACK trait too.
Sibelius Eos Owm wrote: Undying One wrote: Have a problem with priests of Urgathoa. Her anathema is listed as destroying undead. Being an evil deity, she should understand the necessity of self-defense and advancement by assassination. I wouldn't think that your enemy being undead should be a problem. Consider that to the goddess of undeath, who commands her followers to embrace eternal unlife, an undead creature is a sacred thing. It is possible that this undead creature is just as if not more sacred in her eyes than you.
On the other hand, she certainly understands sell defence. In another thread around here somewhere (blood lords I think) I argued that Urgathoas anathema not to sacrifice your own life means you might be allowed to destroy a undead but only if it would be the only alternative to dying (rather than say subjecting it to your will or submitting to its will).
I'm not sure we can assume that all evil creatures espouse the value of Klingon promotions solely by virtue if being evil. In any case all you have to do to get around it is not actually kill the target. And if you absolutely need to destroy an undead, Atonement is a thing.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Lost Omens Travel Guide page 92 details the Cosmic Caravan pantheon and lists its alignment as "NG (NG, CG, CN)". However, in the Abomination Vaults Player's Guide page 5, the same pantheon is listed as "CG (CG, CN, NG)" (emphasis mine). Minor discrepancy but one I noticed!
So just to be clear, there is no longer a dual aspect for followers of Groetus that was in 1e like what Norgorber currently has with his 4 cults.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Patrickthekid wrote: So just to be clear, there is no longer a dual aspect for followers of Groetus that was in 1e like what Norgorber currently has with his 4 cults. Can you point me to this? The only thing I can find at all like that is his 3 Dooms, mortal philosophies that disagree on Groetus's true nature.
I realize that this thread is in the Rules Discussion forum, but figured that it's probably the best place for this to be potentially be seen since it does concern potential adjustments to future printings of a Lost Omens book:
In The Mwangi Expanse, there are a number of significant lore inconsistencies regarding Xatramba. For one, in the History section it is spelled "Xatrembra" but elsewhere it is spelled "Xatramba," which seems to be how other books have spelled it (this one would hopefully be an easy fix in future printings of the book). For another, this one a bit more complicated, in the History section, the timeline lists Xatramba's destruction as being in 3705 AR, but the text describes it as having been destroyed during the Age of Destiny (–3470 AR TO –632 AR). What's more, a sidebar in The Slithering notes that it was founded in 3699 AR, but The Mwangi Expanse indicates that it was around for at least decades, if not centuries. That's a lot of timeline inconsistencies which don't seem to really be reconcilable.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I think each book has its own thread on the products forum. I don't know where is the best place to suggest errata bit that seems like a better one. Alternatively, given that thus is a lore topic, it plausibly fits in the lore forum further down the page.
keftiu wrote: Patrickthekid wrote: So just to be clear, there is no longer a dual aspect for followers of Groetus that was in 1e like what Norgorber currently has with his 4 cults. Can you point me to this? The only thing I can find at all like that is his 3 Dooms, mortal philosophies that disagree on Groetus's true nature. I believe it was either in his Beyond the Doomsday Door AP book or the Inner Sea Faiths companion guide.
That may have been it, though. I thought his different cults worked in the same way as Norgorber where it was possible it allowed different alignments to be clerics.
So I have a question about how the spell casting feats work for the eldritch archer if you're already a caster. Since the dedication was changed in errata the dedication only grants spellcasting if you are not a caster. So if you are already a spell caster does that mean you cannot take the basic, expert, and master spellcasting feats from the archetype? From my understanding of the errata I wouldn't be able to. So if I was a fighter with the wizard dedication and the basic spellcasting feat and I take eldritch archer I cannot gain additional spellcasting from the eldritch Archer archetype... But if I'm a fighter with just the eldritch archer dedication I can take the basic spellcasting feat from the archetype to cast using charisma. Then if I take the sorcerer dedication and the spellcasting feats from sorcerer afterwards I can get extra spells but not the other way around?? That doesn't seem right... Is there something I'm missing?
Mooseman-666 wrote: So I have a question about how the spell casting feats work for the eldritch archer if you're already a caster. Since the dedication was changed in errata the dedication only grants spellcasting if you are not a caster. So if you are already a spell caster does that mean you cannot take the basic, expert, and master spellcasting feats from the archetype? ... "You gain a spell repertoire with one cantrip of your choice, from a spell list of your choice" is unconditional. Spellcasting feats are too (apart from prerequisites). Current version on AoN includes the errata already:
eldritch archer
Eldrich archer gives spellcasting as all spellcasting archetypes do (according to their own rules in each case of course).
Errenor wrote: Mooseman-666 wrote: So I have a question about how the spell casting feats work for the eldritch archer if you're already a caster. Since the dedication was changed in errata the dedication only grants spellcasting if you are not a caster. So if you are already a spell caster does that mean you cannot take the basic, expert, and master spellcasting feats from the archetype? ... "You gain a spell repertoire with one cantrip of your choice, from a spell list of your choice" is unconditional. Spellcasting feats are too (apart from prerequisites). Current version on AoN includes the errata already:
eldritch archer
Eldrich archer gives spellcasting as all spellcasting archetypes do (according to their own rules in each case of course). That doesn't seem to be the case according to the errata for the archetype.
"Page 172: Remove the paragraph from the first printing that begins, "If you already cast spells from spell slots, you gain one additional cantrip from that tradition." If you're already a spellcaster, you use your normal allotment of spells for eldritch archer abilities and don't gain more spells."
So with that paragraph removed you only gain a spell casting tradition if you are not already a spellcaster. This is the paragraph from the archetype:
"If you don't already cast spells from spell slots, you learn to cast spontaneous spells and gain the Cast a Spell activity. You gain a spell repertoire with one cantrip of your choice, from a spell list of your choice. You choose this cantrip from the common spells on your chosen spell list or from other spells to which you have access on that list. This cantrip must require a spell attack roll. You're trained in spell attack rolls and spell DCs for that tradition. Your key spellcasting ability for these spells is Charisma."
This is what has me confused. The errata clearly states that if your already a spellcaster you do not gain extra spells. However, that means that the archetype works differently depending when you gain spellcasting. So if your a fighter with the wizard dedication and take the archetype you are locked out of additional spellcasting from the eldritch archer archetype... But if your a fighter and take eldritch archer first you can then take the sorcerer dedication and you can gain sorcerer spells effectively doubling the amount of spells you have. Which feels like it was not intended...I think the eldritch archer archetype needs more clarification as it doesn't match other spell casting dedications
Mooseman-666 wrote:
That doesn't seem to be the case according to the errata for the archetype.
... This is the paragraph from the archetype:
"If you don't already cast spells from spell slots, you learn to cast spontaneous spells and gain the Cast a Spell activity. You gain a spell repertoire with one cantrip of your choice, from a spell list of your choice.
You should stop reading errata. At all. Read only the newest version of the archetype. It doesn't say you don't get any additional spellcasting if you already are a spellcaster. Again, you always 'gain a spell repertoire with one cantrip of your choice, from a spell list of your choice.' That's exactly what's written.
And again, feats giving spellcasting benefits don't require anything apart from the dedication and each other.
If you do already can 'cast spells from spell slots' you don't need 'Cast a Spell activity' because you already have it.
Errenor wrote: Mooseman-666 wrote:
That doesn't seem to be the case according to the errata for the archetype.
... This is the paragraph from the archetype:
"If you don't already cast spells from spell slots, you learn to cast spontaneous spells and gain the Cast a Spell activity. You gain a spell repertoire with one cantrip of your choice, from a spell list of your choice.
You should stop reading errata. At all. Read only the newest version of the archetype. It doesn't say you don't get any additional spellcasting if you already are a spellcaster. Again, you always 'gain a spell repertoire with one cantrip of your choice, from a spell list of your choice.' That's exactly what's written.
And again, feats giving spellcasting benefits don't require anything apart from the dedication and each other.
If you do already can 'cast spells from spell slots' you don't need 'Cast a Spell activity' because you already have it. No need to be rude. I have looked at the most recent writing and that is where I quoted the text from. I will link it here for you. eldritch archer
The entire paragraph is under the statement that "if you are not a spellcaster"... So everything in that paragraph is under that condition. So I would like some clarification about it.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Mooseman-666 wrote: The entire paragraph is under the statement that "if you are not a spellcaster"... So everything in that paragraph is under that condition. So I would like some clarification about it. One sentence tells you what happens if you're not a spellcaster. The next part is a separate sentence entirely. There's no reason to assume that a conditional from one sentence would apply to a completely different sentence.
Mooseman-666 wrote: No need to be rude. I have looked at the most recent writing and that is where I quoted the text from. I will link it here for you. eldritch archer The less text you use the easier it is to understand. At least definitely in this case when the feat text is the only thing needed. An instruction to make understanding easier is not rude in my opinion. Linking to me the thing I linked to you first is a little strange though.
Squiggit have explained very well how to deal with the stumbling block you seem to have.
Squiggit wrote: Mooseman-666 wrote: The entire paragraph is under the statement that "if you are not a spellcaster"... So everything in that paragraph is under that condition. So I would like some clarification about it. One sentence tells you what happens if you're not a spellcaster. The next part is a separate sentence entirely. There's no reason to assume that a conditional from one sentence would apply to a completely different sentence. But then it doesn't make sense with what was stated in the FAQ about not getting extra spells. So does the dedication give you additional spells if you are already a caster or not?
Like I mentioned before the FAQ clearly states that "If you're already a spellcaster, you use your normal allotment of spells for eldritch archer abilities and don't gain more spells." But if I use the logic that you're saying then the dedication would give you additional spells even if I'm already a spell caster... Do you see me issue here?
It clear that the intention of the FAQ is that if you're already a spellcaster you do not gain additional spells. So I definitely think that this archetype need to be looked at again because the official FAQ says it doesn't give additional spells but apparently it does according to your reading of it.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Mooseman-666 wrote: It clear that the intention of the FAQ is that if you're already a spellcaster you do not gain additional spells. That's not what the feat says though.
What the errata did was uniformize the feat's function regardless of your status as a spellcaster. Everyone gains a repertoire with a cantrip from a tradition of your choice.
Pre-errata, the way you gained cantrips changed depending on whether or not you already had spellcasting.
Squiggit wrote: Mooseman-666 wrote: It clear that the intention of the FAQ is that if you're already a spellcaster you do not gain additional spells. That's not what the feat says though.
What the errata did was uniformize the feat's function regardless of your status as a spellcaster. Everyone gains a repertoire with a cantrip from a tradition of your choice.
Pre-errata, the way you gained cantrips changed depending on whether or not you already had spellcasting. This is the reason why I think the dedication needs to be looked into again.
When I asked about this archetype on the discord for the archives of Nethys there was confusion about it as well. The consensus was that the dedication does not give extra spells if you are already a spell caster. Which is what it does say in the dedication. You only get the cantrip if you are not a spellcaster.
That is the whole reason I came he to hopefully get Paizo staff to clarify the archetype as since the change it is no longer in line with how other spell casting dedications work.
So there is obviously a lot of confusion now about how it works. The dedication made much more sense prior to the change but now it's very unclear.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Mooseman-666 wrote: You only get the cantrip if you are not a spellcaster. This is incorrect and not reflected in the text of the ability. If you are not a spellcaster, you gain the Cast a Spell activity (necessary for spellcasting).
Then, regardless, you gain a spell repertoire and a cantrip.
Squiggit wrote: Mooseman-666 wrote: You only get the cantrip if you are not a spellcaster. This is incorrect and not reflected in the text of the ability. If you are not a spellcaster, you gain the Cast a Spell activity (necessary for spellcasting).
Then, regardless, you gain a spell repertoire and a cantrip. That is clearly not the case as the FAQ clearly states that you do not gain additional spells if you are a spellcaster.
"If you're already a spellcaster, you use your normal allotment of spells for eldritch archer abilities and don't gain more spells."
Why would that be included in the FAQ if you got the spell? As I have said multiple times this obviously needs clarification...
I think they are talking about "Getting caster dedication after Eldrich Archer".
I have some questions about Way of the Triggerbrand from Impossible Lands that might need errata to answer.
Can a Triggerbrand using a combination weapon use Wind Them Up, Break Them Down, and Triggerbrand Salvo while the weapon is either in Ranged or Melee Mode?
Triggerbrand Salvo being exactly like Stab and Blast would make how you'd rule Stab and Blast apply to Salvo as well... but that's unclear. As it is, if they have to be in melee mode, it's a case of specific beating general for making the ranged strike, since the weapon would be in melee mode. But then why wouldn't the melee strike also be a case of specific beating general while being in ranged mode?
Wind Them Up specifying it flatfoots to ranged attacks makes me think it can be used while the weapon is in ranged mode, despite it making no ranged attacks. Otherwise one would need to be hasted to make use of the flatfooted debuff, or have Triggerbrand Salvo.
Break Them Down specifies you don't need to change modes to make Strikes with the melee and then ranged, but it doesn't specify if you need to start in melee mode, similar to Stab and Blast/Triggerbrand Salvo, which makes me think how you'd rule those two would apply to here as well.
Additionally, does the two MAP apply to Triggerbrand Salvo if the melee strike misses? The wording is unclear, similar to Stab and Blast.
So, this might be another bug in Impossible Lands, or maybe it's indicative of changes to the Scimitar and Falchion in the next CRB printing, or maybe it's an advanced weapon that's printed as martial, but the Dandpatta is straight up better than both the Scimitar and Falchion; being Martial, 1d6, Two-Handed [1d10], Forceful, Sweep.
Forceful is a terrible trait so I can see why the Scimitar and Falchion might be changed, but this could just be an error.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
The L9 Fey Ascension feat gives a ranged attack if you select Dryad, but it doesn't state a range:
"Dryad: Your hair becomes intermixed with delicate but razor-edged leaves that move as you command. You gain a leaves ranged unarmed attack that deals 1d6 slashing damage. Your leaves are in the dart weapon group and have the magical and unarmed traits."
A range is needed to complete the feat entry. For reference the Dryad has no ranged attack and the Dryad Queen monster has a leaf range attack of 60 ft.
DemonicDem wrote: I have some questions about Way of the Triggerbrand from Impossible Lands that might need errata to answer.
Can a Triggerbrand using a combination weapon use Wind Them Up, Break Them Down, and Triggerbrand Salvo while the weapon is either in Ranged or Melee Mode?
Triggerbrand Salvo being exactly like Stab and Blast would make how you'd rule Stab and Blast apply to Salvo as well... but that's unclear. As it is, if they have to be in melee mode, it's a case of specific beating general for making the ranged strike, since the weapon would be in melee mode. But then why wouldn't the melee strike also be a case of specific beating general while being in ranged mode?
Wind Them Up specifying it flatfoots to ranged attacks makes me think it can be used while the weapon is in ranged mode, despite it making no ranged attacks. Otherwise one would need to be hasted to make use of the flatfooted debuff, or have Triggerbrand Salvo.
Break Them Down specifies you don't need to change modes to make Strikes with the melee and then ranged, but it doesn't specify if you need to start in melee mode, similar to Stab and Blast/Triggerbrand Salvo, which makes me think how you'd rule those two would apply to here as well.
Additionally, does the two MAP apply to Triggerbrand Salvo if the melee strike misses? The wording is unclear, similar to Stab and Blast.
Another thing. Does Wind Them Up only allows for stealing negligible bulk, right? Why would stealing be useful in combat? You can't steal weapons, consumables, material component pouches.
And there's another thing about the wording, if you succeed on your Thievery check, do you not trigger reactions for movement and ranged attacks from anyone, or just the target? If it's only the target, then Steal already triggers an Attack of Opportunity, which would make the lack of reactions pointless.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
page 72 of Impossible Lands says that Alkenstar is 93% dwarves, that has to be an error, right? Dongun Hold is full of dwarves but is a different location.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
DemonicDem wrote: page 72 of Impossible Lands says that Alkenstar is 93% dwarves, that has to be an error, right? Dongun Hold is full of dwarves but is a different location. I actually think they exchanged humans and dwarves there. So it's 93% humans and 3% (? 5%? don't remember exactly) dwarves and then remaining various others.
|
