|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Haven't noticed anything myself yet but those of you who have your copies know what to do.
well.. distill exists in the descriptive text of two items, but not as a trait, while Alchemical gut refers to it as a trait.
so one of the two needs fixing, either remove the trait text from Gut, or add the trait to the distill items.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
There is already a FAQ entry with errata. Might want to check that before you post
Pathfinder Treasure Vault Errata
I think that the Combination Weapons on table 1-7 (page 31) are supposed to be Uncommon.
Every previous Combination Weapon was Uncommon, and it's weird that the Bow Staff is Common and yet is made from the Uncommon Whipstaff.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Gisher wrote: I think that the Combination Weapons on table 1-7 (page 31) are supposed to be Uncommon.
Every previous Combination Weapon was Uncommon, and it's weird that the Bow Staff is Common and yet is made from the Uncommon Whipstaff.
That might be because the first combo weapons were firearms which are all uncommon.
aobst128 wrote: Gisher wrote: I think that the Combination Weapons on table 1-7 (page 31) are supposed to be Uncommon.
Every previous Combination Weapon was Uncommon, and it's weird that the Bow Staff is Common and yet is made from the Uncommon Whipstaff.
That might be because the first combo weapons were firearms which are all uncommon. I considered that possibility. But the Bow Staff/Whipstaff disconnect is still weird even in that case.
I'd love to be wrong on this, though. The Bow Staff is my favorite new weapon.
Not an error exactly, but Spell Echo Shot, p. 83 in the PDF, references that it is composed of "generous amounts of djezet and orichalcum."
I believe that horacalcum is what was intended here, rather than orichalcum. As far as I know orichalcum is never referenced in Pathfinder lore, and I could see one being autocorrected to the other.
Some of this may just be me not reading carefully enough or not understanding the rules properly.
Is the action cost for Activating lozenges mentioned anywhere? I assume it's 1 action and Interact, but it doesn't appear to be in the trait's sidebar or in the items' entries themselves.
Green colorful coating says "+2 circumstance penalty" rather than "-2 circumstance penalty."
Bottled monstrosities generally don't seem to specify whether the creature who Activated the item chooses the targets of the monstrosity or what it does with them (in the cases of the roc flying to a specific square to drop a target vs repositioning them, or where exactly a repositioned creature is moved to). I assume that it's all chosen by the player, but the bottled monstrosity is spoken about as if it's its own agent on the battlefield for the most part.
I'm not sure whether the bottled roc should have Grab be capitalized in its wording; it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the Grab monster action, and against hostile creatures it uses the Grapple action instead.
Living leaf weave does not specify the magnitude of the item bonus it provides, but I assume it's equal to the item bonus the elixir of life provides against diseases and poisons.
As a side note, many of the permanent alchemical items have a pattern of "spend 3 Interact actions to feed a specific consumable into a chamber in this worn piece of equipment, then Activate the equipment as a single Interact action to expend the consumable and get a specific benefit" and I'm a little curious why that was handled by repeating the mechanics a dozen times, instead of by making a new category or trait.
What type of damage is Rovagug's Mud, pp. 90-1, supposed to deal?
Untyped damage DOES exist as seen with Disintegrate, but I couldn't say for sure whether it's intentional that Rovagug's Mud is untyped.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
It seems to me, that most of the Spellheart items have some duplication in their stat blocks. Specifically, it appears that there are duplicate Activate/Frequency/Effects lines in the stat blocks, at least for the lowest tier version of most of the items.
Anybody else notice this?
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Perpdepog wrote: Not an error exactly, but Spell Echo Shot, p. 83 in the PDF, references that it is composed of "generous amounts of djezet and orichalcum."
I believe that horacalcum is what was intended here, rather than orichalcum. As far as I know orichalcum is never referenced in Pathfinder lore, and I could see one being autocorrected to the other.
Orichalcum absolutely is part of Pathfinder, so much so that an entire group of monsters is weak to it. Horacalcum is simply another, less commonly used, name for it.
Gisher wrote: aobst128 wrote: Gisher wrote: I think that the Combination Weapons on table 1-7 (page 31) are supposed to be Uncommon.
Every previous Combination Weapon was Uncommon, and it's weird that the Bow Staff is Common and yet is made from the Uncommon Whipstaff.
That might be because the first combo weapons were firearms which are all uncommon. I considered that possibility. But the Bow Staff/Whipstaff disconnect is still weird even in that case.
I'd love to be wrong on this, though. The Bow Staff is my favorite new weapon. Perhaps the bow staff is common because the staff functionality loses the agile trait possessed by the standard whipstaff?
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
In the pdf bookmarks, Artifacts are called "Artifcats" XD
Evilgm wrote: Perpdepog wrote: Not an error exactly, but Spell Echo Shot, p. 83 in the PDF, references that it is composed of "generous amounts of djezet and orichalcum."
I believe that horacalcum is what was intended here, rather than orichalcum. As far as I know orichalcum is never referenced in Pathfinder lore, and I could see one being autocorrected to the other.
Orichalcum absolutely is part of Pathfinder, so much so that an entire group of monsters is weak to it. Horacalcum is simply another, less commonly used, name for it. I stand thoroughly corrected. I've got no idea how I've been missing that this entire time, but I have. Oopse. Weird they'd change the name between editions but I've checked my first printing of the CRB and it's there too, so it's definitely not new for 2E.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Page 34 – Piston Gauntlets were probably not supposed to have the divination trait.
Page 38-39 – Kaldemach’s Lament, Mindlance, Solar Shellflower, and Spark Dancer’s ‘Usage’ field spells out the number (one or two) of hands instead of using the number (1 or 2).
Page 62 – Alchemists Flamethrower and Bomb Coagulation Alembic’s ‘Usage’ field spells out the number (two) of hands instead of using the number (2).
Page 64 – Living Leaf Armor does not specify the value of the item bonus or how to figure that out.
Page 67 – Astringent Venom’s description contained the line “they loose circulation to their extremities”. The word “loose” should be “lose”.
Page 74 – Euphoric Loop’s ‘Price’ is listed as “5 gp” despite the child entries listing the prices of “30 gp” and “450 gp”.
Page 114 – Anchor of Aquatic Exploration’s action should have the ‘Frequency’ before the ‘Requirements’.
Page 125 – In Desolation Locket’s weapon entry has the segment “by activating the locket” with “locket” italicized. The italicization should be removed as it is not the complete name of the item.
Page 126 – In Jyoti’s Feather weapon entry has the segment “while the feather is affixed” with “feather” italicized. The italicization should be removed as it is not the complete name of the item.
Page 152 – In the description of Instinct Crown, the first instance of “instinct crown” should be italicized. Further, in instinct crown’s second action the ‘Frequency’ should come before the ‘Requirements’.
Page 153 – In Tactician’s Helm’s action the ‘Frequency’ should come before the ‘Requirements’.
Page 153 – The Armory Bracelet is missing the “axe” weapon group.
Page 162 – In Converting Magic Items, “slippers of spider climb” should be “slippers of spider climbing”.
Page 165 – In the Example section the word “need” should be “needs” in the sentence “This reduces the remaining amount she need to pay to 1 gp”.
Page 167 – In the Gardens of Wonder section, the word “By” should be “by” in “(see A Garden By Any Other Name on page 168.)”.
Page 183 – In the Archetype Artifacts section, the word “comes” should be “come” in the phrase “you should ensure that they comes across it”.
Page 185 – The Frost Touch cantrip is missing the “cantrip” trait.
Page 190-197 – None of the intelligent items have alignments.
Page 195 – In Kindled Tome, “book of lingering blazes” should be “book of lingering blaze”.
Enigma-sight potion says "you use your Perception modifier and your level for the secret counteract check instead of the normal counteract modifier and spell level." I assume the intent is to use half your level for the counteract level, but it could be made clearer. There are already enough arguments about level vs counteract level due to the clay golem.
Someone who drinks starsong nectar ignores the flat-footed condition from undetected creatures, but not hidden ones. You could probably also remove the "initiative rolls" bonus considering it applies to Perception and all skill checks, which should cover all bases there, similar to how Heroism works.
Vaultbreaker harness is still an item bonus to speed with no cooldown.
|
6 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Perpdepog wrote: What type of damage is Rovagug's Mud, pp. 90-1, supposed to deal? It is intentionally untyped, just like disintegrate and rust monster rust.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Michael Sayre wrote: Perpdepog wrote: What type of damage is Rovagug's Mud, pp. 90-1, supposed to deal? It is intentionally untyped, just like disintegrate and rust monster rust. If untyped damage is supposed to exist, then it should be stated as such in the Damage Types rules. Perhaps add that in the next scheduled errata.
|
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Untyped damage is fine as is. If you make untyped damage a type of damage, it's not really untyped now is it?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Just mention that untyped damage exists. And specify how it interacts (or more likely doesn't interact) with damage resistance or weakness or damage immunity.
For example, is untyped damage reduced by Resist All? Separately from any typed damage from the same attack?
And at the very least, making note of untyped damage's existence will make people stop thinking that effects that cause untyped damage are a bug that needs errata.
Are the oozeform chair and rootball chair meant to have the Ooze and Plant traits, respectively? I can't seem to find them on AoN or in the book.
Speaking of the Rootball Chair, the listed Support Benefit doesn't work at all. Support is an action, and the only other actions the AC can do before Supporting is to get into position to support. They can't act after they Support.
If it was meant to be a passive thing, it should be listed as "Special" or something.
It could also be something like: "Your chair strides once, ignoring difficult terrain"
Support says "If the animal uses the Support action, the only other actions it can use on this turn are basic move actions to get into position to take advantage of the Support benefits," which isn't the same as not being able to act after using Support.
It's a little wonky and wasn't written with the rootball chair in mind, but I think Striding after Support is pretty clearly using a basic move action to take advantage of the Support benefits.
Page 200 - Time Gifts for Relics. There are only two Minor Gifts and three Major Gifts. Is this in error since all other Relic Gifts are three Minor and two Major?
Page 206, 4th-level Alchemical Consumables table, last "Other" entry is labeled "Healing vapor, lesser", but there's already an entry for Healing vapor in that table. The entry I'm referring to references Page 51, for 16 gp. The Healing Vapor is not on that page.
I *think* the table entry is supposed to be referring to the Pink Sprite Apple, which is on Page 51, is a Level 4 item, for 16 gp.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
dmchucky69 wrote: It seems to me, that most of the Spellheart items have some duplication in their stat blocks. Specifically, it appears that there are duplicate Activate/Frequency/Effects lines in the stat blocks, at least for the lowest tier version of most of the items.
Anybody else notice this?
Still wondering if this should be errata’d?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
dmchucky69 wrote: Still wondering if this should be errata’d? So are the rest of us.
When the next errata comes out, we will find out what makes the cut.
The reaction of Mask of Uncanny Breath does nothing, since it triggers on hit. Meaning only after a hit you can use that reaction, which will send the target unconscious. Now you roll your damage for that hit against the target which will instantly wake it up again.
I think the trigger was meant to be "Your unarmed Strike hits and deals damage to a creature that breathes".
In the Bastion of the Inheritor armor
The armor's cloak becomes red for 1 minute. As long as the cloak is red, you gain the benefits of the armor's deflect melee trait without needing to spend an additional action to activate it during each turn.
The trait seems to be the entrench melee rather than the deflect one
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=2121
Moonlit spellgun says they are carried by devil hunters, but since it does fire damage, it would not be effective against them.
Shouldn't the Moonlit Spellgun have been consumed/destroyed upon use, like all the other Spellguns?
You can't load Spellguns, so it should be useless after a single use.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Traits.aspx?ID=491
Trondster wrote: Shouldn't the Moonlit Spellgun have been consumed/destroyed upon use, like all the other Spellguns?
You can't load Spellguns, so it should be useless after a single use.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Traits.aspx?ID=491
It still has the consumable trait, which specifically states that it is destroyed after being activated unless explicitly stated otherwise. It just lacks a "flavour" description in what it disintegrates into.
shroudb wrote:
It still has the consumable trait, which specifically states that it is destroyed after being activated unless explicitly stated otherwise. It just lacks a "flavour" description in what it disintegrates into.
Bah - I'm blind - I thought I had looked for that. The "destroyed" descriptions are of course just flavor text. Thanks! :D
Recent threads in Rules Discussion
|
