Changes to the Way We Make Changes

[breithauptclan]

Themetricsystem wrote:

LordeAlvenaharr wrote:

Natural Ambition in all ancestries already!

Why can't I favorite this twice?

Well, you technically can. You just have to un-favorite in between.

[Doug Hahn]

Wizard Level 1 wrote:

That seems to be born out of the assumption that if you don't have an 18 your primary stat that the character isn't any good. And that is simply not true; it's an assumption that comes from ignorance. It's a sign of a lack of understanding about what actually makes characters effective.

What an unfortunate mindset, that you MUST have an 18 in your primary stat to be a good caster, or an 18 str to be a good barbarian or whatever. The difference between a 16 and an 18 is a +1 modifier, which will become less and less important over the span of that character's career.

So, to me, if feels like Paizo is essentially capitulating to power-gamers and minmaxers and that toxic crowd that tells off anyone that doesn't have an 18 in a primary stat.

"I want to play a dwarf sorcerer, but I can't do it with a 16 charisma whaa whaa whaa."

Please.

Different groups have different paradigms for what is powerful and what isn't.

If you want others to respect your contention that 16 in stat is fine, then on the flipside you may want to respect other gaming styles.

Edit: I support these new changes.

[aobst128]

Elves might be the default "best" ancestry now if only because of its speed. The con flaw was what balanced it before but now we're more free to make light speed barbarians lol.

[Wizard Level 1]

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

I don't agree with that interpretation, and I think it's phrased really unnecessarily disrespectfully. Also, I think it would do us all good, on all sides, to remember that the Stormwind Fallacy is a fallacy. "Minmaxing" and "optimizing" shouldn't be dirty words.

Especially since everyone misuses the term "minmaxing", anyways.

Seriously, though, I do a ton of optimization when I design my characters. PF2 gifts you with a ton of versatility in character creation, meaning I can go to great lengths to design my character to be exactly as I envision her. Is she supposed to be good at melee? At Recall Knowledge skills? At talking to people? Is she supposed to be witty and smart, or clumsy and shy? Does she have a disability I want to reflect, or a hobby I need to invest in? I often don't aim for a 16 KAS, for what it's worth, but I also don't want to play a character who's useless. That's not usually very fun to roleplay. I don't usually choose to roleplay incompetent PCs. You have to optimize a little bit if you care about translating a character concept into numbers that mean something.

Last edited by Kobold Catgirl at 12:33:21 PDT.

I'm not denying any of this. I'm saying that an 18 is not so all important, it is not the be all end all determination of a character being good or playable so much so as to warrant a revision of the rules.

But more and more it sounds like that is the primary argument by people about why it was necessary. And if that was part of why Paizo did it, or if that is why people think Paizo did it, or if that's the main reason people are glad they did it, that's unfortunate.

[Squiggit]

An 18 is not the end all be all.

This is still a good change.

[Kobold Catgirl]

It's also not necessarily about the Big 18. This change is gonna really help me easily afford those 16s, too! It's just all-around a good change for player options. I don't like the removal of the 2VF-for-1B variant rule, but otherwise, I'm thrilled with this errata. It's a great quality of life improvement.

[graystone]

Wizard Level 1 wrote:

Seems like a lot of arguments here about the new way of doing ancestry ability boosts boils down to making it so 'every ancestry can be effective in any class'. That seems to be born out of the assumption that if you don't have an 18 your primary stat that the character isn't any good. And that is simply not true; it's an assumption that comes from ignorance. It's a sign of a lack of understanding about what actually makes characters effective.

You can't say that as what makes a character "effective" is subjective to a group and individual players: so an 18 MAY be required.

Wizard Level 1 wrote:

What an unfortunate mindset, that you MUST have an 18 in your primary stat to be a good caster, or an 18 str to be a good barbarian or whatever. The difference between a 16 and an 18 is a +1 modifier, which will become less and less important over the span of that character's career.

This is a game built on the premise that every 1 matters so this doesn't follow. A plus 1 at 20th is still the same increase to hit and crit, and a 16 at 1st means you end up with an odd main stat if you increase it every level.

Wizard Level 1 wrote:

So, to me, if feels like Paizo is essentially capitulating to power-gamers and minmaxers and that toxic crowd that tells off anyone that doesn't have an 18 in a primary stat.

"I want to play a dwarf sorcerer, but I can't do it with a 16 charisma whaa whaa whaa."

Please.

I find it more toxic to tell people that how they play is badwrongfun. Having a casual group that doesn't require optimization is just as valid as a more serious one the requires it and there isn't anything wrong with giving options to fully explore both.

[Kobold Catgirl]

The math of PF2 is beautifully watertight. I love that the choice to go for a 16 instead of an 18 matters. It lets me show off aspects like, "This wizard's skill with the sword has come at the direct expense of her being quite as potent in her spellcasting." It sort of makes her feel like an underdog, a scrappy hedge witch who's sacrificed some of her magical skill to be able to defend herself hand-to-hand.

Mind you, I think the 16 KAS is still good. Like, you're not gonna fall drastically behind, and I certainly wouldn't say a 16 KAS makes you unsuited for a serious game. You will sometimes feel the pinch, though, because numbers matter. Hope the sword's worth it. ;)

[graystone]

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

It's also not necessarily about the Big 18. This change is gonna really help me easily afford those 16s, too! It's just all-around a good change for player options. I don't like the removal of the 2VF-for-1B variant rule, but otherwise, I'm thrilled with this errata. It's a great quality of life improvement.

I generally shoot for an 18 and a 16 [or a 18, 16, 16*] but I've played a bard with a 10 cha before.

*Amnesiac background

[Kobold Catgirl]

aobst128 wrote:

Elves might be the default "best" ancestry now if only because of its speed. The con flaw was what balanced it before but now we're more free to make light speed barbarians lol.

Concept: Elven catkin barbarian whose "rage" is just him coming down with a bad case of the Zoomies.

Gosh, all the new concepts we're gonna suddenly have easy access to are gonna be so much fun to uncover.

[Wizard Level 1]

I mean, the entire game was BUILT with humans getting two free ability boots, and everyone else getting static boosts and one free ability boost and maybe a penalty. That was baked into how ancestries were made (presumably anyway).

That every ancestry can now get two free ability boots (just like the human) and still get all the other stuff they normally get is a significantly bigger change than I think a lot of folks here are willing to recognize. We'll see how it pans out in a year.

If folks thought taking adopted ancestry for the gnome flickmace was something worth nerfing, you haven't seen anything yet when these rules take full effect.

The lack of understanding or appreciating the full extent that these changes will have on how people will build their characters for better AND for worse is jarring to me.

That's all I'll have to say on this for now on. I'm just talking to the wall at this point.

[Squiggit]

Why do you keep assuming that people who disagree with you are somehow unable to comprehend things, rather than simply appreciating something in a different way than you do?

It's precisely because of that understanding that I think it's a good change.

[MadScientistWorking]

graystone wrote:

MadScientistWorking wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

Three of the four alchemical research methods are about items that you either attack with or use to enhance attacks, but Superior Optimizers still act shocked and appalled that some people actually want to play that way instead of leaning into the one hyperspecific playstyle that almost barely kind of nearly makes the class good enough that they're busy being so clever and smug about.

The outraged pearl clutching every time someone brings up trying to play Alchemists The Wrong Way really sells it.

Uhhh... No. Mutagenist and Chirugeon are not combat based. Mutagenist can be combat based but it's not solely meant to be.

Between Bestial Mutagen, Bestial Mutagen, Energy Mutagen, Ichthyosis Mutagen, Juggernaut Mutagen, Quicksilver Mutagen, War Blood Mutagen and Stone Body Mutagen having clear combat applications I'd say Mutagenist are solidly combat based. As such, I agree with Squiggit.

Get back to me with a list that isnt composed of things that you'd have to ask your GM permission to get.

[Themetricsystem]

Since we are posing hot takes and putting words in others mouths, while we are at it....

Pineapple Pizza is a SIN!

[keftiu]

LordeAlvenaharr wrote:

Natural Ambition in all ancestries already!

I would give just about anything for this, especially with how underwhelming some Ancestry Feats can be at level 1.

[graystone]

Wizard Level 1 wrote:

I mean, the entire game was BUILT with humans getting two free ability boots

Hey! How come my last human PC didn't get free boots! THAT'S the real crime!

*rabble, rabble, rabble, rabble*

[Kobold Catgirl]

If humans get free boots, kobolds should get free boots, too! >:(

[graystone]

MadScientistWorking wrote:

graystone wrote:

MadScientistWorking wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

Three of the four alchemical research methods are about items that you either attack with or use to enhance attacks, but Superior Optimizers still act shocked and appalled that some people actually want to play that way instead of leaning into the one hyperspecific playstyle that almost barely kind of nearly makes the class good enough that they're busy being so clever and smug about.

The outraged pearl clutching every time someone brings up trying to play Alchemists The Wrong Way really sells it.

Uhhh... No. Mutagenist and Chirugeon are not combat based. Mutagenist can be combat based but it's not solely meant to be.

Between Bestial Mutagen, Bestial Mutagen, Energy Mutagen, Ichthyosis Mutagen, Juggernaut Mutagen, Quicksilver Mutagen, War Blood Mutagen and Stone Body Mutagen having clear combat applications I'd say Mutagenist are solidly combat based. As such, I agree with Squiggit.

Get back to me with a list that isnt composed of things that you'd have to ask your GM permission to get.

Your DM requires asking for bestial, drakenheart, juggernaut or quicksilver mutagens? There are only 12 mutagens total[7 with combat applications] and and 7 common ones [4 with combat applications]. I don't see how moving it to just common ones matter in the least as in either list the majority have uses in combat making the objection pretty moot IMO.

[graystone]

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

If humans get free boots, kobolds should get free boots, too! >:(

Solomon Grundy want pants too!

[TlalocPendragon]

Unikatze wrote:

But you can still just say that's not how it works at your table and problem solved.

While I agree the change in general is a decent one for addressing concerns around Bio-Essentialism. I feel like, unless they handle the Errata as a new optional rule, this quote of yours won't be the case. I worry that GM's who try to say that that isn't how it works at their table will be exposing themselves to unfair criticism for their choice, potentially facing unfair accusations.

It's easy to say "Just ignore the ruling if you don't like it." But when the ruling is implicitly tied to real world issues, ignoring that ruling can cause you to fall under fire for supporting the wrong side of the real world issue it was meant to address.

[Squiggit]

GMs get criticized for their house rules all the time.

If you want to houserule character generation to make options more restrictive for your players you can, but you're opening yourself up for players being unhappy about that, which is fine for them too.

[Bootstrap Bob, the Bootseller]

graystone wrote:

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

If humans get free boots, kobolds should get free boots, too! >:(

Solomon Grundy want pants too!

No, no no no nonononono! No free boots for anybody!

[PossibleCabbage]

Anybody have any new characters they're excited to make that were awkward under the old stat rules?

I for one am going to lobby a GM to let me play a Conrasu Inventor with a Taw Launcher as their innovation (which is Martial for proficiency with Conrasu Weapon Familiarity but not normally eligible for an Inventor), and being able to choose Dex/Int instead of Con/Wis/Free is nice.

[Ken'Thras Sunspell]

I have at least two PFS characters that are pretty hurt by the voluntary flaw changes. One of them is a human battle oracle. I used voluntary flaw to give him constitution so he could stay in the frontlines better as a battle-hardened warrior, and lowered int and wis because he was always called to battle, and never had time for booklearning or stopped to think about traps or ambushes. My summoner has the same issue. She stayed way back away from the fight while her eidolon went in, so I gave her -Str, -Dex, +Con, so she and her eidolon could live longer. It also made sense with her character. She's a diplomat, not really trained at all to fight, so she's not strong or dexterous, but the con bonus represented her connection to her eidolon being strong, so it had more vitality. While these things can still be explained flavor-wise without a mechanical background to them, I do find it frustrating that both of these characters are losing out on hp and fort save bonuses and are instead gaining ability scores that they will never use, or at least I don't intend for them to be good at anyway. Come to think of it, I don't think my oracle can have taken the Fast Recovery general feat at level 1 anymore, he doesn't meet the requirements. I would have to give up a point of strength, making him worse at melee combat than he already is as an oracle and inducing penalties for wearing his Hellknight armor, or charisma, making all of my spellcasting worse, in order to still have the con and take the feat.

I think that if they're set on keeping voluntary flaws as a pure negative, then ancestries that do not have a flaw in their normal array, such as humans, should have an additional option. I would give humans, fetchlings, kitsune, etc. The option to have either

+Free, +Free.
or
+(whatever the ancestry normally gives, free for humans, cha for kitsune, dex for fetchlings, etc.), +Free, +Free, -Free.

I personally like this better than what others have suggested as "All ancestries may now choose +Free, +Free, +Free, -Free", because it allows for all ancestries to not fill in predetermined classes or roles, but lets the ancestries made to be versatile even better at being versatile, and doesn't screw over people who had existing characters or planned builds that get ruined by the change to voluntary flaws. It also gives fetchling-like ancestries a reason to keep their natural boosts instead of ignoring them since they can be replaced anyway. Even if it was only given to humans I still think it would make more sense.

[Perpdepog]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Anybody have any new characters they're excited to make that were awkward under the old stat rules?

I for one am going to lobby a GM to let me play a Conrasu Inventor with a Taw Launcher as their innovation (which is Martial for proficiency with Conrasu Weapon Familiarity but not normally eligible for an Inventor), and being able to choose Dex/Int instead of Con/Wis/Free is nice.

I'm looking forward to making a poppet gunslinger. Their name is Bumble, a toy ceru--glad those are in the game again--who came to life after their child was kidnapped, and who now carves a path of bloody vengeance through the underworld to find them again.

[breithauptclan]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Anybody have any new characters they're excited to make that were awkward under the old stat rules?

Poppet Witch.

It's really hard to get INT, CON, DEX, and WIS high enough to not feel really flimsy with that DEX penalty and no armor. And I never liked the old voluntary flaw system since it was a net loss.

[Martialmasters]

I'll be honest this does little but hurt multiple build ideas.

I often used voluntary flaw for a boost system to make weird builds.

Now I can't. Instead I get a bunch of ho hum builds.

I'm not a huge fan is removing such a small aspect of min maxing as it was a very nice qol feature that technically left you at a -2 for total stats.

[MadScientistWorking]

graystone wrote:

MadScientistWorking wrote:

graystone wrote:

MadScientistWorking wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

Three of the four alchemical research methods are about items that you either attack with or use to enhance attacks, but Superior Optimizers still act shocked and appalled that some people actually want to play that way instead of leaning into the one hyperspecific playstyle that almost barely kind of nearly makes the class good enough that they're busy being so clever and smug about.

The outraged pearl clutching every time someone brings up trying to play Alchemists The Wrong Way really sells it.

Uhhh... No. Mutagenist and Chirugeon are not combat based. Mutagenist can be combat based but it's not solely meant to be.

Between Bestial Mutagen, Bestial Mutagen, Energy Mutagen, Ichthyosis Mutagen, Juggernaut Mutagen, Quicksilver Mutagen, War Blood Mutagen and Stone Body Mutagen having clear combat applications I'd say Mutagenist are solidly combat based. As such, I agree with Squiggit.

Get back to me with a list that isnt composed of things that you'd have to ask your GM permission to get.

Your DM requires asking for bestial, drakenheart, juggernaut or quicksilver mutagens? There are only 12 mutagens total[7 with combat applications] and and 7 common ones [4 with combat applications]. I don't see how moving it to just common ones matter in the least as in either list the majoring have uses in combat making the objecting pretty moot IMO.

I mean you posted rare and uncommon mutagens including an item that needs errata and no self respecting GM would allow without house rules.

[Perpdepog]

It also means that we can now make heavily armored skeleton characters without having to worry about a point of Dex that may be entirely unnecessary, which I'm all for. Skeletal knights are cool.

[Kobold Catgirl]

They posted all the mutagens with combat applications, which included the Rare and Uncommon options, but are you contesting that the majority of mutagens--including just the Common ones--are combat-based?

[The Raven Black]

I like all the changes except the rewriting of the optional flaw rules. It was a fun rule to use and one I think I used on all my characters (PFS-only, I hope I will not have to rebuild them), and likely on all my theorycrafted characters too.

TBH, keeping it as is would have been simpler and better. PF2's balance was definitely not broken by this rule being there.

I am amazed that almost nobody mentioned how Adopted (Human) is an even more awesome choice now. Almost all of their feats are available since they have no physical requirements AND you get your non-poachable non-Human Heritage abilities and feats AND you get the same stat boosts.

I guess we will see even less Human PCs (already a minority in my PFS experience).

So, one net loss for the game mixed with a lot of nice things IMO.

[graystone]

MadScientistWorking wrote:

graystone wrote:

MadScientistWorking wrote:

graystone wrote:

MadScientistWorking wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

Three of the four alchemical research methods are about items that you either attack with or use to enhance attacks, but Superior Optimizers still act shocked and appalled that some people actually want to play that way instead of leaning into the one hyperspecific playstyle that almost barely kind of nearly makes the class good enough that they're busy being so clever and smug about.

The outraged pearl clutching every time someone brings up trying to play Alchemists The Wrong Way really sells it.

Uhhh... No. Mutagenist and Chirugeon are not combat based. Mutagenist can be combat based but it's not solely meant to be.

Between Bestial Mutagen, Bestial Mutagen, Energy Mutagen, Ichthyosis Mutagen, Juggernaut Mutagen, Quicksilver Mutagen, War Blood Mutagen and Stone Body Mutagen having clear combat applications I'd say Mutagenist are solidly combat based. As such, I agree with Squiggit.

Get back to me with a list that isnt composed of things that you'd have to ask your GM permission to get.

Your DM requires asking for bestial, drakenheart, juggernaut or quicksilver mutagens? There are only 12 mutagens total[7 with combat applications] and and 7 common ones [4 with combat applications]. I don't see how moving it to just common ones matter in the least as in either list the majoring have uses in combat making the objecting pretty moot IMO.

I mean you posted rare and uncommon mutagens including an item that needs errata and no self respecting GM would allow without house rules.

I mean, that's TOTALLY irrelevant to my point: the majority of mutagens are combat related irrespective of rarity constraints. There are only 2 rare ones and you're expected to be able to find uncommon ones with effort, so it seems moot.

And the only RARE item is Applereed which I didn't include, but could have as athletic checks and size increases are combat related [so 8 out of 13]. Oh and Ichthyosis. Which mutagen is "needs errata and no self respecting GM would allow without house rules"?

[MaxAstro]

Very excited about most of these changes, but I agree with Kobold Catgirl that the nerf to voluntary flaws is a bit sad to me. It was a rule I used on many of my characters, and almost never for the supposed "point" of getting an 18 in your flaw stat. My players have used it many times too.

Obviously I can just keep using it, so it doesn't really affect me that much, but I wanted to express solidarity with others who are sad to see that particular change. :)

[The Raven Black]

I am now thinking about all these pathfinders (and likely a few other characters) who are going to reject the ways of their Gnome adopted family in favor of raw power (aka Retrain Adopted Ancestry).

[Martialmasters]

I'll be honest if they are taking away how voluntary flaws work.

If they are going to homogenize ancestry attributes.

*Why are dwarves still having 20ft movement speed*

I've seen that kill more players than any voluntary flaw and you can't overcome it until around level 3.

[gesalt]

The Raven Black wrote:

I am amazed that almost nobody mentioned how Adopted (Human) is an even more awesome choice now. Almost all of their feats are available since they have no physical requirements AND you get your non-poachable non-Human Heritage abilities and feats AND you get the same stat boosts.

ancient elf is running around with 50 move speed, +2 to non-combat skill checks and two free multiclass deducations off heritage and poached multitalented. All for the cost of 2hp and a general feat at level 7. Elf is looking like it really came out ahead with this latest balance patch.

[CaffeinatedNinja]

Very nicely done, overall an incredibly positive set of changes for the better.

[The Raven Black]

Just checked my characters who used the optional flaw rule :

Elf Champion could get +2 in CON. = more minmaxed, which I actually count as a negative.

Gnome Thaumaturge cannot start with +2 in STR, CHA and CON anymore. = definitely weaker

Human Fighter loses +2 CON = also weaker

Human Bard loses +2 DEX = a bit weaker

Net effect is worse IMO.

[breithauptclan]

So what did the Gnome Thaumaturge, Human Fighter, and Human Bard gain as a result of not using Voluntary Flaw?

Because as the post sits, it seems odd to me that you count being more minmaxed as a negative, but only focused on what you lost on the high end when critiquing the other characters.

[Alchemic_Genius]

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

stuff about system mastery and alchemist play

Well, in my group, I basically mostly shine when nobody has a solution, and we needed one on the spot.

What I can say though, without some spicier items in the alchemist list, most things I do as an alchemist, I could easily do better as a caster. I buy a lot of consumables for silver bullet style solutions as it is, casters still have the ability to have an potion in hand and use gloves of storing, retrieval prisms, etc. It costs more money, but emergency elixirs are cheap, as are retrieval prisms

That said, if there were cooler and more powerful items, I'd probably sing a different tune. I would actually love spell strength items that need two actions to activate

[The-Magic-Sword]

Alchemic_Genius wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

stuff about system mastery and alchemist play

Well, in my group, I basically mostly shine when nobody has a solution, and we needed one on the spot.

What I can say though, without some spicier items in the alchemist list, most things I do as an alchemist, I could easily do better as a caster. I buy a lot of consumables for silver bullet style solutions as it is, casters still have the ability to have an potion in hand and use gloves of storing, retrieval prisms, etc. It costs more money, but emergency elixirs are cheap, as are retrieval prisms

That said, if there were cooler and more powerful items, I'd probably sing a different tune. I would actually love spell strength items that need two actions to activate

I appreciate the experienced input, here's hoping treasure vault has exactly that-- id love lubrication for certain direct alch play styles, and items that better suit a variety of different characters you might need to convince to take your stuff.

[keftiu]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Anybody have any new characters they're excited to make that were awkward under the old stat rules?

I for one am going to lobby a GM to let me play a Conrasu Inventor with a Taw Launcher as their innovation (which is Martial for proficiency with Conrasu Weapon Familiarity but not normally eligible for an Inventor), and being able to choose Dex/Int instead of Con/Wis/Free is nice.

Charisma classes aren't awkward as hell on Androids anymore, which is nice. I've wanted to make a Lore Oracle for ages, but it's been pretty punishing to get that main stat at 18.

[Kobold Catgirl]

It does help with one character I'm designing. She's a mage with a big sword, playtesting a new spell-eating witch subclass and a new mothfolk ancestry that normally gets all the wrong boosts for "melee witch". But, you know, that's not the best example, since the ancestry and class are both homebrew. Still, it's nice! :P

[QuidEst]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Anybody have any new characters they're excited to make that were awkward under the old stat rules?

I for one am going to lobby a GM to let me play a Conrasu Inventor with a Taw Launcher as their innovation (which is Martial for proficiency with Conrasu Weapon Familiarity but not normally eligible for an Inventor), and being able to choose Dex/Int instead of Con/Wis/Free is nice.

I'm glad that the change is in place before Kineticist comes out. Con being the primary stat for damage and accuracy is nice, but it seemed like AC would suffer on most of the newer "1 fixed, 1 free" ancestries. I've got a kitsune I'd like to be able to do +Dex, +Con on, and Cha can be a tertiary stat.

[Darkvramp]

"Starting this year, we will release errata twice per year, once in the spring and once in the fall. Since errata will no longer be tied to reprints, it frees us up to cover errata issues from a wide range of products as well. We hope this will allow us to be a bit more responsive to your questions and any issues you might have spotted with the game, so keep posting your questions to Paizo.com. Your passion helps us make a better Pathfinder!"

While this idea is great, going forward, the release of the errata has to be in a presentable, and easily accessible format. Think a link to a PDF just like the first core errata release, where it wasn't fancy and printed like a normal book or PDF, but it looked like some effort went into the "patch" rather than just a copy and paste on a blog post that was buried within link after link, like it seems it has turned into.

[LordeAlvenaharr]

gesalt wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

I am amazed that almost nobody mentioned how Adopted (Human) is an even more awesome choice now. Almost all of their feats are available since they have no physical requirements AND you get your non-poachable non-Human Heritage abilities and feats AND you get the same stat boosts.

ancient elf is running around with 50 move speed, +2 to non-combat skill checks and two free multiclass deducations off heritage and poached multitalented. All for the cost of 2hp and a general feat at level 7. Elf is looking like it really came out ahead with this latest balance patch.

Could you give me a quick glimpse of how good an elf would be a thaumaturge with these new rules?

[Darkvramp]

Alex Speidel wrote:

Incorporating this new batch of errata into PFS play will be addressed in Thursday's OP Monthly update, so stay tuned for that!

The errata is going to need its own tab on the site, within the community tab, and it needs to be more presentable, just like the first errata was, rather than just block blog posts. It allows for people to cleanly print off a copy if they only use print to update their rulesets, or collect PDFS, like they already are.

[LandSwordBear]

LordeAlvenaharr wrote:

Natural Ambition in all ancestries already!

Yes, for without this, it’s a return to the bad old days replete with the perils of biological essentialism all over again!

[OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0]

Squiggit wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

the bigger problem is that I can't voluntarily lower perception.

I just really dislike that perception is hardcoded to class in general. A Fighter who's good at noticing things or a Thief who isn't both seem like they should be valid.

I agree. Unnecessary pigeonholing. Vocational essentialism rears its ugly head.