Spring Errata Updates 2025

I agree this is something strange that PF2e have since the very beginning (and look like that SF2e will go to same way too).

Subclassing balance has always been terrible tbh, never understood why.

Ectar wrote:

Real shame that, given balance was touted as a major selling point of the edition.

I mean even the CRB had broken subclasses and wild variation between classes. Balance has always been more of a community idea, tbh.

Which are?

Squiggit wrote:

Subclassing balance has always been terrible tbh, never understood why.

Ectar wrote:

Real shame that, given balance was touted as a major selling point of the edition.

I mean even the CRB had broken subclasses and wild variation between classes. Balance has always been more of a community idea, tbh.

Which are?

It is still mostly balanced in that you can reasonbly predict the difficulty of encounters as a GM. This is the main part.

There is still lots of variation between feats and subclasses. Some of that is fair enough as we don't want cookie cutter mechanics and some of it is not. Too many features are mechanically poor.

It is just frustrating when there is a benchmark that the designers have kept for 20 classes just get ignored in a new class, and they do nothing with errata. I am just forced to ban exemplar multiclass dedication in my games. Plenty of other issues too.

Squiggit wrote:

Subclassing balance has always been terrible tbh, never understood why.

Ectar wrote:

Real shame that, given balance was touted as a major selling point of the edition.

I mean even the CRB had broken subclasses and wild variation between classes. Balance has always been more of a community idea, tbh.

Which are?

This probably will create some commotion because always someone appears to defend specially because have some people that like then due thematic reasons and don't care about the mechanic disadvantages but here some examples:

Barbarian

Investigator

Any Non-Alchemical Sciences: This is another polemical because others methodologies are very thematic and can be useful specially outside combat or have some strong feats like Surgical Shock. Yet it's hard to compensate to be able to make you Int of Elixirs (what includes mutagens) per day with 1-action without the 10 minutes limit of Quick Alchemy. Just take
Inventor feat and learn as many formulas as you can learn.

I don't really agree with this one, having had two people play Investigators in my games and neither of them took Alchemical Sciences. Alchemist Archetype is right there and it gets both versatile vials and Advanced Alchemy pretty easily.

Forensic Medicine Investigators are highly capable healers, for example. Had one of those in Extinction Curse and they were pretty capable. The differences between Investigator subclasses aren't the biggest gaps in the game, by far.

Some of the others though? Yeah. Some of them are so far off others in the same class that it's painful. They're never going to be identical because we also want variety, but they shouldn't vary from "this gives you tons of upside with no downside" to "actually using your unique class ability will get you killed" the way Oracle does. Oracle is WAY worse than Investigator on this.

It is just frustrating when there is a benchmark that the designers have kept for 20 classes just get ignored in a new class, and they do nothing with errata. I am just forced to ban exemplar multiclass dedication in my games. Plenty of other issues too.

Yeah, same. I do not understand the thinking here at all. In a non-FA game, Exemplar Dedication is the single best level 2 feat in the game and it's not close. Take the dedication for a huge boost, then ignore the archetype and just stay in class after that. You're golden.

In a FA game there's a slightly higher opportunity cost since the other Exemplar feats aren't as good, but it's still an incredibly strong option and that they did nothing to rein this in is really disappointing. The Rare tag seems to be doing a lot of heavy lifting here, but the game having options that a GM is just expected to house rule or ban outright because they're far too powerful is some PF1 stuff that I was hoping we had left behind.

Honestly I wouldn't say single best level 2 feat, I'd say it is very close bit Psychic for Casters is on par with Exemplar only because Cantrips + a free Focus Point is huge. Then sure you need a second feat but 2 feat dip to get a Psi-Cantrip with AMP'D capabilities can turn any caster into a dangerous focus point user.

Yeah, Fury sucks for Barbarian and the new Water Magus also sucks for different reasons. Almost every class has a single option which seems like it sucks or has a better option. Take Fury Instinct but it is better then the poison instinct that slowly kills you for just raging or several Oracle curses which actively hurt you. Perhaps we talk about Outwit Rangers, like really some options are not great period.

Also while we are at it, Unholy Champions still have the worse time.

IF anyone want to post new Errata Ideas, I made a Thread for it!

Fall Errata Suggestion 2025

At least we had a win with the Elemental Barbarian.

I agree with all your other comments except the Superstition Instinct Barbarian. You have a point in that it has a real limitation and so many other builds don't. But it has real strengths that many people will like. A character is a member of a party and there are simple non magical options like Cheetah's Elixer for example that will get the effect you want even if it isn't as convenient.

Yeah, same. I do not understand the thinking here at all. In a non-FA game, Exemplar Dedication is the single best level 2 feat in the game and it's not close. Take the dedication for a huge boost, then ignore the archetype and just stay in class after that. You're golden.

In a FA game there's a slightly higher opportunity cost since the other Exemplar feats aren't as good, but it's still an incredibly strong option and that they did nothing to rein this in is really disappointing. The Rare tag seems to be doing a lot of heavy lifting here, but the game having options that a GM is just expected to house rule or ban outright because they're far too powerful is some PF1 stuff that I was hoping we had left behind.

Even in a FA game still worth take Exemplar Dedication as human via Multitalented for most fighters builds.

What makes this dedication so strong is not only the fact that it is a so strong dedication but also the fact that it is a Multiclass dedication that you can get using other ways than normal lvl 2 class feat.

Honestly I wouldn't say single best level 2 feat, I'd say it is very close bit Psychic for Casters is on par with Exemplar only because Cantrips + a free Focus Point is huge. Then sure you need a second feat but 2 feat dip to get a Psi-Cantrip with AMP'D capabilities can turn any caster into a dangerous focus point user.

What makes Exemplar Dedication being considered more OP than Psychic dedication is the fact that outside Magus' builds this dedication is more overlapped by own casters spells. The extra focus point and cantrip is useful for casters during early games builds but they becomes outdated at highest levels for many casters builds as long you are getting access to other focus spells and the cantrips was becoming less central to the casters powers.

Exemplar Dedication for other side are useful all levels long.

I think when the idea of the game is balanced it really just means the math works out at all levels. There's a soft ceiling everyone can get to and going over that has massive diminishing returns.

The level of effectiveness for sub classes and even in some class options can be a bit all over the place, but doesn't stray to far from the underlying math.

Genuinely the only fix for the Exemplar archetype is "it's rare, you can only have it if the GM explicitly allows it."

Like I'm going to run a FA game where the Exemplar archetype is mandatory as the premise is "you got your hands on some godstuff" but I'm not going to allow it otherwise.

I think when the idea of the game is balanced it really just means the math works out at all levels.

Yep.

The game being "balanced" just means that even if there is a noticeable difference in performance between options, it won't be to the degree of one character being reasonably able to succeed and the other being mathematically non-functional.

I.e. not having the thing that happened in D&D 3.5 where if you didn't explicitly choose a certain set of options you'd have your most important stats fall behind what the game math seems to expect them to be (i.e. not loading up the highest save values you can get meaning you might start out needing to roll an 11 on the die to succeed on a Will save against your typical opponents and by the time you're 12th level you actually need to roll an 18 on the die against your typical opponents because the DCs scale up on primary stats and items and your saves mostly only scale on secondary or tertiary things).

I honestly allow Exemplar Dedication and honestly it seems strong but so far it hasn't seemed like it changes most encounters so far honestly. Maybe that is because we fight multiple enemies during out encounters and so far the dice have been disliking us hitting multiple times a round.

I also allow the Exemplar Dedication in my games simply because it's ugly but not really bad.

In general all other "guardrails", limits and protection that the PF2e rules provides already prevents a real unbalance where I would have change my encounters due some players take some Ikons.

The point about Exemplar Dedication (and Psychic Dedication for Magus) it's that it's so cheap and good at same time that it creates a great incentive take it with low disincentive to not take it. This make many optimization focused players to get it always as possible what is a pretty ugly situations but not really a real problem for the gameplay.

So I would like to see this adjusted! Yes I would like. But I'm worry about this. Certainly not. Even if Paizo designers choose to keep it as it is I won't really care. I would still think that it is a thing that could be better adjusted but not as a real problem.

Not only that but there is a bigger fish to fry before you get to Exempla Dedication. Mythic rules in general, it makes no sense that they can be this far broken and not in the overpowered format. It feels like Paizo took some classes which when they were doing their internal playtesting and thought. Wow, this could be strong if allowed with these rules. Good thing their core mechanic doesn't allow for it.

I am staring at you, Kineticist, Magus, Summoner, & Swashbuckler. With a side order of any class that has feats to user special strikes and not being able to mythic bump them. Let's be real not even Exemplar plays nice with Mythic Strikes but weirdly enough most other martials do.

This should've been the biggest Errata was to simply get the Mythic Ruleset working for all classes on an equal playing field but we must wait another pass to get Kineticist out of the bottom grouping of classes.

Not only that but there is a bigger fish to fry before you get to Exempla Dedication. Mythic rules in general, it makes no sense that they can be this far broken and not in the overpowered format. It feels like Paizo took some classes which when they were doing their internal playtesting and thought. Wow, this could be strong if allowed with these rules. Good thing their core mechanic doesn't allow for it.

I am staring at you, Kineticist, Magus, Summoner, & Swashbuckler. With a side order of any class that has feats to user special strikes and not being able to mythic bump them. Let's be real not even Exemplar plays nice with Mythic Strikes but weirdly enough most other martials do.

This should've been the biggest Errata was to simply get the Mythic Ruleset working for all classes on an equal playing field but we must wait another pass to get Kineticist out of the bottom grouping of classes.

Also Animal Companions, and anything else that comes out in the future that doesn't fall into the basic strike/spell/skill check paradigm.

I don't know if they even can fix this with errata, since it's a core problem with how Mythic works. It does not play nice with special abilities, so any class that is reliant on special abilities is going to have a bad time.

IMO, this is a design flaw. Design flaws are hard to fix in errata given how much stuff would have to be changed in how the mythic rules work to make it function with all the various cases where it currently doesn't.

Yeah. Not being able to use special attacks with mythic force just feels wrong. And then for spells you can't use metamagic (because mythic spells are themselves a metamagic basically) and you have to spend an extra action entirely (which... oof, since that's a lot more expensive than a mythic strike is, blocks 3-action spells, and also causes grief for kineticists under the common "fix" of using mythic spells for impulses, since it wrecks their economy to not have the action to channel after a 2-action overflow, etc)

It almost feels like it would be better if it was just a free action, trigger: you make a strike/cast a spell/impulse/etc, and you spend the point to use mythic proficiency.

One thing about 'fixing' mythic is that it's such a big deal it's hard to just come up with a quick solution. Like a lot of points here kind of make me think that mythic proficiency might have just been a bad idea period, you can't just write a line or two of errata to course correct there though.

That said I do think looking at this Paizo's priorities seem a bit off. Like errata is errata but you have to wonder what made nerfing a mediocre wizard build and buffing sword champions the main things they wanted to ship and not adjusting any of the genuinely overpowered, underpowered, or unintelligible mechanics they passed on.

I'm still kind of annoyed that the remaster, inexplicably, makes it so you can't get both Qi Rush and Inner Upheaval when you could get both Ki Rush and Ki Strike in the pre-remaster and there was no reason for this to change.

Like yes, this is easy to change with house rules (add a "special" section to the Qi feats saying "you can take this again, if you do, choose a different Qi spell.") but just because a fix is easy doesn't mean it's not worthy of errata.

Not only that but there is a bigger fish to fry before you get to Exempla Dedication. Mythic rules in general, it makes no sense that they can be this far broken and not in the overpowered format.

While I'll agree mythic needs an overhaul, it's about as low on my priority list as an issue can go since it's a niche rules set that will likely never affect me. I'm much more likely to see something Rare like Exemplar Dedication. So, while elemental barbarian, Sin Wizards and sword champions were PRETTY low on what I'd like to see errata for, at least I might actually see them in play unlike Mythic.

IMO there are some basic things that needs an urgent errata like clarification of how multiple damage type works in same attack, how exactly extra damage works and where it enters, where Shield Block hardness enters in damage formula and how it interacts with resistances.

Also more class specific clarifications like how really eidolons interact with non-magical items including items required to them use some skill actions, how mythic rules will work for classes like kineticist, magus and other classes maybe including a complete overhaul.

Only after this they will also address all that questions that are in errata topics like balance questions and some edge case clarifications.

All these needs to be answered by designers not ignored without any response.

Yeah. Not being able to use special attacks with mythic force just feels wrong. And then for spells you can't use metamagic (because mythic spells are themselves a metamagic basically) and you have to spend an extra action entirely (which... oof, since that's a lot more expensive than a mythic strike is, blocks 3-action spells, and also causes grief for kineticists under the common "fix" of using mythic spells for impulses, since it wrecks their economy to not have the action to channel after a 2-action overflow, etc)

It almost feels like it would be better if it was just a free action, trigger: you make a strike/cast a spell/impulse/etc, and you spend the point to use mythic proficiency.

It 100% would be. It shouldn't even be an action IMO, so that it works properly with things like spellshape. Just spend a mythic point and make stuff happen.

One thing about 'fixing' mythic is that it's such a big deal it's hard to just come up with a quick solution. Like a lot of points here kind of make me think that mythic proficiency might have just been a bad idea period, you can't just write a line or two of errata to course correct there though.

When I say the problems are more design flaws than errors, mythic proficiency is the single biggest reason why. The way it works fundamentally warps the game into mythic being "a handful of super powerful moments and otherwise being exactly the same" for a lot of the game. At low level, mythic proficiency is such an absurd power spike that there's really no equivalent, since the math makes it close to "you get a degree of success better"... and then it tails off as you get better at things. Inverse scaling just feels weird in a game like this.

Then you toss in all the stuff that doesn't work with the system and effectively gets left behind in mythic play (like Kineticist, Spellstrike, and Eidolons/Companions) and yeah... fixing this would require a huge errata because changing mythic proficiency itself impacts so many other things in the mythic rules that the errata would be gigantic.

And then there's just the stuff I don't like about it like the perverse situation where the old high level rituals that used to require legendary proficiency (like Create Demiplane) are now mythic rituals and the primary caster only has to be trained since their actual proficiency doesn't matter in the slightest. Given how much emphasis the PF2 skill system puts on "your proficiency matters and lets you do things that someone with less proficiency can't do", having this stuff where your proficiency is literally completely irrelevant to the outcome is just a baffling decision. Given how rituals rarely come up in play this isn't the same level of problem as the other stuff, but it just... irks me.

That said I do think looking at this Paizo's priorities seem a bit off. Like errata is errata but you have to wonder what made nerfing a mediocre wizard build and buffing sword champions the main things they wanted to ship and not adjusting any of the genuinely overpowered, underpowered, or unintelligible mechanics they passed on.

Champions needed that fix since it was a major nerf to that feature and was frankly just confusing everyone, so I'm glad they did it. But that's another case of "why did they change the wording on this if they didn't intend to change what it did?" Like the fact that they changed it in PC2 in the first place makes no sense if the intention is how it works in the errata since it already worked that way before they changed it. It's just another of the quality control issues that PC2 was full of.

I'm still kind of annoyed that the remaster, inexplicably, makes it so you can't get both Qi Rush and Inner Upheaval when you could get both Ki Rush and Ki Strike in the pre-remaster and there was no reason for this to change.

Like yes, this is easy to change with house rules (add a "special" section to the Qi feats saying "you can take this again, if you do, choose a different Qi spell.") but just because a fix is easy doesn't mean it's not worthy of errata.

Speaking of PC2 quality control issues... yeah, I don't get why this was changed unless it was just an error by omission of the text that lets you take it again. PC2 had a LOT of that, so I would easily believe this is another one.

Considering that Ranger gets that treatment, Monk not getting it makes no sense to me as a deliberate decision.

While I'll agree mythic needs an overhaul, it's about as low on my priority list as an issue can go since it's a niche rules set that will likely never affect me. I'm much more likely to see something Rare like Exemplar Dedication. So, while elemental barbarian, Sin Wizards and sword champions were PRETTY low on what I'd like to see errata for, at least I might actually see them in play unlike Mythic.

It's true, though it bodes ill for the mythic AP they want to put out if mythic itself is a mess. That's why my first question when it was announced was literally "can you play this without using mythic?" (I also told my GM if he wants to run it that I'd try it, but I'm 100% playing a martial class and I don't care if we have all 5 characters as martials in the party since the mythic rules straight up favor them.)

Wrath of the Righteous worked in part because PF1 Mythic's issues don't tend to make it unfun for the players. It's not a system you'd want to use every time, but for "The mythic AP", having the players get wildly out of hand power wise and play that fantasy is fun. PF2's mythic rules just don't deliver that same feeling.

IMO there are some basic things that needs an urgent errata like clarification of how multiple damage type works in same attack, how exactly extra damage works and where it enters, where Shield Block hardness enters in damage formula and how it interacts with resistances.

Also more class specific clarifications like how really eidolons interact with non-magical items including items required to them use some skill actions, how mythic rules will work for classes like kineticist, magus and other classes maybe including a complete overhaul.

I feel pretty confident at this point that none of that is going to happen. It should, but some of it has been a question for what, 5 years now?

For some of it, like shield block/resistances, at this point I just go with "whatever Foundry does", because that's the closest thing to a community standard we have as an answer. Is it RAI? Don't know, but at this point it doesn't matter. So many tables work that way because they're using Foundry that trying to do anything else is just going to be confusing for players and more work since you can't use the automation.

For the others, we just come up with a ruling and stick with it so at least my table knows what to expect and hope it doesn't come up in a PFS game with someone who thinks it works differently.

I don't know why Paizo is so adamant about refusing to provide examples that would clarify these questions... but they are and I have no reason to believe it's going to change.

TBH - I've adjusted my spending decisions because of it when it comes to buying Paizo products (or not buying them).

The strange part of all this is that it wouldn't take much work to clarify these things (except for the mythic rules, because they need a much more intense review). OK, there would be players who wouldn't like one way or another that Paizo defined things, but these players, outside of PFS, could use their houserules without any problems. In the general context, it would be extremely beneficial because we would finally have a reliable standard to follow and players a well-established basis for knowing how to build their builds.

I honestly still don't understand why Paizo hasn't simply put in the errata "look guys, these cases of multiple damage types work like this, blocking works like that, the eidolon can/can't use these items" and that would be it, everything would be resolved. The most we would have would be a few angry people on the forum, but we already have that from time to time anyway, but in the end we would have a clear rules base to follow and base ourselves on.

I’m very grateful we finally got the Champion errata, but I also don’t know why we wait to wait for this to get “Champions should work the same way they did before with this feature”. They could have told us that in the thread and still do the errata afterwards, especially since they didn’t actually revert the wording and just added an extra line that reverted it with extra steps.

We didn't have to wait for this to get to "That champion feature actually works" because we could all have just understood that the conclusion caused by reading hyper-strictly was a bad conclusion from the start.

What we really don't need is to create any kind of expectation that we get rules corrections or clarifications outside of the errata schedule because literally all that ever leads to is people being entitled and angry that they aren't getting even more responses even more rapidly.

This isn't even reverting the wording with extra steps, it's clarifying that the text does in fact say what it already said with a bit of redundancy because some people insisted on reading not explicitly saying one thing as the same as explicitly saying the opposite of that unstated thing.

Well, at least the Grandeur Champion gets the benefit of his reactions effect during his own turn, i.e. if he triggers a reactive strike during his own turn by the affected enemy, it may save him from being hit. It's not exactly as much as people might have hoped, but it's a bit better and much clearer.

We didn't have to wait for this to get to "That champion feature actually works" because we could all have just understood that the conclusion caused by reading hyper-strictly was a bad conclusion from the start.

I dislike to say this but with how the Rogue gets Evasion on all 3 saves we were hoping that Paizo didn't nerf this class feature and as far as we knew there was no reason to assume either direction other then by the past Blade Ally/Shield Ally. Even right now some people are hoping are hoping Paizo comes to their senses and nerfs Rogue despite a private message confirming that this was intention. Which still seems weird they choose to do that but i do not understand how PAizo's internal company works so we don't know if this is an semi-common or a one and done type of response.

Absolutely. The uncertainty about the Blessed Armament was mainly because the language shift was apparently intentional and removed the text language from the previous feature that also appeared in the Battle Harbinger's feat. It seemed much more intentional than the Rogue's 3 "Evasion" Saving Throws.

We didn't have to wait for this to get to "That champion feature actually works" because we could all have just understood that the conclusion caused by reading hyper-strictly was a bad conclusion from the start.

I mean, they changed the wording significantly in PC2. It was entirely reasonable to assume they did that for a reason. Because changing the wording in a way that makes it read like it works differently without any intention to change how it works doesn't make any sense. Why not just leave the wording alone?

At the time we didn't know the intention wasn't to change it and they gave us no indication of that for literally months. Battle Harbinger coming out with the old wording also suggested it was different... because again, if it was intended to work the same, why use totally different wording?

I guess the answer now is another example of "because PC2 was rushed".

What we really don't need is to create any kind of expectation that we get rules corrections or clarifications outside of the errata schedule because literally all that ever leads to is people being entitled and angry that they aren't getting even more responses even more rapidly.

Oh believe me, we don't have that expectation. Getting clarifications faster than "somewhere between 6 months and never" isn't exactly an unreasonable ask, but the expectations are not that high.

We didn't have to wait for this to get to "That champion feature actually works" because we could all have just understood that the conclusion caused by reading hyper-strictly was a bad conclusion from the start.

This is a really goofy take given that they went out of their way to change the wording in PC2 and there are multiple abilities that exist that do work the way PC2's blessed armament was initially rewritten to work.

We can be glad Paizo fixed it without having to try to rewrite history on their behalf.

It's not "rewriting history", it's believing that changing the wording doesn't mean we have to assume the function is anything other than what it actually says.

All the new phrasing needed was for people to stop the "it's different from what it used to be so it has to be a different outcome too" and focus on the "if it doesn't just do what it says without ignoring a rule it doesn't say it follows, the feature doesn't even function because of the also unstated need to have a +1 potency rune on the weapon you choose to use the feature on."

The errata to clarify the situation for people that were insisting on reading the text as including words it didn't have by adding words that aren't actually necessary to reach the desired meaning is just a waste of time and effort.

doesn't mean we have to assume the function is anything other than what it actually says.

I mean, that's why they changed it. Because what it said led to an undesirable and bad outcome. So they altered the text to correct that. And now it functions the way everyone wanted it to function.

So... definitely not a waste of time. Unless I guess you preferred it the old way but I don't know anyone who did.

So they altered the text to correct that. And now it functions the way everyone wanted it to function.

Not a single word of Blessed Armament was changed in the errata, meaning it always functioned the way everyone wanted it to. Assuming they changed a feature to be a dead option feels like an extremely bad faith reading in the first place.

Nah, nothing bad faith in taking an ability at face value, especially when other abilities function in the same way.

Like I said, we can be glad Paizo addressed the problem without trying to be weird about it or mad at people who wanted things corrected. Like everyone here is agreeing the outcome is good, makes the fussing kind of weird.

I feel like Paizo is trying to make rhe errata fit the books, that's why we haven't gotten stuff like "Making Kineticist more compatible with the rest of the system" or "Clarifying what an instance of damage is".
Needless to say, that's dumb.
Unless you're writing errata for a book you're remastering (which I do have a couple issues with Paizo's approach) it's frankly better to just fix what is broken and worry later if it fits the physical books.

I feel like Paizo is trying to make rhe errata fit the books, that's why we haven't gotten stuff like "Making Kineticist more compatible with the rest of the system" or "Clarifying what an instance of damage is".

Needless to say, that's dumb.
Unless you're writing errata for a book you're remastering (which I do have a couple issues with Paizo's approach) it's frankly better to just fix what is broken and worry later if it fits the physical books.

Errata needs to fit in the same page layout, yes. That's just a side effect of Paizo being a book focused company.

That's why the PF1 FAQ was nice: it wasn't errata and just served to clarify stuff so it could take up however much space was needed. PF2 now has a couple of clarifications on the errata pages that serve the same purpose, but on some of the more difficult points of confusion I definitely miss the FAQ approach.

Squiggit wrote:

So they altered the text to correct that. And now it functions the way everyone wanted it to function.

Not a single word of Blessed Armament was changed in the errata, meaning it always functioned the way everyone wanted it to. Assuming they changed a feature to be a dead option feels like an extremely bad faith reading in the first place.

I mean, Battle Trance exists, so the idea that they'll never change something to be a useless option isn't backed up by the facts.

More to the point: Champion's wording was changed from something that clearly worked a certain way to something that was ambiguous. There's other features in the game that do work the new way. Battle Harbinger used the old wording despite coming out after PC2 Champion, which implies they weren't intended to work the same way... otherwise why use such different wording?

Now that we know it was never intended to change in functionality, it means they changed the wording in PC2 Champion for no apparent reason and then changed it back shortly afterward with Battle Harbinger. Doing that doesn't make any sense since you have two different sets of wording for a feature that is intended to work exactly the same way in both cases. Normally when they doo that, they use the same wording.

And again: why change it in the first place if there was no intention to change it?

In the absence of any guidance for months (this could have been cleared up in literally 60 seconds if someone from Paizo just said "it works the same as before"), it's entirely reasonable for people to assume that they had a reason for changing it.

This same thing happened with the PC1 dying rules, except that got changed back almost immediately and it begged the question again of why did it change in the first place if there was never any intention to change it?

The only other alternatives are either "they intended to change it and backtracked because the change was massively unpopular", or "someone started messing with wording to clarify it, didn't finish, and just released it in a half-done state."

Like, the alternative here is to assume that they're changing features for no reason without actually intending to change features, and "assume incompetence" isn't a good way for the community to function.

Dying we do know what happened, Three people discussed one thing thinking they were on the same page but really wasnt, CRB and GM screen conflicted on that rule.

They changed the text in PC1 'For consistency' But ended up making it consistent with the wrong text. Sometimes, Editors and Designers, Or even Designers and other Designers are indeed not on the same page.

And again: why change it in the first place if there was no intention to change it?

The most compelling reason I've seen is that it just shortens the word count. They added wording to the other two blessed armament options from the pre-remaster version so this just helped control page bloat. I agree with you though that I'm not going to assume an intentional change is simply page count/printing logistics if it changes the reading of the rule. This wording, specifically was highly argued about due to blade ally giving shifting to staves of divination (since it applied the effect of but not an actual rune to a specific magic weapon) for true strike on a gauntlet. So we were hyper sensitive to its change as a community from arguments held over a different manifestation of the same rule/wording.

Dying we do know what happened, Three people discussed one thing thinking they were on the same page but really wasnt, CRB and GM screen conflicted on that rule.

They changed the text in PC1 'For consistency' But ended up making it consistent with the wrong text. Sometimes, Editors and Designers, Or even Designers and other Designers are indeed not on the same page.

Similarly, I find it unlikely that Battle Harbinger and the remastered Champion were the same designer.

Thank you for the errata and clarifications Pathfinder Designers.

Nah, nothing bad faith in taking an ability at face value, especially when other abilities function in the same way.

Like I said, we can be glad Paizo addressed the problem without trying to be weird about it or mad at people who wanted things corrected. Like everyone here is agreeing the outcome is good, makes the fussing kind of weird.

I wouldn't say it was bad faith, but it was not a read the designers intended and we know that now.

I think we can all agree this clarification is a good outcome though.

Nah, nothing bad faith in taking an ability at face value...

You mean the "face value" of that it says it adds a rune to a weapon so it just does, and since it doesn't say the weapon has to have a potency rune to be chosen for the feature that has to mean that the typical limitation on how many runes a weapon can have can't possibly apply?

...or the "face value" where people insist on reading the feature as having the limitation it clearly violates because it doesn't redundantly state that it does like it used to?

There was nothing to "correct" as the rules already said what they still say, they just used fewer words to do it before errata came along to change literally nothing other than whether or not the wording was redundant.

That Paizo caves to people asking them for pointless clarifications is not something we should ever be "glad" about because every moment they spend on "yes, it works like the intent should have been obvious that it works" is a moment they couldn't spend on something more worthwhile.

really weird thing to be upset about. I appreciate the clarification

By that logic when the rogue gained Critical Success when rolling a Success on all 3 Saving Throws at level 17, we should have all assumed that it was "Too good to be true" and ignored it because that is silly but on the same end that also means despite not being said in any official rule. "This is too bad to be true." should also apply, making stuff like Champion's Blessed Armament work like old Blade/Shield Ally. While also making it a point to ask yourself. "Is this too good/bad?". Then you have to ask if Flurry of Blows was unfairly nerfed or why did Twin Takedown not get the same 1d4 cooldown.

By that logic when the rogue gained Critical Success when rolling a Success on all 3 Saving Throws at level 17, we should have all assumed that it was "Too good to be true" and ignored it because that is silly but on the same end that also means despite not being said in any official rule. "This is too bad to be true." should also apply, making stuff like Champion's Blessed Armament work like old Blade/Shield Ally. While also making it a point to ask yourself. "Is this too good/bad?". Then you have to ask if Flurry of Blows was unfairly nerfed or why did Twin Takedown not get the same 1d4 cooldown.

I read the same rules and it was clear to me before this clarification that blessed armaments reads as the clarification emphasized.

Others read it and assumed it meant something else. Now that we have the clarification we understand which read was intended. And its a win for the game because we wont have tables running blessed armaments in a way that makes it needlessly pointless.

I would take from this that if your read of a rule makes the ability pointless and your table wont touch it? Dont run it that way no matter what unknown intent is behind the writing.

That Paizo caves to people asking them for pointless clarifications is not something we should ever be "glad" about because every moment they spend on "yes, it works like the intent should have been obvious that it works" is a moment they couldn't spend on something more worthwhile.

Pointless clarifications is a poor concept. Most of the people asking for clarifications are asking in good faith. Most of the people asking genuinely don't understand. There are a lot of different perspectives, abilities and cultures out there. We still don't agree on some of the basics. A fair portion of what has already been published is confused. I'd much rather Paizo fixed what they have already published than publish more. Unfortunately that is not what pays the bills for them.

By that logic when the rogue gained Critical Success when rolling a Success on all 3 Saving Throws at level 17, we should have all assumed that it was "Too good to be true" and ignored it because that is silly...

Nope, that's a complete misrepresentation of the logic I presented.

"Read the rules as if their intention is to function" is not at all the same as "Read the rules as if anything that strikes you as odd is definitely an error."

Because not only could someone read the wording of the feature that "needed errata" and come to the conclusion I did that it worked just fine because the rune limit clearly shouldn't be applied since just adding a rune to a mundane weapon as the feature seemed to say it could do was already breaking the standard rules, they could also read the rogue feature you thing is "too good" and come to the conclusion that it's actually fine even though it's odd and not even really unfair in the grand scale of things because of how much about what a rogue can do can be hard-countered just by the particulars of an encounter.

Giving the rules the benefit of the doubt that they are supposed to actually do something is not the hyper-obstacle you present it as being with your, for lack of a better term, whataboutism.

Pointless clarifications is a poor concept. Most of the people asking for clarifications are asking in good faith. Most of the people asking genuinely don't understand. There are a lot of different perspectives, abilities and cultures out there. We still don't agree on some of the basics. A fair portion of what has already been published is confused. I'd much rather Paizo fixed what they have already published than publish more. Unfortunately that is not what pays the bills for them.

Anybody asking in good faith would be satisfied just to find discussion where someone else explains a reading of the rules that produces an outcome that isn't the nonfunctional or problematic one they brought forward in their good faith questioning.

The only people that actually need errata to provide the clarification on something which is clear to others but not to them are the ones that whether they meant to or not have lost their good faith on the matter. The ones that, no matter who explains a different more favorable way to read the text or how they explain it, are going to argue against it - some even as they say things like "that's how it should work, for sure, but that's definitely not what the book says to do so I'm not going to do it like that until I see some errata" - because it's no longer about how the rule works to them, it's about the argument itself.