FAQ on Errata

Hrothdane wrote:

Idk why the wildcard feats dont ignore prerequisites. Just making letting them do that would make the class perfect imo

Most likely to avoid stupid things like having Pummeling Charge at lv2 like you had before.

A non-issue, since you don't get Wildard Feats until 6th.

It's probably also following in the steps of Martial Flexibility, where you need to meet the Prereqs to select the Feat.

Which, really, is fine - you're basically getting an unlimited Martial Flexibility for Style-dependent Feats that activates as an instantaneous, permanent-until-released effect triggered by a Swift Action.

The difference being that Martial Flexibility works on ANY Combat Feat, and the Brawler gets an ability to ignore quite a few prerequisites on those Feats, and gets Bonus Feats of his own separate from martial Flexibility, and doesn't trade his Flurry to do so.

The flexibility involved in the Wildcard Feats is almost nil. Either you won't qualify, or need them to finish the Style chains you already started.

Too few Feats, too many prerequisites to be truly flexible.

I just want to state in the updated Ultimate combat pdf: That Lamellar, stone armor was not placed under Lamellar, Iron as stated in the errata sheet. Rather its under Lamellar, Steel and in the medium armor section.

I think it would make for a nice addition to medium armor, and an interesting alternative to the breastplate for Clerics/Druids etc. but I don't think it was intended.

Zenogu wrote:

Well I've combed through the previous 6 pages of this thread, and didn't notice anything mentioned for pages 9-12 of UC. I'm still lost as to why Gunslinger 6+ is a thing of the past.

Can someone spell this out for the less educated, like myself?

Gunslinger, like the Fighter, runs out of juice but HARD after lv6; you get the most Feats and cool abilities from levels 1-6, and thereafter it's a little barren.

The sole exception was if you were aiming for Signature Deed at lv10.

Signature Deed, which requires Gunslinger 10, was a way to reduce a lot of really awesome Deeds from 1 Grit to 0, meaning you could always get the effects without having to pay for them.

Now, several/most of those Deeds say "cannot have its cost reduced" in their entry, which means Signature Deed is a far, far less-useful Feat, and thus there's next-to-no incentive to go past lv6 anymore.

Ok. I see what you're saying. Thanks for clarifying. The class was always "front-loaded" so to speak, and the slap on the hand to Signature Deed was what really pushed it overboard.

chbgraphicarts wrote:

It's probably also following in the steps of Martial Flexibility, where you need to meet the Prereqs to select the Feat.

Which, really, is fine - you're basically getting an unlimited Martial Flexibility for Style-dependent Feats that activates as an instantaneous, permanent-until-released effect triggered by a Swift Action.

The difference being that Martial Flexibility works on ANY Combat Feat, and the Brawler gets an ability to ignore quite a few prerequisites on those Feats, and gets Bonus Feats of his own separate from martial Flexibility, and doesn't trade his Flurry to do so.

The flexibility involved in the Wildcard Feats is almost nil. Either you won't qualify, or need them to finish the Style chains you already started.

Too few Feats, too many prerequisites to be truly flexible.

MoMS loses both their Flurry and their normal bonus feats to gain the ability to have 2-3-4 styles active at once and to gain wildcard feats. So they're trading away their main form of damage output and their broad flexibility for very narrow flexibility and, now, a bonus to hit. That flexibility was narrowed further with the most recent update.

Too few Feats, too many prerequisites sums it up nicely.

So what exactly did the Musket Master lose? Saying "the second-to-last sentence" instead of listing the sentence makes it very confusing when you don't have a book.

So what exactly did the Musket Master lose? Saying "the second-to-last sentence" instead of listing the sentence makes it very confusing when you don't have a book.

Their gun training feature no longer removes misfires at level 13, which means the ability is horrible beyond level 5.

No one has really talked about the change to the rogue talent Terrain Mastery. I am not sure what the change was for. Sure it seems like it could be pretty strong if it is all they take, but the rogue is gimped enough already, I'm not sure how being good in a variety of Terrains is gonna help?

No one has really talked about the change to the rogue talent Terrain Mastery. I am not sure what the change was for. Sure it seems like it could be pretty strong if it is all they take, but the rogue is gimped enough already, I'm not sure how being good in a variety of Terrains is gonna help?

It's a pretty hefty increase to the talent, and you don't need to take it every level for it to be worthwhile.

A +4 in a common terrain and +2 in another is a pretty solid boost.

LuniasM wrote:

So what exactly did the Musket Master lose? Saying "the second-to-last sentence" instead of listing the sentence makes it very confusing when you don't have a book.

Their gun training feature no longer removes misfires at level 13, which means the ability is horrible beyond level 5.

Oh wow. I guess it's meant to balance the lack of accuracy issues, but that's a pretty big deal. One of my friends was planning on being one in our next party for Skulls and Shackles, but after seeing how bad misfires were in his last game I think he was really looking forward to that.

You could go all Terrain Mastery and then go Horizon walker to at least level 3 when you get terrain dominance. That gives ridiculous bonuses to hit and damage while in your Dominated Terrain. If you spend all of your time in a city that could get quite OP.

The downside of course is that it really doesn't do anything special until about level 10-12 so it only comes on late. I tried this build once for my rogue. I spent the whole campaign struggling to set up up sneak attacks and when I finally didn't need them anymore to hit and do sweet damage, the campaign ended :(

It is a pretty unnecessary nerf.

You could go all Terrain Mastery and then go Horizon walker to at least level 3 when you get terrain dominance. That gives ridiculous bonuses to hit and damage while in your Dominated Terrain. If you spend all of your time in a city that could get quite OP.

The downside of course is that it really doesn't do anything special until about level 10-12 so it only comes on late. I tried this build once for my rogue. I spent the whole campaign struggling to set up up sneak attacks and when I finally didn't need them anymore to hit and do sweet damage, the campaign ended :(

It is a pretty unnecessary nerf.

Is it a nerf? I thought they changed it so it increased previous terrains instead of just adding another at a +2.

Edit: Oh, huh. Apparently it says REMOVE, not ADD.

Whoops.

Codanous wrote:

No one has really talked about the change to the rogue talent Terrain Mastery. I am not sure what the change was for. Sure it seems like it could be pretty strong if it is all they take, but the rogue is gimped enough already, I'm not sure how being good in a variety of Terrains is gonna help?

It's a pretty hefty increase to the talent, and you don't need to take it every level for it to be worthwhile.

A +4 in a common terrain and +2 in another is a pretty solid boost.

Except that the post-errata Terrain Mastery removed the verbage that states the bonus increases when you gain another instance of it.

Terrain Mastery (Ex): A rogue with this talent gains a favored terrain as the ranger ability of the same name, though the favored terrain ability does not increase with her level as the ranger's ability does. A rogue can take this ability multiple times, each time applying it to a new terrain.

It used to increase the bonus of 1 instance you already had by +2 each time you took it.

The archaeologist is not intended to gain additional rounds of its luck ability as it levels. It receives a number of other abilities to balance out the loss of bardic performance.

Did you notice the archaeologist doesn't have a capstone ability?

Zenogu wrote:

Well I've combed through the previous 6 pages of this thread, and didn't notice anything mentioned for pages 9-12 of UC. I'm still lost as to why Gunslinger 6+ is a thing of the past.

Can someone spell this out for the less educated, like myself?

They did the same to Opportune Parry & Riposte, which prior to the ACG errata could be targeted by Signature Deed to reduce its cost to 0 Grit, meaning you could Parry with your weapon as many times as you had Attacks of Opportunity available (meaning Combat Reflexes was SICK with it) without burning even ONE Grit point.

Except that prior to the errata signature deed required 10 levels of gunslinger. So unless you were playing Swashbuckler 1 / gunslinger 10 you couldn't take signature deed at all.

A FAQ...about Errata?

Is this going to be a regular thing now?

('Cause I approve!)

Azten wrote:

Chengar Qordath wrote:

Azten wrote:

Too late to change them now, because that would invalidate all the books the printed using this errata. Makes it seem like more and more of a bad move to only put the errata out when you wanna sell more books, doesn't it?

Come on, Paizo, let us playtest errata for a couple months already. It'll help reduce any outrage and stop terrible changes that rob something of its uniqueness.

If more recent playtests are anything to judge by, they would just ignore any feedback that wasn't "everything is perfect and you guys are awesome" anyway.

Mark was helpful in the play tests at least.

That he was, credit where it's due.

Unfortunately, several of his other recent comments have made it quite clear that he's not the one calling the shots. After all, he was downright stunned by the rewrites slapped onto the Kineticist after he finished up with it.

Just to clear things up, there weren't "rewrites slapped onto the kineticist." There was a lot of copyfitting necessary to make it all fit into the space it currently takes, and I realized at the time that it might lead to the necessity of a FAQ or two in the future, but it was worth it to get in all the wild talents we did. So far, it hasn't led to confusion in more than a very small number of places, so that much is quite good!

Wow, why would anyone use Abundant Ammunition now?

If they were low on arrows.

If they were low on arrows.

Sure, I guess if they have no time or means to acquire more arrows, then it could be useful. But it went from a pretty useful spell to a very niche spell.

Wow, why would anyone use Abundant Ammunition now?

Considering just how much even non-special-material bullets cost, being able to produce them on-the-fly is pretty nice.

I can see there being a reason why a gunslinger would want to carry around a Wand of Abundant Ammunition.

It's unfortunate that one of the Ranger's more useful spells is significantly more useful to the Gunslinger in most scenarios than it is to the Ranger, but c'est la vie.

@Rynjin: Ok I f@+*ed up. That being said, the idea is there :P

And it's a good idea, but it seems that it's way harder to make that idea work than is first apparent. From the early builds people are posting it seems to have the opposite of the desired effect on several fronts. I mean, it is clearly less desirable as a dip now, but it seems like actually taking it 1-20 may have gotten harder.

Removed some baiting posts.

Oh, and one other love of the errata. Half elf bards can start with a weapon that can do lethal damage out to 15' *or* threaten normally. Yes please.

I like the change to Scorpion Whip, too. It is also nice that the new Slashing Grace (Scorpion Whip) gives DEX to damage in both the light and one-handed modes. But beware that while the Scorpion Whip does lethal damage no matter the armor bonus, it still seems to fail when confronted with a natural armor of +3 or more.

I'm sure Advanced Player's Guide will be nerfed soon enough but can we also reasonably expect the Core Rulebook as well? You would think that book be untouchable but it always has overshadowed other options and with the nerfs will continue to do so.

doc the grey wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Kthulhu wrote:

I think what we are seeing is Paizo stealth-releasing Pathfinder 2nd Edition. Like you say, many of their recent "errata" is less about fixing mistakes than it is about actually changing rules.

Thats been going on in one form or another since they introduced the APG.

Seconded and to be fair something I much prefer. We live in an age where, thanks to digital distribution and the internet we can have developers clean up, repair, and update material to better match its original intent or better express the themes and concepts it was trying to create originally. I mean hell my biggest complaint with this one is that the Empyreal night STILL doesn't have a proper update to replace or fix its Voice of the Spheres ability.

Really I think it's a net good that we see these updates here and what's more that they are offered for free. It helps start bringing this game in line with modern expectations for much of our entertainment where we as consumers no longer have to deal with work that has major errors or obtuse wording that never gets resolved and leads to endless at table debates.

All that being said though I wish that these updates had a better layout that didn't require as much cross referencing to follow what's happening and were easier to find on the site. I'd much prefer a layout more like what Riot Games gives me in their patch notes and maybe a second page just devoted to links to all the latest updates in chronological order. Please Paizo, give me Riot updates and an Updates page!

However, it also kind of makes a RPG subscription not worth bothering with, since it guarantees you a 1st printing, which continues to become more and more obsolete.

Hell, that kind of errata policy makes buying a print copy at all pointless. You're far better off just getting the PDF, where you only have to pay once for a product that is kept up-to-date.

Actually I think it gives the subscription more value. With my subscription I'm getting access to the book up to two weeks early, the physical copy itself, the pdf, and access to any and all updates Paizo feels like doing for that book via the pdf (which I am also getting a discount on). Does this make the pdf potentially more valuable than it currently is? Yes, but that's a good thing. In the world we live the need for physical books has become less and less as budgets and space shrink and travel times grow. For me personally for example, when I go to pfs and play say my tiefling magus I don't want to have to haul my PFC, UM, Blood of Fiends, and whatever books I'm also pulling spells from to make sure I can play him when instead I can just load all my pdfs onto my phone and go. Having solid, cheap pdfs helps customers like me have their library of books but not need a carry on case to move them all or a storage unit to store them in when they are little used.

With more regular updates from paizo it also helps assure me as a customer that mistakes that have been found in the product will not be nearly as permanent as they once were and erode my confidence in their product lines. It means that if I say bought Ultimate Magic when it dropped, a book riddled with copy paste errors and still has rules issues throughout, that if I have the pdf they will clean it up and set things right for me without me having to wait X number of production runs before everything is addressed or corrected or worse, just have to eat the charge and hand fix it all myself.

God knows I can't download a PDF file listing all of the changes between 4th and 5th editions of D&D so that I don't have to buy all of the book again if I want to play a current version of that.

The transitions from 2nd to v3.0, from v3.5 to 4th, and from 4th to 5th were pretty massive changes on a fundamental level. A PDF like you're describing would basically need to reprint the entire core rules of the newer edition, because the changes are in the basic system.

Actually I think it gives the subscription more value. With my subscription I'm getting access to the book up to two weeks early, the physical copy itself, the pdf, and access to any and all updates Paizo feels like doing for that book via the pdf (which I am also getting a discount on).

You're also paying almost 4x as much as you would if you just bought the PDF, all for the privilege of having a hard copy that will become more and more obsolete. Everything you wrote doesn't really address giving the SUBSCRIPTION more value, it only address the fact that having the PDFs is superior to having the physical books.

Aside from 4th Edition, I don't really know of any other RPG that handles errata in this way. Most use it to fix typos and other similar mistakes; they don't make actual changes of substance (I'm sure someone will have examples that show that RPGs do it too, but it definitely doesn't seem to be the industry default).

Aside from 4th Edition, I don't really know of any other RPG that handles errata in this way. Most use it to fix typos and other similar mistakes; they don't make actual changes of substance (I'm sure someone will have examples that show that RPGs do it too, but it definitely doesn't seem to be the industry default).

I am not sure how many rpg games are really comparable to Pathfinder. The errata method used by Paizo really only works with the assumption of widespread internet, so its not something I would expect to see prior to the 3.0 era of gaming. Games that are relatively rules light don't need errata since GMs are expected to have more leeway in deciding things. And a lot of other game companies either have really slow production cycles and low staff, making errata difficult to produce, are small scale enough that they can sell batches of rules in a beta format and then update/errata them afterwards (this seems in line with what Dreamscarred does), or mostly focus on adventures, which again seldom need errata.

I can't speak for everyone who's unhappy about the recent errata, but my issue isn't with updating the books. It's with redesigning their content. I can't see a lot of downside to fixing obvious editing errors, typos, things that actually don't work as written, and clarifying vague writing, but the last few updates have done comparatively little of that, instead focusing energy on actually redesigning rules. If I have the old printing of a book and something seems wrong or vague, I've no qualms checking a different source to see if there's been a wording update, but I stop trusting my books when the new printing is actually radically altering functionality in ways I would have no indication I would need to look up. Paizo's been doing power-level errata for a long time, but it had previously been sparse. The last three updates have been unbearable, especially since so much of the vague writing remained untouched (naga aspirant's naga shape, for instance) in favour of kneejerk power-level errata for things that mostly weren't big deals anywhere but in the imaginations of vocal forum posters.

Gotta keep that money train rolling, and that's not just snark. You can't deny the extra revenue that PFS people who buy hardbacks must generate if they still want valid sources. Even if they switch to PDFs for free future updates, that's still more revenue for Paizo just because they were unhappy with long-standing mechanics.

I will give Paizo some credit for seemingly pushing past Ivory Tower Design on the MoMS or at least moving in that general direction. However, if that's the new hotness, then they're going to have to rewrite a ton more content to realize any appreciable change across the system given their millions of option combinations.

The Advanced Player's Guide doesn't really need errata. It's one of the best books they've ever produced.

The Unchained Summoner IS the APG errata. =P

Just for the record, I am now convinced that wildcard feats should ignore prereqs.

The Advanced Player's Guide doesn't really need errata. It's one of the best books they've ever produced.

I wouldn't go that far - it's a great book alright, but Unchained Cavaliers and Alchemists would be very useful, considering some of the intrinsic issues of both classes.

But yeah APG is great.

I'll be sad when Spell Perfection bites the dust ;)

The Advanced Player's Guide doesn't really need errata. It's one of the best books they've ever produced.

I won't pretend to know every option but at the very least I suspect Zen Archer, Dazing Spell, and Persistent Spell aren't long for this world.

Edit: Also the Slumber Hex

I won't pretend to know every option but at the very least I suspect Zen Archer, Dazing Spell, and Persistent Spell aren't long for this world.

Edit: Also the Slumber Hex

Well, they tend to ignore overpowered spellcaster options when they pass around the nerf bat, so I wouldn't wager on those.

Well, they tend to ignore overpowered spellcaster options when they pass around the nerf bat, so I wouldn't wager on those.

I mentioned Core Rulebook before because I think archery feats and Spirited Charging are comparatively too strong now but its a.. difficult book to errata I suppose. I certainly don't think martials are above nerfs such as zen archer.

Everyone can enjoy being.. weaker together I guess.

The Unchained Summoner IS the APG errata. =P

Haha. I certainly hope so.

I don't. It's even more Chained than the original.

Robert Jordan wrote:

Vic, from a different view point I agree that C is the winning option for how to handle things. The issue is that the updates aren't just hitting PFS, they're going to the source material instead of a PFS reference document. Some of my players will buy the PDF or a more recent physical copy than the source I have on my shelf. That causes conflict at tables outside of PFS, where it really shouldn't. PFS is it's own strange beast with it's own esoteric rules and adjustments and that is perfectly fine, when it flows out and begins to twist the rest of the game it becomes a problem.

Following that logic, you would prefer we were selling new players the exact same Core Rulebook that we introduced several years ago, complete with all the problems that we've identified and fixed in the years since? I'm not a fan of that plan.

I'm not saying go that far. I'm saying that for issues that seem to arise mostly from PFS and are huge issues there due to encounter design restrictions and other factors that introducing errata that makes a sweeping change on things that were otherwise functioning in home games is something that should be avoided. For instance the sheer blowback on Crane Style and Scarred Witch Doctor looked to me that the issues seen in those options were much more of a PFS issue.

Fixing things that do not function is not something I'm against. Clarifying things so they read the correct way and remove some misinterpretation as to how it worked is fine. Changing a class/feat/etc to no longer do what it originally did so it now does something different, that's where I feel things can get out of hand. It's also why I compared it to patch notes as that happens a lot in some games where abilities are changed in their entirety just keeping the original name. I would like for my table top game to not do that.

My logic wasn't that you should not issue errata or make 1st printing the only printing. My suggestion that was for issues that are particularly damaging in the PFS setting to only receive fixes or rewrites specific to that setting. Re writing something in the neutral core line based on PFS feedback doesn't feel good to me at least.

I'm sorry that I cannot provide more constructive feedback but I must confess my disappointment with several parts of this errata. I have 3 existing characters affected by this build.

Gunslinger (musket master) - changes to abundant ammunition, musket training, signature deed.

Grappler (Strangler/Slayer) - my planned rapid grappler final embrace sap master build was decimated quite frankly. I think the most frustrating part is, having read how hard it is to keep grapple worthwhile at high levels, I spent a lot of (read: too much) time trying to plan out my build and now one feat (sap adept) is cut in half, rapid grappler has a -5 penalty on a maneuver that you can't always use and can be difficult to pull off at high levels, and final embrace was removed entirely as an option. Except, of course, for a naga aspirant, as someone pointed out, but they don't seem to have the feats or BAB to support an effective grapple build. I had originally wanted to make a nagaji tetori constrict build but learned that they do not count as "naga" or "serpent-folk" (I'm still learning). Now, even a wondrous item (Anaconda's coils) will not help bridge that gap. I think this is where I'm most frustrated. Having invested so much time and energy only to have several pillars of the build kicked out at the same time... is unpleasant. It's like that specific build was targeted and attacked on multiple fronts. Seems and feels a bit drastic.

And of course, my beloved crane wing for my monk. Oh what a remarkable journey we've been on together. That poor feat has been changed substantially so many times it probably doesn't know what it is anymore. :) I can admit that it was a very strong feat in its original incarnation. I was at peace with the latest FAQ version getting a flat constant bonus vs one target. Wasn't much but every little bit of AC can help. The main problem I have with the 2nd and now 4th incarnation (the next Dr. Who?) is that they are very clunky to use in combat. As a pure monk using a defensive flurry of blows, furyborn AoMF, and combat master stance dance from Dragon Style back into Crane Style, it can be cumbersome to keep up with the calculations in combat, especially when other buffs come in to play too. I don't mind running the numbers, (math guy) but it does slow combat down, especially if I'm hasted, burn a ki point, and proc medusa's wrath for 4 additional attacks. Now, even on enemy turns I need to run through and recalculate my AC if they missed by 4 or less because being almost hit makes one suddenly easier to hit? It would be nice to have a more straight forward and fluid benefit whose strength is inline with being the 2nd feat in a style chain.

As others have mentioned, it would be nice if errata were meant to address typos or address clarifications on feats. If something needs to be completely rebalanced and changed then having more dialogue between the developers and community (beyond PFS of course) might be helpful. I know some folks have suggested 'errata playtests'. I cannot imagine the challenge of trying to balance everything, especially on material published before so many other feats/spells/archetypes etc even existed. However, it is a bit jarring, particularly on older books, to have things changed so dramatically. I just hope that future changes are a bit more moderate and feel a bit less knee-jerkey? Although I'm not satisfied with any of the changes listed above, I do appreciate the work that you do and have really enjoyed my time with Pathfinder thus far. Thank you.

recalculate my AC if they missed by 4 or less because being almost hit makes one suddenly easier to hit?

I think they did a poor job of describing it.

What they were going for is "Once a round, you can deflect one attack that just barely hit you. If an attack hits, but would not have hit you if your armor class was 4 higher, you deflect the attack and it is treated as a miss. However if this happens, you cannot use this deflection again until your next turn" Hence the trailing line about "a deflected attack misses you" that is confusing some people.

Okay, I am getting really tired of people blaming all this on PFS. I keep seeing these threads in the general and rules section about how these things are overpowered and wrecking people's home game.

And always the response is "well it is your home game, just ban them if you don't like them, or throw harder enemies at the party, or give the rest of the players bennies so they can keep up."

And then when the developers come back and say "Yeah, we goofed, it is too strong" everyone blames PFS.

Okay, I am getting really tired of people blaming all this on PFS. I keep seeing these threads in the general and rules section about how these things are overpowered and wrecking people's home game.

And always the response is "well it is your home game, just ban them if you don't like them, or throw harder enemies at the party, or give the rest of the players bennies so they can keep up."

And then when the developers come back and say "Yeah, we goofed, it is too strong" everyone blames PFS.

Have you seen any thread complaining about abundant ammunition or lack of missfire? I don't remember anyone saying "I wish my +5 musket would blow up a bit more often, it's too boring like this!".

I don't. It's even more Chained than the original.

It's banned on most tables so it is not only chained but caged.

Azten wrote:

I don't. It's even more Chained than the original.

It's banned on most tables so it is not only chained but caged.

Most might be too strong a word. Stick with some.

Just a Guess wrote:

Azten wrote:

I don't. It's even more Chained than the original.

It's banned on most tables so it is not only chained but caged.

Most might be too strong a word. Stick with some.

Ehhhh, I'd wager most folks have banned the original summoner but most especially the master summoner.

Saw a couple people commenting on the change to the terrain mastery rogue talent. I think its worth mentioning that the change effectively makes the terrain master talent from Ultimate Combat the same as the version found in Pathfinder Unchained, which was likely the intention.

Yes, it hurts horizon walker rogues, but it does promote internal synergy within the rules system.