Core Rulebook Errata: Round 1

Huzzah!

Weeeeeeeeeh!

HUZZAH!!

At last!

Well, the Bulk fixes are nice. I'm underwhelmed otherwise.

Are there any plans for any of the class issues brought up for Alchemists? I was hoping we'd see them here, and that doesn't seem to be the case.

Also, it appears shields that do things when you block with them are still apparently one use items, since at their appropriate level they'll get destroyed with one block.

Edit: Missed the "not every problem has been addressed in this document" bit. Hopefully future fixes are incoming not too long in the future. I think it'd be appreciated if there was a "we've noticed concerns about _____ and we're working on it"

That way we can be more selective about what we debate and what may still need to be reported.

Huzzah!

A lot of nice clarification stuff. Love the thing about bulk.

Disappointed that the mutagenist ability is 1/day though. I still feel at this point if I wanted to make a mutagen alchemist, I'd just pick on of the other two fields and prep mutagens

Are there any plans for any of the class issues brought up for Alchemists? I was hoping we'd see them here, and that doesn't seem to be the case.

Mutagenists did get the new free action that was previously mentioned.

Also, it appears shields that do things when you block with them are still apparently one use items, since at their appropriate level they'll get destroyed with one block.

The dev team only started talking about this a few days ago, which makes me think that they haven't had enough time to give a definitive answer on this.

Hope you guys find the errata helpful in your games!

As a reminder from Lyz in the blog post: "We should note that not every problem has been addressed in this document. Some are a bit complicated, and the solution is going to take more time to fully test before releasing it to all of you. Just because you don’t see an answer here doesn’t mean that we aren’t aware of and considering the issue—we’re likely just trying to figure out the best way to handle it."

Nice!

Hope you guys find the errata helpful in your games!

As a reminder from Lyz in the blog post: "We should note that not every problem has been addressed in this document. Some are a bit complicated, and the solution is going to take more time to fully test before releasing it to all of you. Just because you don’t see an answer here doesn’t mean that we aren’t aware of and considering the issue—we’re likely just trying to figure out the best way to handle it."

Thanks, my first edit got eaten by the forum monsters, otherwise it would have been there sooner. Don't think we don't appreciate the hard work, we do, we just get passionate about beloved classes and mechanics.

Disappointed that the mutagenist ability is 1/day though. I still feel at this point if I wanted to make a mutagen alchemist, I'd just pick on of the other two fields and prep mutagens

Yeah... if it was the sort of thing that could be used once per combat, then the improved action economy would be really nice. As is it seems like something you’d just keep in your back pocket in case of an emergency, which is nice, but doesn’t really do much toward making the mutagenist dedication more attractive, especially when the other dedications have fairly useful static abilities.

Awesome!

Mark Seifter wrote:

Hope you guys find the errata helpful in your games!

As a reminder from Lyz in the blog post: "We should note that not every problem has been addressed in this document. Some are a bit complicated, and the solution is going to take more time to fully test before releasing it to all of you. Just because you don’t see an answer here doesn’t mean that we aren’t aware of and considering the issue—we’re likely just trying to figure out the best way to handle it."

Thanks, my first edit got eaten by the forum monsters, otherwise it would have been there sooner. Don't think we don't appreciate the hard work, we do, we just get passionate about beloved classes and mechanics.

Checked out your edit. I would say let's assume we have seen other things not in this document for the purpose of this thread and talk about what is in the document. At least it would make it easier for us from a standpoint of hearing feedback on the document's content to keep it to that, the better to hear from you about what you think on the changes we did include for this first document. New and/or missing issues might make more sense for the ongoing thread collecting all the potential errata you guys find.

Looks like Rogue Thieves applying Dex to damage for thrown daggers and star knives is gone. Not specifically mentioned outside the thrown weapon trait changing them to ranged weapons. Disappointed in that for sure.

Aricks wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

Hope you guys find the errata helpful in your games!

As a reminder from Lyz in the blog post: "We should note that not every problem has been addressed in this document. Some are a bit complicated, and the solution is going to take more time to fully test before releasing it to all of you. Just because you don’t see an answer here doesn’t mean that we aren’t aware of and considering the issue—we’re likely just trying to figure out the best way to handle it."

Thanks, my first edit got eaten by the forum monsters, otherwise it would have been there sooner. Don't think we don't appreciate the hard work, we do, we just get passionate about beloved classes and mechanics.

Checked out your edit. I would say let's assume we have seen other things not in this document for the purpose of this thread and talk about what is in the document. At least it would make it easier for us from a standpoint of hearing feedback on the document's content to keep it to that, the better to hear from you about what you think on the changes we did include for this first document. New and/or missing issues might make more sense for the ongoing thread collecting all the potential errata you guys find.

bulk changes seem nice (especially the backpack one), but regardong the "alchemist lab" changes, shouldn't then, by default, make "crafting stations" for ALL downtime crafting activities?

seems weirdly "punishing" that only 1 form of crafting requires extremely bulky, stationary, equipment and other, that should by all means be MORE restrictive, like magical item crafting and etc, don't have any such requirements.

i like that the "attack trait" on non-attack spells issue has been adressed as well.

Alchemical changes wise:
why make the free action only 1/day and not something that could actually be useful throughtout a long day, like 1/hour. That seems to be inline with, as an example, the bomber ability that it's usable all day long.

Since apparently nobody noticed that this means the "we put out errata only when we reprint" policy got dropped, I'd like to state, especially for all the people who spent the last 10 year grumbling about it.

Bespell at 6 for sorcerers but 4 for wizards? Isn't the feat listed as 4?

Looking at Mutagenic Flashback... I feel like maybe Paizo should have just removed Mutagenist as a specialization and turn the double mutagen ability into a feat.

Having 'enough' mutagens is rarely a problem except at low levels (and even then isn't much of one) and adding another way to refresh mutagens kind of steps on the toes of the mutagenist's perpetual alchemy, which already was questionably useful.

Bespell at 6 for sorcerers but 4 for wizards?

The errata has which number is wrong backwards, change the table to match the text (which is 6 to 4, not 4 to 6).

I like the magic fang change. I wish there was a similar one for magic weapon, which seems right now to say you can't cast it on a +1 non-striking weapon to temporarily give it the striking property, which seems odd.

Frames Janco wrote:

Bespell at 6 for sorcerers but 4 for wizards?

The errata has which number is wrong backwards, change the table to match the text (which is 6 to 4, not 4 to 6).

Ah, that makes more sense. Thanks for your work Mark, some good changes!

Your going to need an errata for this errata... You've said that a Lesser Elixir of Life is a level 3 item but it's actually level 5...

I thought you guys said that monks would have better proficiency with unarmed strikes than with simple weapons. Did you decide not to do that, or is that a change that is still under consideration?

Or are monks vs. fighters in the barbarians vs. fighters situation for unarmed strikes, with the monk getting increased damage at the price of lesser accuracy?

Looks like Rogue Thieves applying Dex to damage for thrown daggers and star knives is gone. Not specifically mentioned outside the thrown weapon trait changing them to ranged weapons. Disappointed in that for sure.

Yes, very disappointed.

Weird now how melee weapon-only runes like ghost touch are affected. So if i throw a dagger that has ghost touch, does the rune get invalidated?

I thought you guys said that monks would have better proficiency with unarmed strikes than with simple weapons. Did you decide not to do that, or is that a change that is still under consideration?

Or are monks vs. fighters in the barbarians vs. fighters situation for unarmed strikes, with the monk getting increased damage at the price of lesser accuracy?

I don't think we've ever said that. Each class has something particular going for it. As you said, fighters have the accuracy, barbarians have the damage, monks have a combination of other things going for them including what you've noted from flurry but also their legendary unarmored defense.

Overall, I really like this errata. But as some have note, there's a few issues.

First, the mistakes in the errata, with Bespell and Lesser Elixer of Life being the top spots.

Second, Mutigenist Flashback being once a day is REALLY limiting. If that's the intention, sure, but the other 2 subclasses have a lot more appealing abilities for their kit. Changing it to 1/hour or better yet, 1/10 minutes, would go a long way to making Mutigenist more appealing.

Third, I feel either the Alchemist needs to be able to deal a smidge more damage across all fields, or their Class DC needs to be able to go to Master. As it stands, they both miss more often AND do less damage than the other core classes.

Other than that, it's pretty good. Wishlist of things to look at for the next round would be the above Alchemist issues, an elaboration on how Familiars are supposed to function in Exploration Mode (do you HAVE to yell orders to them every 10 minutes?), and a revist on shields (either bump all their Hardness/HP/BT to match better with Creature Levels, or get Arrow-Catching Shield and Forge Warden better stats, and offer a non-metal Sturdy Shield alternative for shield-blocking Druids).

Finally, improvised weapons have a proficiency bonus! I can play my barrel-wielding brewmaster again!

Cyrad starts doing his happy dance

...

let's assume we have seen other things not in this document for the purpose of this thread and talk about what is in the document. At least it would make it easier for us from a standpoint of hearing feedback on the document's content to keep it to that, the better to hear from you about what you think on the changes we did include for this first document...

Fair enough!

It seems unfair that alchemical crafting needs a 6 bulk item when other crafting only needs a 2 bulk item.

The mutagenist change seems underwhelming for a core research bonus, once per 10 minutes, maybe focus based, seems like good idea.

Ammo destroyed on use changes item values a bit (can't recover poisoned arrows, can you recover poisoned darts or daggers?). Also, no more poisoning bows. I didn't see anything on how long an item is poisoned after application, so I'm assuming it doesn't expire.

Since apparently nobody noticed that this means the "we put out errata only when we reprint" policy got dropped, I'd like to state, especially for all the people who spent the last 10 year grumbling about it.

You are right and I am personally extremely happy about this change ^^

Page 258: In Battle Medicine, change the second sentence

to “Attempt a Medicine check with the same DC as for
Treat Wounds, and restore a corresponding amount of Hit
Points; this does not remove the wounded condition.”

Could someone confirm that you also do not deal damage on a crit fail please?

So on other words is a healing soft kick with my boots enough for the healing to work?

I don't understand the emanation addition. It sounds like emanations can now be cast on others. Can I cast bless on the fighter, slap her on the back, and send her in to emanate my deity's blessing while I stay in the back?

I don't understand the emanation addition. It sounds like emanations can now be cast on others. Can I cast bless on the fighter, slap her on the back, and send her in to emanate my deity's blessing while I stay in the back?

The way this has been explained to me, is that now you can choose if you want your harm to affect you, and it should also be clear that your own bless spell is supposed to help you and not just everyone around you.

I hope that is correct.

Most emanations are targeted on you, there are some that have different targets.

My understanding is if it says 'N-foot emanation' its centered on you, and you can now choose ot include/or exclude yourself- these are the usual bane,bless, and 3 action harm/heals.

Some like Circle of Protection say '10-foot emanation centerd on the touched creature' so now you can choose whether the touched creature is included/excluded (pending their followup errata for more details on which spells need caveats).

So does Mountain Stance being changed from a trigger to a requirement mean "you lose the benefits of mountain stance if you start swimming, flying, burrowing, etc.?"

When is the PDF going to be updated?

Thanks for getting this out to us so quickly. Question: will the PDF be updated to reflect this errata?

Frames Janco wrote:

Bespell at 6 for sorcerers but 4 for wizards?

The errata has which number is wrong backwards, change the table to match the text (which is 6 to 4, not 4 to 6).

So now we need errata for the errata?

Page 230: In the Sorcerer Dedication feat, replace the
second sentence of the second paragraph with...

After reading the text in the Core Book with the change in mind, I think the above should say "...replace the third sentence of the second paragraph..."

Unless of course you intended to have redundant sentences and make it so Sorcerer Dedication does NOT grant access to the Cast a Spell activity. :P

OK, someone set me straight - at which levels does a fighter increase in proficiency with unarmed attacks?

The errata language is pretty self-explanatory for most classes, for fighters has me somewhat confused

Perhaps I'm not seeing it clearly, but it would seem that addition of unarmed strikes to proficiency bonus increases could be interpreted as escalating to master at both 5th and 13th level.

Opinions?

Thanks to Paizo for the errata, tho!

Darn I was really hoping we'd get some clarification on blood magic effects and how some have options that are impossible to use.

Now that backpacks allow you to not count 2 bulk, and adventurer's packs now weigh only 1 bulk, does that mean purchasing an adventurer's pack is net -1 bulk since it comes with a backpack?

OK, someone set me straight - at which levels does a fighter increase in proficiency with unarmed attacks?

The errata language is pretty self-explanatory for most classes, for fighters has me somewhat confused

Perhaps I'm not seeing it clearly, but it would seem that addition of unarmed strikes to proficiency bonus increases could be interpreted as escalating to master at both 5th and 13th level.

Opinions?

Thanks to Paizo for the errata, tho!

My reading on it, since it says "or a specific set of weapons", I believe that includes when you pick the specific group of weapons to go to Legendary proficiency at Level 13.

We do not have an announcement of when the Core Rulebook PDF will be updated. Archives of Nethys is maintaining our System Reference Document. They, and our virtual tabletop partners, Roll20, Fantasy Grounds, and Hero Lab received the errata today and will need time to implement the changes.

Thanks for being a part of our growing and evolving community.

Now that backpacks allow you to not count 2 bulk, and adventurer's packs now weigh only 1 bulk, does that mean purchasing an adventurer's pack is net -1 bulk since it comes with a backpack?

Maybe it is like SF where you have to actually wear the backpack to benefit from the Bulk reduction.

Shouldn't the backpack errata say "treat your encumbrance limit as 2 bulk higher"--that would be far easier on the players and GMs from resource a management perspective, right?

Similarly, what about other containers, like belt pouches, satchels, sacks and the like?

Also, loving the errata so far. Improvized weapons, yaaaaay! And throwing some love to unarmed champions is great, too.

Page 283: In the definition for the thrown weapon
trait, change the first sentence to “You can throw this
weapon as a ranged attack, and it is a ranged weapon
when thrown.”

So.. does that mean if you havea knife or starknife. put Wounding and Returning on it. That when you throw it, it will not apply Wounding because Wounding specifies melee weapon?
Which.. when used this way it isn't one now?

or does it still apply the wounding effect. with the wounding rune only requiring melee weapon to ~apply to~ and that once applied it( and any other runes of a similiar nature) the rune effects under any usage.

This is kind of important because using returning throwing knives was a fairly popular build concept for Throwing. (Throwing is already pretty hard up with how Shurikens can't be buffed).
But this would also apply to the various time when people throw their weapon as an improvised weapon. which we have now clearly distinguihed applies Simple weapon prof. Which means its quite a valid idea for a lot of players to do since using it improvised only nets -2 item penalty to the attack.
but I don't know off hand if runes/enchantments apply to improvised method use

David knott 242 wrote:

I thought you guys said that monks would have better proficiency with unarmed strikes than with simple weapons. Did you decide not to do that, or is that a change that is still under consideration?

Or are monks vs. fighters in the barbarians vs. fighters situation for unarmed strikes, with the monk getting increased damage at the price of lesser accuracy?

I don't think we've ever said that. Each class has something particular going for it. As you said, fighters have the accuracy, barbarians have the damage, monks have a combination of other things going for them including what you've noted from flurry but also their legendary unarmored defense.

Thanks!

By the way -- I tracked down the source of my misconception. Apparently the person who posted the summary of the upcoming errata from the August 16th Twitch video added a comment about monks and unarmed strikes that Logan never actually said. It seemed so logical at the time that I never questioned it, even after hearing the Twitch stream a short time later.

Darn I was really hoping we'd get some clarification on blood magic effects and how some have options that are impossible to use.

Pages 631–632: In the definition of the evil trait and the good trait, remove the last sentence. Creatures can use abilities of an opposing alignment, but they might be anathema or change a creature’s alignment over time with repeated use.

With that fixed, it seems like Demon BL focus spells should also have Evil trait, as Devil and (Good) Angelic focus spells do.

Although how to resolve spells whose variable effect references Deity alignment may still be unclear.
(e.g. Divine Lance/Decree/Aura/Wrath "choose an alignment your deity has")
I believe the Divine Bloodlines (since this seems Divine specific issue) need a clause stating effective "Deity Alignment" to use when their spell effects depend on Deity alignment, i.e. Demon:Chaotic Evil, Devil:Lawful Evil, Angelic: just Good, and Undead:just Evil. Similar issue for things like Favored Weapon/Spiritual Weapon.

Oracle would have similar issue, although in their case would probably tend to use caster's own alignment, in contrast to Bloodlines whose Alignment may be in contrast to caster's own personal Alignment.

Errata says: "Pages 551–554: Injury poisons require 2 actions to apply, allowing you to draw a poison and apply it to a weapon on the same turn. Change the Activate entries for the following poisons from a [three-actions] glyph to a [two-actions]glyph: belladonna, black adder venom, cytillesh oil, giant centipede venom, giant scorpion venom, giant wasp venom, graveroot, hunting spider venom, lethargy poison, purple worm venom, shadow essence, and wyvern poison."

A couple of inconsistencies here:

Belladonna was 1 action (not 3), and is an Ingested poison not Injury poison
Cytillesh Oil was 1 action (not 3)

My assumption is that Cytillesh Oil should go from 1 action to 2, and that Belladonna was an error and is not affected.