Core Rulebook Errata: Round 1

Throwing is already pretty hard up with how Shurikens can't be buffed.

Wait. What? Why can't shurikens be buffed? They look like every other thrown weapon to me.

With the change to Instrument of Zeal (table at end of Errata), it now only has any effect on Paladin abilities. The Prerequisites should change from "divine ally (blade), tenets of good" to "divine ally (blade), paladin cause"

Unarmed proficiencies isn't clear for Fighters or Clerics. Do Fighters get master unarmed proficiency at level 5? And do Clerics get expert unarmed proficiency at level 7 or 11? By my reading they do, but I'm not sure if that is intended.

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?

The difference is they are allowing more Bulk carried IN THE PACK because it is less "valuable" (needing one more action and free hand to retrieve).

Simply increasing over-all Bulk limit doesn't care whether that Bulk is in pack or separately carried, like Hefty Hauler or Ant Haul. If you didn't care about that aspect of Backpack usage, it would be easier to just increase baseline Bulk capacity by 2, independent of Backpack, although "simplicity" would also demand the different action to retrieve items from backpack be removed to avoid any tracking of backpack VS other items.

If you already are tracking what is IN pack (within it's 4 Bulk limit) for action-economy VS separately carried/worn gear, I don't think workload is much different regardless of phrasing.

Although this makes me wonder about broader usages, namely when you want to carry more than one pack of loot etc, the "2 bonus bulk" should probably only apply to one properly worn backpack?

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?

The Backpack basically allows ignoring 2 bulk inside it. If you only put 1 bulk inside it (as Adventurer's Pack) then there only is 1 bulk to ignore. So you can put 1 more Bulk in without increasing your "felt" Bulk that actually applies to Encumbrance limit. But it will not apply "net -1 bulk" (or -2, if empty) to any gear carried or worn outside of the pack.

I think people's confusion on Unarmed Attack proficiency should be resolved by clearly phrasing rule so IF you have Simple Proficiency, Unarmed just follows Simple. Only if your Class DOESN'T have Simple, Unarmed will follow your Class' "group of weapon" proficiency. So because Fighters have Simple Proficiency, their later advanced proficiency in group of weapons doesn't automatically apply to Unarmed (although they can select Brawling). Right now, people don't see why they shouldn't use "the best of either one", but I'm pretty sure that isn't the intent.

Zwordsman wrote:

Throwing is already pretty hard up with how Shurikens can't be buffed.

Wait. What? Why can't shurikens be buffed? They look like every other thrown weapon to me.

The fantasy of shurikens is that you throw a large flurry of them. But if you want your character is forced to use a *single* shuriken with a returning rune, which totally kills the fantasy and negates the Reload 0 advantage shurikens have over darts.

It would be nice if we had a "handwraps of throwing" that let you apply weapon runes on it and apply its effects to thrown weapons. Better than forcing characters to turn their weapons into boomerangs.

Ravingdork wrote:

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?

The difference is they are allowing more Bulk carried IN THE PACK because it is less "valuable" (needing one more action and free hand to retrieve).

Simply increasing over-all Bulk limit doesn't care whether that Bulk is in pack or separately carried, like Hefty Hauler or Ant Haul. If you didn't care about that aspect of Backpack usage, it would be easier to just increase baseline Bulk capacity by 2, independent of Backpack, although "simplicity" would also demand the different action to retrieve items from backpack be removed to avoid any tracking of backpack VS other items.

If you already are tracking what is IN pack (within it's 4 Bulk limit) for action-economy VS separately carried/worn gear, I don't think workload is much different regardless of phrasing.

Having to write your gear on your character sheet, then a seperate section for gear in your backpack (in which you specificy which items dont apply their bulk) just seems like such a high level of specificity/complexity not seen elsewhere in 2nd edition. I just don't think the bulk of GMs or players will bother with it as a result. Instead, they'll just subtract 2 bulk from their total or something similarly simplified.

Quandary wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

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?

The difference is they are allowing more Bulk carried IN THE PACK because it is less "valuable" (needing one more action and free hand to retrieve).

Simply increasing over-all Bulk limit doesn't care whether that Bulk is in pack or separately carried, like Hefty Hauler or Ant Haul. If you didn't care about that aspect of Backpack usage, it would be easier to just increase baseline Bulk capacity by 2, independent of Backpack, although "simplicity" would also demand the different action to retrieve items from backpack be removed to avoid any tracking of backpack VS other items.

If you already are tracking what is IN pack (within it's 4 Bulk limit) for action-economy VS separately carried/worn gear, I don't think workload is much different regardless of phrasing.

Having to write your gear on your character sheet, then a seperate section for gear in your backpack (in which you specificy which items dont apply their bulk) just seems like such a high level of specificity/complexity not seen elsewhere in 2nd edition. I just don't think the bulk of GMs or players will bother with it as a result. Instead, they'll just subtract 2 bulk from their total or something similarly simplified.

It's not that complicated, and it's pretty built into character sheets like the iconics. You stick the stuff you will never need in battle in the back pack and call it a day. It actually makes a fairly useful distinction between the bulk of your weapons and armor vs the bulk of your bedroll and coins.

Having to write your gear on your character sheet, then a seperate section for gear in your backpack (in which you specificy which items dont apply their bulk) just seems like such a high level of specificity/complexity not seen elsewhere in 2nd edition. I just don't think the bulk of GMs or players will bother with it as a result. Instead, they'll just subtract 2 bulk from their total or something similarly simplified.

It'd be like the PF1 mastercraft backpack JUST upping your str for carry but not requiring you to itemize what goes where.

As to the PDF: IMO, looks like a good start if not overly exciting.

Alchemist: while the bulk fixes help them, the mutagenist fix is meh at 1/day. IMO, someone focusing on that are better served by going bomber as they don't NEED more mutagens with their long duration but more/free bombs? I do wish they'd have explained the Chirugeon's ability with Medicine works as you currently have to juggle both kits and skills... I can hope it'll come in future updates, though I'm not sure I see what'd make it more cmplicated a fix than some of what's here.

Archetypes: signature and bloodline spells make sorcerer/bard multiclass more attractive,

Bulk: Backpack is welcome fix as it makes unwieldiness an actual factor. Now if we can just take this and use it on all containers and add some animal/mount ones, like saddle bags. Lowering some bulks is also welcome, though I have no idea why alchemy is singled out for no crafting while adventuring unless you have a 6 bulk kit... We already have a kit with an ANVIL that's 2 bulk so I have to wonder just what an alchemist must carry.

Champion: Cool to see unarmed get some love.

Equipment: improvised weapons having proficiency is awesome! Thrown as ranged just opens up a can of worms... Do melee runes stop working when thrown now?

Monk: Mountain Stance changes make me even more wary of how it's meant to work, as a simple jump [or even normal running] would seem to cancel it. I guess I just have to shuffle my feet...

Poison: some minor quality of live fixes look good. Clarifying ammo as a target makes sense but now allows stocking up.

Spells: magic fang and telekinetic projectile are now usable. Goodberry is interesting but still not very useful as it still requires a ripe berry [only naturally available 4 months out if the year]. It seems odd that druids would need to rely on greenhouse plants to use focus spells...

...Huh. Question: Don't the changes to emanations mean that anti-magic field is now broke AF since the caster can exclude themselves from it?

...Huh. Question: Don't the changes to emanations mean that anti-magic field is now broke AF since the caster can exclude themselves from it?

The "and no one inside can cast spells or use magic abilities" wording already in the spell itself preempts that :3

...Huh. Question: Don't the changes to emanations mean that anti-magic field is now broke AF since the caster can exclude themselves from it?

They're also going to be looking at that specifically in the next pass.

MaxAstro wrote:

...Huh. Question: Don't the changes to emanations mean that anti-magic field is now broke AF since the caster can exclude themselves from it?

They're also going to be looking at that specifically in the next pass.

It's literally the only rare spell in the CRB, so just don't let anyone have it until we're sure it's safe.

MaxAstro wrote:

...Huh. Question: Don't the changes to emanations mean that anti-magic field is now broke AF since the caster can exclude themselves from it?

The "and no one inside can cast spells or use magic abilities" wording already in the spell itself preempts that :3

Actually, as worded, it doesn't. All of that section doesn't mean "inside the emanation"; rather, it refers to "the target area".

"You repel all magic from the target area..." "Spells can't penetrate the area, magic items cease to function within it, and no one inside can cast spells or use magic abilities."

If they are excluded, then the caster is not IN the "target area". See for example the emanation version of harm, which affects all creatures "in the area".

Ravingdork wrote:

Having to write your gear on your character sheet, then a seperate section for gear in your backpack (in which you specificy which items dont apply their bulk) just seems like such a high level of specificity/complexity not seen elsewhere in 2nd edition. I just don't think the bulk of GMs or players will bother with it as a result. Instead, they'll just subtract 2 bulk from their total or something similarly simplified.

It'd be like the PF1 mastercraft backpack JUST upping your str for carry but not requiring you to itemize what goes where.

As to the PDF: IMO, looks like a good start if not overly exciting.

Alchemist: while the bulk fixes help them, the mutagenist fix is meh at 1/day. IMO, someone focusing on that are better served by going bomber as they don't NEED more mutagens with their long duration but more/free bombs? I do wish they'd have explained the Chirugeon's ability with Medicine works as you currently have to juggle both kits and skills... I can hope it'll come in future updates, though I'm not sure I see what'd make it more cmplicated a fix than some of what's here.

Archetypes: signature and bloodline spells make sorcerer/bard multiclass more attractive,

Bulk: Backpack is welcome fix as it makes unwieldiness an actual factor. Now if we can just take this and use it on all containers and add some animal/mount ones, like saddle bags. Lowering some bulks is also welcome, though I have no idea why alchemy is singled out for no crafting while adventuring unless you have a 6 bulk kit... We already have a kit with an ANVIL that's 2 bulk so I have to wonder just what an alchemist must carry.

Champion: Cool to see unarmed get some love.

Equipment: improvised weapons having proficiency is awesome! Thrown as ranged just opens up a can of worms... Do melee runes stop working when thrown now?

Monk: Mountain Stance changes make me even more wary of how it's meant to work, as a simple jump [or even normal running] would seem to cancel it. I guess I just have...

The meaning behind Mountain Stance is very clear. I think you're safe, only the worst kind of "killer GM" would penalize you for moving or jumping. The restriction obviously means you can't use it while swimming or flying.

Harm is instantaneous, AMF lasts. And no one inside it can cast spells is what I'm highlighting, the caster is inside the field even if they choose to not to be in the "emanation".

Ravingdork wrote:

Zwordsman wrote:

Throwing is already pretty hard up with how Shurikens can't be buffed.

Wait. What? Why can't shurikens be buffed? They look like every other thrown weapon to me.

The fantasy of shurikens is that you throw a large flurry of them. But if you want your character is forced to use a *single* shuriken with a returning rune, which totally kills the fantasy and negates the Reload 0 advantage shurikens have over darts.

It would be nice if we had a "handwraps of throwing" that let you apply weapon runes on it and apply its effects to thrown weapons. Better than forcing characters to turn their weapons into boomerangs.

To expand on this. The biggest benefit of SHurikens-the one you'll work to overcome the Uncommon rarity thing-- (Because I"m pretty sure if you take the general feat to get prof in all Martials, while you get profiency in SHuriken you can't actually buy shuriken nor buy the formula for shuriken.)--is that its a free action draw when you use it.

This means you can have an open hand or two open hands. This is a real valuable thing for an Alchemist. It means they could have a buckler+whip (or knife/clan dagger) in one hand, while using their other for Shuriken, bombs and pepetual bombs. Or just have a bigger shield + open hand. Or just two open hands for various things.
Alchemists REALLY value having hands open, and shurikens are currently the only thrown weapon that fills that.

Of course if you're already getting profiency in SHuriken there is an arguement to just get it in a bow as you have the 1+ handedness of them.
Also an arguement to just have a returning star knife + buckler (or no shield)

but shurikens already have the same ranged parameters as a bomb. This means that its far easier on the player to calculate and far easier for a similiar tactics that apply to all their weapons.

----
Also any thrown weapon with Quick Draw can't really work with most feats if I remember right because quick draw is "interact to draw then strike" meaning it is its own action sequence. I think stuff like Hunter's Aim doesn't work? as that is specificaly a 2 action strike
------
I think some sort of "throwing weapon case" would be preferably over gloves or handwraps for throwing them. Both stylistcally, visually and 'cause i think the unarmed ones already a handwrap?
Also.
I wanna be Adliet Meyers

Harm is instantaneous, AMF lasts. And no one inside it can cast spells is what I'm highlighting, the caster is inside the field even if they choose to not to be in the "emanation".

What I'm trying to say is that "inside" doesn't mean "inside the field", it means "inside the target area".

Yeah, I'm less than thrilled with the Mutagenist. The flashback thing is mediocre at best even if it were nearly at-will, at once per day it saves you some actions once per day and that's it.

Alchemist in general is kinda weak, and this just ups the ante on that, making for a very weak subclass on a weak Class. More fixing is definitely needed.

I do think that pretty much all the rest of the errata is good stuff, though. I'm particularly pleased with the Bulk changes, which look like exactly what I was hoping for in that regard.

Rysky wrote:

Harm is instantaneous, AMF lasts. And no one inside it can cast spells is what I'm highlighting, the caster is inside the field even if they choose to not to be in the "emanation".

What I'm trying to say is that "inside" doesn't mean "inside the field", it means "inside the target area".

*tilts head back and forth*

You're still inside the field though.

Mark Seifter wrote:

...

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!

The backpack changes are nice, a useful change.

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

So I think there's some confusion over this. Alchemist tools are all you need for your daily preparations or anything outside of downtime mode. The lab is specifically for crafting during downtime mode. As written, you need a whole work space to do downtime mode for anything else. If you want to craft metal objects you need a Smith workshop complete with a forge. By contrast, your 2 bulk repair kit is only for repairs, not downtime crafting.

The lack of a blacksmith kit you can buy with set bulk doesn't mean you can craft without one. It means you can't actually carry an entire forge and such. The lab let's you Craft while in the field, which is something no other Crafter can do. (Barring very simple stuff like carving wooden stakes or whatever.)

The only exception is Snares, but those are specifically meant to be built in the field. You can also use them to craft during downtime, but you probably won't actually do that anyway. Still, that makes Snare and Alchemy Crafters the only Crafters who can feasibly carry everything they need for proper crafting into the field.

Yeah, I'm less than thrilled with the Mutagenist. The flashback thing is mediocre at best even if it were nearly at-will, at once per day it saves you some actions once per day and that's it.

Alchemist in general is kinda weak, and this just ups the ante on that, making for a very weak subclass on a weak Class. More fixing is definitely needed.

Note: Flashback is a free action right? or am I wrong?

I'm not entirely sure if this works, but if its the effects of the mutagen, that means you're under the effects of a mutagen. So revivfying mutagen is valid.

So for a free action you can Pop it, gain free temp hp to tank the damage.Then for 1 action on your next turn you can end it for some HP healing.

it isn't amazing.. but I see this as a rather nice "what if" button.
More so since all my mutagenists are whip user skill monkey melee support-so they're in danger. It reminds me a bit of Shield Block actually.

SIDEQUESTION: Since its the effects of a mutagen and you're under said effects that means it ends any current mutagens you have right?

"Page 73: In the Chirurgeon section, change “lesser elixir of life” to “minor elixir of life.” The lesser elixir of life is a 3rd-level item that a 1st-level character can’t create."

This section of the errata specifically calls out the lesser elixir of life as being a 3rd level item, however, it is a 5th level item in the book, and there is no errata referring to that being changed. Is this a mistake? or is it intended to be a 3rd level elixir?

MaxAstro wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Harm is instantaneous, AMF lasts. And no one inside it can cast spells is what I'm highlighting, the caster is inside the field even if they choose to not to be in the "emanation".

What I'm trying to say is that "inside" doesn't mean "inside the field", it means "inside the target area".

*tilts head back and forth*

You're still inside the field though.

You aren't.

If you exclude the middle square from the emanation, the field "space/shape" is basically a donut (albeit a 3d one).

As long as you are in the middle of the donut, you are not "in" the field. You're just surrounded by it.

Rysky wrote:

MaxAstro wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Harm is instantaneous, AMF lasts. And no one inside it can cast spells is what I'm highlighting, the caster is inside the field even if they choose to not to be in the "emanation".

What I'm trying to say is that "inside" doesn't mean "inside the field", it means "inside the target area".

*tilts head back and forth*

You're still inside the field though.

You aren't.

If you exclude the middle square from the emanation, the field "space/shape" is basically a donut (albeit a 3d one).

As long as you are in the middle of the donut, you are not "in" the field. You're just surrounded by it.

The field goes over and under as well.

I have to admit I expected way more stuff.

But overall, it is a Nice errata.

I think people's confusion on Unarmed Attack proficiency should be resolved by clearly phrasing rule so IF you have Simple Proficiency, Unarmed just follows Simple. Only if your Class DOESN'T have Simple, Unarmed will follow your Class' "group of weapon" proficiency. So because Fighters have Simple Proficiency, their later advanced proficiency in group of weapons doesn't automatically apply to Unarmed (although they can select Brawling). Right now, people don't see why they shouldn't use "the best of either one", but I'm pretty sure that isn't the intent.

With this change Fighters wouldn't actually get any benefit to their unarmed strikes by selecting the Brawling group, since unarmed strikes aren't weapons (selecting brawling would only work for gauntlets and such).

Rysky wrote:

MaxAstro wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Harm is instantaneous, AMF lasts. And no one inside it can cast spells is what I'm highlighting, the caster is inside the field even if they choose to not to be in the "emanation".

What I'm trying to say is that "inside" doesn't mean "inside the field", it means "inside the target area".

*tilts head back and forth*

You're still inside the field though.

You aren't.

If you exclude the middle square from the emanation, the field "space/shape" is basically a donut (albeit a 3d one).

As long as you are in the middle of the donut, you are not "in" the field. You're just surrounded by it.

Perhaps we should just add a note to AMF instead of trying to get a player-wide consensus on how normal language English maps to rigorous geometry definitions.

Request for people discussing Shuriken:

Could you please be precise in your use of rules terminology? Thank you.

* No, it's not that Shuriken can't be "buffed" (affixed with runes), they absolutely can.
* No, it's not that Darts have a Reload (of greater than zero).

Yes, you must still draw each Dart in order to throw it, but Reload "-" is technically separate from Reload "1", even if the end result is the same: interspersing each attack with an Interact action, which in turn means you need to occupy one of your hands with the Dart in-between drawing it and throwing it.

Yes, when you affix a Returning rune to a Shuriken you must have a hand free (to catch it after throwing it), negating the low-level benefit of Reload 0.

Yes, the rules do not support visualizing the throwing of many Shuriken at once. Not only is the rules clearly treating Shuriken as every other thrown/ranged weapon (shoot one at a time), the rules for Runes effectively prevent you from "reskinning" your action - you simply can't throw them more than one at a time unless you have loads of gold to pay for several Runes of Returning. (You can, if your GM allows you, but you'll still do pitiful damage if only one of them is enchanted)

I personally do not think it is appropriate to discuss this last bit in a thread on errata. That is, you might want the rules to allow you to throw a handful of Shuriken at once, but the rules not supporting this is not an error. It is just a different design decision than you want.

(Discussing the issue with melee-weapon runes on thrown weapons, on the other hand, is entirely warranted)

shroudb wrote:

Rysky wrote:

MaxAstro wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Harm is instantaneous, AMF lasts. And no one inside it can cast spells is what I'm highlighting, the caster is inside the field even if they choose to not to be in the "emanation".

What I'm trying to say is that "inside" doesn't mean "inside the field", it means "inside the target area".

*tilts head back and forth*

You're still inside the field though.

You aren't.

If you exclude the middle square from the emanation, the field "space/shape" is basically a donut (albeit a 3d one).

As long as you are in the middle of the donut, you are not "in" the field. You're just surrounded by it.

The field goes over and under as well.

that's why i said "3d"

the important part is that it isn't going at the center.

the area "surrounds" you, you are not IN the area.

Aricks wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

...

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!

The backpack changes are nice, a useful change.

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

So I think there's some confusion over this. Alchemist tools are all you need for your daily preparations or anything outside of downtime mode. The lab is specifically for crafting during downtime mode. As written, you need a whole work space to do downtime mode for anything else. If you want to craft metal objects you need a Smith workshop complete with a forge. By contrast, your 2 bulk repair kit is only for repairs, not downtime crafting.

The lack of a blacksmith kit you can buy with set bulk doesn't mean you can craft without one. It means you can't actually carry an entire forge and such. The lab let's you Craft while in the field, which is something no other Crafter can do. (Barring very simple stuff like carving wooden stakes or whatever.)

The only exception is Snares, but those are specifically meant to be built in the field. You can also use them to craft during downtime, but you probably won't actually do that anyway. Still, that makes Snare and Alchemy Crafters the only Crafters who can feasibly carry everything they need for proper crafting into the field.

I see what you mean, I didn't see the bit before in the Craft item section that says you may need a workshop. So, actually a buff to alchemists since theoretically we can be out in the field and be able to craft stuff, assuming you can stuff your 6 bulk lab into a bag of holding or have a pack animal of some sort.

I see they also lowered the price of Alchemy Tools to 3gp. So only 1/5 of your starting gold instead of 1/3, which is progress of a sort. Still seems kinda pricey since you still need to buy armor and weapons. Maybe get a free set along with your formula book?

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?

No, because then pedants would equip a backpack and full plate armor and say they're at 2 bulk.

Page 280: Under the Ammunition heading, add the sentence “Using ammunition destroys it.”

First of all, thank you for the clarification!

However, I think it would be helpful to standardise the language used:
You have introduced a "consumable" trait for the purpose of marking items that are destroyed on use, so why not use that, i.e. "All Ammunition has the consumable trait"?

Instead, you say essentially the same thing using different terminology. Yes, we all still understand what it means (probably more clearly than with using traits), but if you're not using the trait system then why have it in the first place?

Ravingdork wrote:

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?

No, because then pedants would equip a backpack and full plate armor and say they're at 2 bulk.

This is why we can't have nice things and why the devs aren't allowed to sleep at night.

Ravingdork wrote:

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?

No, because then pedants would equip a backpack and full plate armor and say they're at 2 bulk.

You mean like PF1 upping your STR for carry but not requiring the extra weight actually being in the backpack? I don't recall ever seeing threads over it in PF1 so i can't see what the issue would be here.

Good stuff!

Mountain Stance seems to mean I can't jump now or I lose the benefits which thematically fits with a rooted stance, which I admit changes my playstyle somewhat now with it, but it is what it is.

The other monk clarification stuff like the conflict between Ironblood Stance and Fuse Stance can wait. I'm thankful you guys got out what you did.

shroudb wrote:

Rysky wrote:

MaxAstro wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Harm is instantaneous, AMF lasts. And no one inside it can cast spells is what I'm highlighting, the caster is inside the field even if they choose to not to be in the "emanation".

What I'm trying to say is that "inside" doesn't mean "inside the field", it means "inside the target area".

*tilts head back and forth*

You're still inside the field though.

You aren't.

If you exclude the middle square from the emanation, the field "space/shape" is basically a donut (albeit a 3d one).

As long as you are in the middle of the donut, you are not "in" the field. You're just surrounded by it.

The field goes over and under as well.

So it's like a jelly donut where the caster is the jelly. :)

Good stuff!

Mountain Stance seems to mean I can't jump now or I lose the benefits which thematically fits with a rooted stance, which I admit changes my playstyle somewhat now with it, but it is what it is.

The other monk clarification stuff like the conflict between Ironblood Stance and Fuse Stance can wait. I'm thankful you guys got out what you did.

That's not what Mountain Stance says. Remember that when you jump, you land in the same action. You might as well say running takes you out of the stance. The intent is you can't be in that stance if you're swimming, flying, or fighting in some bizarre location like in a tree. Ground movement is fine.

I'm happy with the clarification on thrown weapons! Finally clear rules on those.

Nice general fixes and clarifications too, that's a good first errata.

I just find it boring that so many Animal Barbarian attacks now have the Grapple trait. XD

Rysky wrote:

shroudb wrote:

Rysky wrote:

MaxAstro wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Harm is instantaneous, AMF lasts. And no one inside it can cast spells is what I'm highlighting, the caster is inside the field even if they choose to not to be in the "emanation".

What I'm trying to say is that "inside" doesn't mean "inside the field", it means "inside the target area".

*tilts head back and forth*

You're still inside the field though.

You aren't.

If you exclude the middle square from the emanation, the field "space/shape" is basically a donut (albeit a 3d one).

As long as you are in the middle of the donut, you are not "in" the field. You're just surrounded by it.

The field goes over and under as well.

So it's like a jelly donut where the caster is the jelly. :)

Occam's Razor. You're choosing the more complicated answer therefore you've chosen the wrong one.

Gisher wrote:

Rysky wrote:

shroudb wrote:

Rysky wrote:

MaxAstro wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Harm is instantaneous, AMF lasts. And no one inside it can cast spells is what I'm highlighting, the caster is inside the field even if they choose to not to be in the "emanation".

What I'm trying to say is that "inside" doesn't mean "inside the field", it means "inside the target area".

*tilts head back and forth*

You're still inside the field though.

You aren't.

If you exclude the middle square from the emanation, the field "space/shape" is basically a donut (albeit a 3d one).

As long as you are in the middle of the donut, you are not "in" the field. You're just surrounded by it.

The field goes over and under as well.

So it's like a jelly donut where the caster is the jelly. :)

Occam's Razor. You're choosing the more complicated answer therefore you've chosen the wrong one.

When you're literally excluded from the "area of effect", the simplest answer is that you are actually "outside of area of effect", regardless if you're surrounded by it.

Garen Sparrowhawk wrote:

Good stuff!

Mountain Stance seems to mean I can't jump now or I lose the benefits which thematically fits with a rooted stance, which I admit changes my playstyle somewhat now with it, but it is what it is.

The other monk clarification stuff like the conflict between Ironblood Stance and Fuse Stance can wait. I'm thankful you guys got out what you did.

That's not what Mountain Stance says. Remember that when you jump, you land in the same action. You might as well say running takes you out of the stance. The intent is you can't be in that stance if you're swimming, flying, or fighting in some bizarre location like in a tree. Ground movement is fine.

Question: "tangled forest stance requirement: you're unarmed"

Garen Sparrowhawk wrote:

Good stuff!

Mountain Stance seems to mean I can't jump now or I lose the benefits which thematically fits with a rooted stance, which I admit changes my playstyle somewhat now with it, but it is what it is.

The other monk clarification stuff like the conflict between Ironblood Stance and Fuse Stance can wait. I'm thankful you guys got out what you did.

That's not what Mountain Stance says. Remember that when you jump, you land in the same action. You might as well say running takes you out of the stance. The intent is you can't be in that stance if you're swimming, flying, or fighting in some bizarre location like in a tree. Ground movement is fine.

That is, literally, what Mountain Stance says:

"Requirements: You are unarmored and touching the ground."

As soon as you start running or jumping, you are no longer touching the ground.

Fortunately, running doesn't exist in PF2 so we can assume that you Stride without leaving the ground.

Nobody:

Paizo:
Nerf Wizards
Nerf Mountain Stance
1/day mutagen recycling for Alchemists.

Interesting errata.

They keep adding in more exceptions to make class features work with unarmed strikes. I wonder if they're starting to regret the non-weapon weapon rule.

What was the Wizard nerf in the errata? I don't think I saw one.

They removed the 1st Level Class Feat they weren’t supposed to get.

Ah, okay.

Yes, it's a nerf, strictly speaking. However, I think the devs have been saying since release that the wizard wasn't supposed to get the class feat at level 1, and I don't believe any of the other casting classes get a class feat at level 1 (outside of a choice like a Bard's Muse or Druid's Order), so I don't really see it as a "nerf" so much as a "we missed this in the last editorial pass before going to the printer".

The mutagenist does still need a little help, I think, but at least they did something good for the Bulk requirements of an Alchemist.

Garen Sparrowhawk wrote:

Good stuff!

Mountain Stance seems to mean I can't jump now or I lose the benefits which thematically fits with a rooted stance, which I admit changes my playstyle somewhat now with it, but it is what it is.

The other monk clarification stuff like the conflict between Ironblood Stance and Fuse Stance can wait. I'm thankful you guys got out what you did.

That's not what Mountain Stance says. Remember that when you jump, you land in the same action. You might as well say running takes you out of the stance. The intent is you can't be in that stance if you're swimming, flying, or fighting in some bizarre location like in a tree. Ground movement is fine.

My question is, what the hell do Mountain Stance Monks do about flying enemies now? You can't switch to Wild Winds Stance without tanking your AC, and even if you did your hit rate is awful because you built around the assumption that you don't need dexterity.

Nobody:

Paizo:
Nerf Wizards
Nerf Mountain Stance
1/day mutagen recycling for Alchemists.

I guess you haven't been paying any attention at all to these forums if you think nobody said anything before these errata happened.