Core Rulebook Errata: Round 1

Wednesday, October 30, 2019

The Pathfinder Core Rulebook has been out in the wide world for a few months now! While you’ve had a chance to put the game through its paces, we’ve been hard at work combing through feedback and questions from staff, players, and fans of the game, looking for any spots that need clarification.

As with any publication, we’ve found a few errors along the way, and we’ve been carefully collecting and compiling them. While we’re not going to list out every typo that we’ve now corrected, we want to provide everyone with the most central updates to the text of the game. Some of these are rules clarifications or corrections of simple errors, while others are broader changes to streamline play or bring core concepts of the game together. We’ve also provided a brief explanation of each change to help show our intent so you can more easily apply the changes to your game.

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. Please also note that this document contains updates for only the Core Rulebook. We’re still vetting some changes to the Bestiary and some other products, and we’ll get those changes out to you as soon as possible. Thank you for your understanding and patience as we work to make Pathfinder the best game it can be!

You can find a PDF download of these first official errata here.

Pathfinder Second Edition Core Rulebook Cover with three adventures fighting a fire breathing dragon with weapons and spells.

Lyz Liddell
Designer

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Errata Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Pathfinder Second Edition
101 to 150 of 209 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:
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.

Flying Carpet?


Evilgm wrote:


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

People have been saying a lot. Wizards and Mountain Stance Monks being overpowered have not been among those things, though.

Neither have I seen many people complaining about Alchemists not getting enough mutagens in a day.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:

People have been saying a lot. Wizards and Mountain Stance Monks being overpowered have not been among those things, though.

Neither have I seen many people complaining about Alchemists not getting enough mutagens in a day.

True, but I have seen plenty of requests for clarification on Mountain Stance's conditions and Mutagenist needing something has been a very common refrain, while the Wizard thing was strictly a typo to start with (and already stated as such more than a month ago).

I'm not hugely pleased with the Mutagenist and Mountain Stance things myself, but that's because I'm not a big fan of the answers to those provided by this errata, not because nobody was asking about them.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

3 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Thrown as ranged just opens up a can of worms... Do melee runes stop working when thrown now?

I'm certain ensuring melee-only effects and runes don't work on thrown weapons is the intent.


Cyrad wrote:
graystone wrote:
Thrown as ranged just opens up a can of worms... Do melee runes stop working when thrown now?
I'm certain ensuring melee-only effects and runes don't work on thrown weapons is the intent.

I thought the main reason was an irrational fear of dex damage on thrown weapons by a subset of rogues... :P

IMO, I can't see a reason Ghost Touch or Serrating NEEDS to stop working on a thrown dagger as I can't see ANY issue that would cause.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
graystone wrote:
Thrown as ranged just opens up a can of worms... Do melee runes stop working when thrown now?
I'm certain ensuring melee-only effects and runes don't work on thrown weapons is the intent.

I thought the main reason was an irrational fear of dex damage on thrown weapons by a subset of rogues... :P

IMO, I can't see a reason Ghost Touch or Serrating NEEDS to stop working on a thrown dagger as I can't see ANY issue that would cause.

you could also Double slice with thrown, which was kinda over the top imo.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Wow i was REALLY hoping for a wording fix on Animal Rage the 8th lvl Barbarian feat for Animal Instinct. I keep finding conflicting information on what the feat actually does (other than the novelty of transforming into an animal). the feat specifies it's a 3rd level Animal Form you use your own "statistics", Temps and Unarmed attacks. but it's not clearly defined what those "statistics" are.

So far the best i can find is that you get Low-light vision (if u didn't already have it) and the speed adjustment from the specific animal you transformed into (which in many cases is the same or marginally better than your base speed). If this is accurate then it seems like a terrible 8th lvl feat.

So that's something i'd really like clarification on. And as an extension of that the Magic Warrior focus spell "Magic Warrior Aspect" in the Lost Omens World guild uses different wording for a similar feature. Is that the intended use for Animal Rage?

Aside from that minor grip I'm glad we got some major editing/format issues resolved. i know almost 700 pages is a lot but hopefully we iron out as many as we can as quickly as we can.

Sovereign Court

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.

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?

Quote:
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.

This one, upon thing about it, is another place I decided to disagree with the devs. My house rules now say this:

Any items properly stored away in a carrying device only counts half of it bulk against your bulk limit. This includes backpacks, bandoliers, belt pouches, sacks, satchels, and sheaths.

This helps explain why all starting character load outs includes "wasting money" buying sheaths. The backpack, which can carry 4 bulk max, would thus count as 2 bulk if full, but even just properly storing a snare kit in it (2 bulk normally) would still count as 1 bulk against your limit, rather than 0 under the errata.

Also, if the party is attacked during their downtime while crafting, cooking, etc and they have to just throw everything into bags in order to flee, it wasn't "properly stored" so some of them might be encumbered until they can get somewhere to properly pack their bags. As anyone who has traveled knows, poorly packed bag can make all the difference...


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Samurai wrote:

This one, upon thing about it, is another place I decided to disagree with the devs. My house rules now say this:

Any items properly stored away in a carrying device only counts half of it bulk against your bulk limit. This includes backpacks, bandoliers, belt pouches, sacks, satchels, and sheaths.

Doesn't this just mean everyone has to recalculate their Bulk every time they draw a weapon or pull out an item?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Samurai wrote:
This helps explain why all starting character load outs includes "wasting money" buying sheaths.

Pretty sure the Paizo guys were intending for the sheath item to be a necessary container in order to transport a weapon without keeping it in your hand all the time.

Not saying that's the way the text actually turned out though, since the description of a sheath just says "A sheath or scabbard lets you easily carry a weapon on your person." which doesn't actually say that without one you have to put the weapon in a belt pouch or bandolier (many won't fit), or stick it in your backpack (and spend extra actions to get it in hand)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber

Very excited by this. Thanks for working so hard for us all on this!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
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...

Even blindly accepting your climatic/latitudinal assumptions, I don't believe this is true: Even in regions with cold winter many berries ripen late, and can remain so on the plant thru the winter. These may not be the berries you are familiar with eating, but they do exist. I don't even believe poisonous berries are a problem, since they are "turned into a goodberry" thus losing normal properties. EDIT: Requiring "freshly picked (within 1 day)" instead of "ripe" might be preferrable wording for Paizo's purposes, but I don't believe the "4 months" rationale is as strong as you believe.


Arachnofiend wrote:
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.

The same thing any Str based character does. Also, Finesse weapons can still be used with Str. So your unarmed hit rate is the same either way.

Also does it say anywhere that "requirement" is more than just the initial condition?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:
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.
Flying Carpet?

A Flying Carpet isn't the ground

Mellored wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
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.

The same thing any Str based character does.

Also, Finesse weapons can still be used with Str. So your unarmed hit rate is the same either way.

Not sure what you think changed.

Strength characters find a way to fly, either through an ally's support or an item (jumping also works as of PF2 but I doubt that's valid for the MS Monk either)

Finesse weapons aren't throwing weapons, and throwing weapons always use dexterity

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Flying Carpet is solid ground for the purposes of these effects. It's not ground as in earth, cause then we have all these little caveats and the like that make the stance unusable most of the time, "Oh you went into a building with wood floors/you went to the second floor? You're not on the ground anymore."

Yeeeeah, no.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

Flying Carpet is solid ground for the purposes of these effects. It's not ground as in earth, cause then we have all these little caveats and the like that make the stance unusable most of the time, "Oh you went into a building with wood floors/you went to the second floor? You're not on the ground anymore."

Yeeeeah, no.

If a Flying Carpet counts then there's zero reason for any other type of flying not to count, either. Hell, leap builds make way more sense for this type of Monk than anything else and those definitely do not count with this wording.

Would you allow a Mountain Stance Monk to ride a flying mount? Because that's pretty much equivalent to the flying carpet.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Flying Carpet is solid ground for the purposes of these effects. It's not ground as in earth, cause then we have all these little caveats and the like that make the stance unusable most of the time, "Oh you went into a building with wood floors/you went to the second floor? You're not on the ground anymore."

Yeeeeah, no.

If a Flying Carpet counts then there's zero reason for any other type of flying not to count, either. Hell, leap builds make way more sense for this type of Monk than anything else and those definitely do not count with this wording.

Would you allow a Mountain Stance Monk to ride a flying mount? Because that's pretty much equivalent to the flying carpet.

Flying by themselves? No.

Mount? Probably not (unless they can use their stance while mounted normally but I don't think they can).

With a flying carpet they're standing and grounded so they can use their stance.


I don't understand why people think this Mutagenist change was mediocre or doesn't put them on par with the other Alchemist subclasses. Specializing in mutagens was already a good thing to begin with at later levels especially due to revivifying mutagen being that good. All they really needed was a level 1 feature that worked, which is what Mutagenic Flashback accomplishes. There are many standard scenarios in your average adventuring day where a free action instant mutagen would be useful, honestly.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Do you honestly believe that it is more likely the devs intended for Mountain Stance Monks to have exactly one bypass to the flying problem, that solves the problem in exactly the same way all the other illegal solutions would have done? Does that seriously make more sense to you than for this errata to clarify that "touching the ground" is something you must continuously do and not just be something you must do when you enter the stance?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Thank you everyone for your input on the backpacks issue. To keep this thread from getting too bogged down with that particular subject, I've created a dedicated thread for it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Hound of Ulster wrote:
Specializing in mutagens was already a good thing to begin with at later levels especially due to revivifying mutagen being that good.

What.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:
Do you honestly believe that it is more likely the devs intended for Mountain Stance Monks to have exactly one bypass to the flying problem, that solves the problem in exactly the same way all the other illegal solutions would have done? Does that seriously make more sense to you than for this errata to clarify that "touching the ground" is something you must continuously do and not just be something you must do when you enter the stance?

I don't think "every class ability and feat should work with flying" was something that was considered.

Sovereign Court

Joana wrote:
Samurai wrote:

This one, upon thing about it, is another place I decided to disagree with the devs. My house rules now say this:

Any items properly stored away in a carrying device only counts half of it bulk against your bulk limit. This includes backpacks, bandoliers, belt pouches, sacks, satchels, and sheaths.

Doesn't this just mean everyone has to recalculate their Bulk every time they draw a weapon or pull out an item?

Typically, if the item is in their hands, such as a wielded weapon, it doesn't count at all towards their Bulk, which I see as their Carrying limit. If they are carrying so much that they never want to stow their weapon, then they have at least 1 hand used up at all times and everyone will question why their weapon is drawn in the tavern...

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Hound of Ulster wrote:
Specializing in mutagens was already a good thing to begin with at later levels especially due to revivifying mutagen being that good.
What.

I don't think he understands how it works as written. 1d6 healing per 2 item levels of the mutagen and then the mutagen ends? That's worse than an ordinary healing potion at lower levels. And it doesn't gain any flat bonuses to the healing the way the higher level potions do. I would allow the effect once per mutagen without having to end it's effects, and maybe give a flat bonus if they do choose to end the mutagen (say, add the mutagen's item level to the healing if you end it).


4 people marked this as a favorite.

So, are Bards still required to use an Interact action to retrieve or change their grip to a musical instrument if they do not already have one in hand to cast a spell with material components?

errata 1.0 wrote:

Page 303: In the Component Substitutions sidebar, replace the second paragraph with the following to avoid implying changes to action traits.

"If you’re a bard Casting a Spell from the occult tradition, you can usually play an instrument for spells requiring somatic or material components, as long as it takes at least one of your hands to do so. If you use an instrument, you don’t need a spell component pouch or another hand free. You can usually also play an instrument for spells requiring verbal components, instead of speaking."

The paragraph in question originally says:

CR p303 wrote:
If you’re a bard Casting a Spell from the occult tradition while holding a musical instrument, you can play that instrument to replace any material, somatic, or verbal components the spell requires by using the instrument as a focus component instead. Cast a Spell gains the auditory trait if you make this substitution. Unlike the normal rules for a focus component, you can’t retrieve or stow the instrument when making this substitution.

The Focus portion of the Spell Components section states:

CR p303 wrote:
As part of Casting the Spell, you retrieve the focus (if necessary), manipulate it, and can stow it again if you so choose.

The Material portion of the Spell Components section states:

CR p303 wrote:
The spell gains the manipulate trait and requires you to have a free hand to retrieve and manipulate a material component.

With the errata, the text no longer explicitly states that the Bard can't retrieve an instrument as part of the Material/Focus casting action, as it did before. The Druid and Cleric have no such change and the explanation only says that the change is to clarify the actions' traits, so is this just an oversight?

I've always interpreted the act of retrieving materials from a material component pouch as being part of the Material casting action, so it doesn't make sense to me that Bards/Clerics/Druids should spend an additional action to retrieve their classes' focus items in the first place when they could just save themselves an Interact action and use a material component pouch for the few spells that require a Material casting action. Am I missing something? All of the spells with Material casting components that I know of are 3 actions, leaving no room within a single turn for an Interact action to retrieve a component/focus as its own action.


Samurai wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Hound of Ulster wrote:
Specializing in mutagens was already a good thing to begin with at later levels especially due to revivifying mutagen being that good.
What.
I don't think he understands how it works as written. 1d6 healing per 2 item levels of the mutagen and then the mutagen ends? That's worse than an ordinary healing potion at lower levels. And it doesn't gain any flat bonuses to the healing the way the higher level potions do. I would allow the effect once per mutagen without having to end it's effects, and maybe give a flat bonus if they do choose to end the mutagen (say, add the mutagen's item level to the healing if you end it).

At level 7, the Mutagenist can make perpetual mutagens with the Perpetual Infusions ability. This means that a level 7 Mutagenist with the Revivifying Mutagen feat can heal themselves up to full HP after combat rather quickly by drinking bottomless mutagens. This is probably what Hound of Ulster was referring to.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The bulk of the Darkwood Shields should also be changed from 1 to L.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Gizmo the Enemy of Mankind wrote:
Samurai wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Hound of Ulster wrote:
Specializing in mutagens was already a good thing to begin with at later levels especially due to revivifying mutagen being that good.
What.
I don't think he understands how it works as written. 1d6 healing per 2 item levels of the mutagen and then the mutagen ends? That's worse than an ordinary healing potion at lower levels. And it doesn't gain any flat bonuses to the healing the way the higher level potions do. I would allow the effect once per mutagen without having to end it's effects, and maybe give a flat bonus if they do choose to end the mutagen (say, add the mutagen's item level to the healing if you end it).
At level 7, the Mutagenist can make perpetual mutagens with the Perpetual Infusions ability. This means that a level 7 Mutagenist with the Revivifying Mutagen feat can heal themselves up to full HP after combat rather quickly by drinking bottomless mutagens. This is probably what Hound of Ulster was referring to.

That's 1d6 healing for 3 actions till level 17!

A simple medicine check, at that level, can heal 4 party members the equivalent of like 10 rounds of gulping Perpetual mutagens.

"I'm able to heal myself after combat" is not something one can build a character around.

Revivifying only use is ending mutagens so that you can drink a different one...


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Most out of combat healing happens on the order of 100 rounds (ten minutes) so I consider 100d6 worth of healing vs maybe 50+2d8 (or 350 vs 59) to be pretty worthwhile. Even with legendary ward medic vs your standard party of 4 is 237.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
Most out of combat healing happens on the order of 100 rounds (ten minutes) so I consider 100d6 worth of healing vs maybe 50+2d8 (or 350 vs 59) to be pretty worthwhile. Even with legendary ward medic vs your standard party of 4 is 237.

it's less than 100d6 since you're not in combat turns, so that's 1-2 ctions per turn if you don't want to get fatigued.

so, it's more like 50d6.

still, nothing to build around.

being able to patch yourself, and yourself only, only after combat (the feat is beyond terrible in combat) is nothing you can build a character around, it's barely worth it as a feat as it is, and mostly due to allowing you to cycle mutagens, not due to it's ooc healing.

it needs to be at least "equal to item level" in order to be even remotely useful in combat

tldr: being able to patch yourself after combat is not something to write home about. every party can patch itself after combat, you healing yourself in 5mins instead of 10 doesn't impact your character viability at all.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
shroudb wrote:
it's less than 100d6 since you're not in combat turns, so that's 1-2 ctions per turn if you don't want to get fatigued.
What page number is that rule on?
Quote:
being able to patch yourself, and yourself only, only after combat (the feat is beyond terrible in combat) is nothing you can build a character around,
... you can though?
Quote:
tldr: being able to patch yourself after combat is not something to write home about. every party can patch itself after combat, you healing yourself in 5mins instead of 10 doesn't impact your character viability at all.

I think it’s more that you get yourself up to full health is the appeal, since Medicine is on a timer and so is Focus Powers.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
shroudb wrote:
it's less than 100d6 since you're not in combat turns, so that's 1-2 ctions per turn if you don't want to get fatigued.
What page number is that rule on?
Quote:
being able to patch yourself, and yourself only, only after combat (the feat is beyond terrible in combat) is nothing you can build a character around,
... you can though?
Quote:
tldr: being able to patch yourself after combat is not something to write home about. every party can patch itself after combat, you healing yourself in 5mins instead of 10 doesn't impact your character viability at all.
I think it’s more that you get yourself up to full health is the appeal, since Medicine is on a timer and so is Focus Powers.

after combat you're out of encounter mode basically.

the way exploration/encounter is directly described is that "you can't operate with 3 actions per round pace for extended periods of time" and "3 actions per round for 10minutes" is given as a direct example of fatiguing you.

and no, you can't build a character who's main thing is that after combat he can patch himself. Apart from this being something that evey party can do, it actually offers 0 impact on either encounters or exploration.

it's just an afterthought in any pf2 game i've played or run so far.

plus, in order to actually do so, you need to keep ending your normal mutagens after each encounter, thus losing reagents, it's not exactly free.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

To be fair there is a GM suggestion that operating at combat speed in exploration mode could lead to fatigue. It isn't a hard rule but a GM call when improvising an activity.

Still at even half the rate it is still immensely good healing and a fantastic boon to have. You will be at full hp pretty much guaranteed even going at half pace to avoid fatigue (unless you were on 1 hp and put a lot into con/hp feats) and unless someone is Ward Medic (and even with depending on party size vs proficiency) you are saving the party time by letting the medic focus on someone other than you. Plus Treat Wounds might not even work, or if they are guaranteeing it works, heals even less.

To put it in perspective, my players thought being able to lay on hands 6 times while they rode a wagon into town over an hour was stupid strong.


shroudb wrote:

it's less than 100d6 since you're not in combat turns, so that's 1-2 ctions per turn if you don't want to get fatigued.

so, it's more like 50d6.

still, nothing to build around.

being able to patch yourself, and yourself only, only after combat (the feat is beyond terrible in combat) is nothing you can build a character around, it's barely worth it as a feat as it is, and mostly due to allowing you to cycle mutagens, not due to it's ooc healing.

it needs to be at least "equal to item level" in order to be even remotely useful in combat

tldr: being able to patch yourself after combat is not something to write home about. every party can patch itself after combat, you healing yourself in 5mins instead of 10 doesn't impact your character viability at all.

Treat Wounds states:

CR p249 wrote:
You spend 10 minutes treating one injured living creature (targeting yourself, if you so choose). The target is then temporarily immune to Treat Wounds actions for 1 hour

You still need to roll each medicine check and risk failure or critical failure, it can take hours depending on how injured the party is. The Mutagenist, on the other hand, can roll a fist full of d6s, representing minutes. If you are worried about fatigue, 9 minutes/90 rounds should be enough.

How does this affect your character? Well, if you heal faster after combat than the rest of your team, you can be less cautious during said combat and be the de facto tank, drinking the Juggernaut or Bestial mutagens (or both at level 13) and taking the damage so that your party doesn't need to heal as much afterwards. With Revivifying Mutagen, you can even end the effects of the Juggernaut mutatgen after the temporary HP is used up and drink another, or use Mutagenic Flashback.

Is it more powerful than the other classes or research fields? No, but it's not supposed to be.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gizmo the Enemy of Mankind wrote:
shroudb wrote:

it's less than 100d6 since you're not in combat turns, so that's 1-2 ctions per turn if you don't want to get fatigued.

so, it's more like 50d6.

still, nothing to build around.

being able to patch yourself, and yourself only, only after combat (the feat is beyond terrible in combat) is nothing you can build a character around, it's barely worth it as a feat as it is, and mostly due to allowing you to cycle mutagens, not due to it's ooc healing.

it needs to be at least "equal to item level" in order to be even remotely useful in combat

tldr: being able to patch yourself after combat is not something to write home about. every party can patch itself after combat, you healing yourself in 5mins instead of 10 doesn't impact your character viability at all.

Treat Wounds states:

CR p249 wrote:
You spend 10 minutes treating one injured living creature (targeting yourself, if you so choose). The target is then temporarily immune to Treat Wounds actions for 1 hour

You still need to roll each medicine check and risk failure or critical failure, it can take hours depending on how injured the party is. The Mutagenist, on the other hand, can roll a fist full of d6s, representing minutes. If you are worried about fatigue, 9 minutes/90 rounds should be enough.

How does this affect your character? Well, if you heal faster after combat than the rest of your team, you can be less cautious during said combat and be the de facto tank, drinking the Juggernaut or Bestial mutagens (or both at level 13) and taking the damage so that your party doesn't need to heal as much afterwards. With Revivifying Mutagen, you can even end the effects of the Juggernaut mutatgen after the temporary HP is used up and drink another, or use Mutagenic Flashback.

Is it more powerful than the other classes or research fields? No, but it's not supposed to be.

You can treat up to 4 by level 7 (when you actually gain Perpetual) with taking ward.

And once more:

"what does your character do? "
" he heals after combat"
"yes, but what does he do? "
"... He heals after combat"

Out of combat healing isn't a character concept.

Yes, you can do it. No, it doesn't impact class balance AT ALL.

P.S. You ALREADY are more squishy and take more damage than any other class. Beastial has the lowest AC in the game and Ranged gets unhealable damage.

P.P.S It isn't free. Any time you want to use Perpetual, you need to end your main Mutagen. That means it does cost you effectively a full normal Mutagen to heal like that after combat.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
shroudb wrote:
Out of combat healing isn't a character concept.
Quote:

Who said this is a character concept. It's just a really nice mechanic. No one is trying to say this is character defining.


shroudb wrote:
You can treat up to 4 by level 7 (when you actually gain Perpetual) with taking ward.

Yes, if someone in your party takes the Ward Medic skill feat and invests two skill increases into Medicine. It still takes a roll and 10 minutes; it also requires an hour to wait between treatments unless that party member also invests in the Continual Recovery skill feat, in which case we are still talking about ten minute intervals. You are stationary during however many minutes or hours you use Treat Wounds, meaning an active mutagen may expire anyways.

But, for example, if the mutagenist happened to be the only character that took much damage, I see no reason that they can't down perpetual mutagens while moving at half speed for exploration. It can also save an alchemist's life if they run out of reagents but can quickly down 10 perpetual mutagens in a minute between waves of undead sieging a mansion.

There are also certain advantages to ending a mutagen early: remember that they still have drawbacks. Depending on the player, one might rather have a Juggernaut mutagen in hand ready for combat rather than explore while under its effects due to the perception/initiative drawback it causes.

shroudb wrote:

And once more:

"what does your character do? "
" he heals after combat"
"yes, but what does he do? "
"... He heals after combat"

Out of combat healing isn't a character concept.

I don't recall anyone claimed that one ability constitutes a character concept.

shroudb wrote:

Yes, you can do it. No, it doesn't impact class balance AT ALL.

P.S. You ALREADY are more squishy and take more damage than any other class. Beastial has the lowest AC in the game and Ranged gets unhealable damage.

That's the Quicksilver Mutagen. Yes, it causes HP reduction: another situation in which ending a mutagen early and being able to heal rapidly out of combat might be useful.

shroudb wrote:
P.P.S It isn't free. Any time you want to use Perpetual, you need to end your main Mutagen. That means it does cost you effectively a full normal Mutagen to heal like that after combat.

Yes, assuming that you are already under the effects of a mutagen with a duration longer than 1 minute, you have to sacrifice it in exchange for rapid healing. Cry me a river.

No one is forcing you to play the alchemist this way, there are two other research fields to fit your play style.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gizmo the Enemy of Mankind wrote:
shroudb wrote:
You can treat up to 4 by level 7 (when you actually gain Perpetual) with taking ward.

Yes, if someone in your party takes the Ward Medic skill feat and invests two skill increases into Medicine. It still takes a roll and 10 minutes; it also requires an hour to wait between treatments unless that party member also invests in the Continual Recovery skill feat, in which case we are still talking about ten minute intervals. You are stationary during however many minutes or hours you use Treat Wounds, meaning an active mutagen may expire anyways.

But, for example, if the mutagenist happened to be the only character that took much damage, I see no reason that they can't down perpetual mutagens while moving at half speed for exploration. It can also save an alchemist's life if they run out of reagents but can quickly down 10 perpetual mutagens in a minute between waves of undead sieging a mansion.

There are also certain advantages to ending a mutagen early: remember that they still have drawbacks. Depending on the player, one might rather have a Juggernaut mutagen in hand ready for combat rather than explore while under its effects due to the perception/initiative drawback it causes.

shroudb wrote:

And once more:

"what does your character do? "
" he heals after combat"
"yes, but what does he do? "
"... He heals after combat"

Out of combat healing isn't a character concept.

I don't recall anyone claimed that one ability constitutes a character concept.

shroudb wrote:

Yes, you can do it. No, it doesn't impact class balance AT ALL.

P.S. You ALREADY are more squishy and take more damage than any other class. Beastial has the lowest AC in the game and Ranged gets unhealable damage.

That's the Quicksilver Mutagen. Yes, it causes HP reduction: another situation in which ending a mutagen early and being able to heal rapidly out of combat might be useful.

shroudb wrote:
P.P.S It isn't free. Any time you want to use Perpetual, you
...

1)A skill feat and skill increase is very much a viable comparison to a class feat.

2)The whole discussion was promoted when I said:
It's nice but not something you can build upon and Rysky saying "no it is".

Now all of you are agreeing with me, that it's nothing but a side bonus.

3)yes. your point being?

You already take more damage than anyone else. It's only natural to be able to mitigrate some of it.

Also, what's the point of the mutagenist if you're not under a Mutagen. That whole conversation is about mutagenist, the other 2 paths are irrelevant.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, perpetual infusion + revivifying is definitely some nice out of combat healing, but I question the notion that it's some amazing, build defining thing as suggested upthread.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
shroudb wrote:

2)The whole discussion was promoted when I said:

It's nice but not something you can build upon and Rysky saying "no it is".

I took build in that case to mean improve on, not character defining or their sole thing.


I never suggested that Mutagenists are better than the other fields, nor was I making the inference that their self-healing alone is meant to define a build. It's just one of the main things that makes Mutagenists just as good as the other research fields while helping them fill their role as a self-sufficient jack of all trades due to the flexibility that mutagens offer. They don't overshadow the other two research fields, but they fill their own role just as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hound of Ulster wrote:
I never suggested that Mutagenists are better than the other fields, nor was I making the inference that their self-healing alone is meant to define a build. It's just one of the main things that makes Mutagenists just as good as the other research fields while helping them fill their role as a self-sufficient jack of all trades due to the flexibility that mutagens offer. They don't overshadow the other two research fields, but they fill their own role just as well.

and what role DO they fill then? They aren't good in combat, their combat buffs (as a support) are worse than any other support, the only thing they have going for them is being able to give a +1-2 bonus (most of the time) to some skills for their allies but with severe drawbacks (and the allies can't end those drawbacks at will either).

i don't find that to be enough to justify a whole path. And it certainly isn't enhanced at all with self, out of combat healing.

That's why i said it's at most a side benefit, not impactful at all in class strength.

Rysky wrote:
shroudb wrote:

2)The whole discussion was promoted when I said:

It's nice but not something you can build upon and Rysky saying "no it is".
I took build in that case to mean improve on, not character defining or their sole thing.

well.. that's normal then? it is a feat, it should at least offer that, no?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Yeah?

(I don't what the debate is at this point)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:

1)A skill feat and skill increase is very much a viable comparison to a class feat.

2)The whole discussion was promoted when I said:
It's nice but not something you can build upon and Rysky saying "no it is".

Now all of you are agreeing with me, that it's nothing but a side bonus.

Actually, before Rysky's comment, Hound of Unser had stated:
Hound of Ulster wrote:
I don't understand why people think this Mutagenist change was mediocre or doesn't put them on par with the other Alchemist subclasses. Specializing in mutagens was already a good thing to begin with at later levels especially due to revivifying mutagen being that good. All they really needed was a level 1 feature that worked, which is what Mutagenic Flashback accomplishes. There are many standard scenarios in your average adventuring day where a free action instant mutagen would be useful, honestly.

to which Squiggle responded "what."

Noticing the way that Perpetual Mutagens interact with Revivifying Mutatgen, I jumped in with,

Gizmo the Enemy of Mankind wrote:
At level 7, the Mutagenist can make perpetual mutagens with the Perpetual Infusions ability. This means that a level 7 Mutagenist with the Revivifying Mutagen feat can heal themselves up to full HP after combat rather quickly by drinking bottomless mutagens. This is probably what Hound of Ulster was referring to.

explaining the additional out-of-combat benefits Hound of Unser picked up on.

Then you said

shroudb wrote:

That's 1d6 healing for 3 actions till level 17!

A simple medicine check, at that level, can heal 4 party members the equivalent of like 10 rounds of gulping Perpetual mutagens.

"I'm able to heal myself after combat" is not something one can build a character around.

Revivifying only use is ending mutagens so that you can drink a different one...

At which point Malk_Content crunched the numbers to demonstrate the secondary use as a simple out-of-combat healing method, to which you responded, among other statements "still, nothing to build around." to which Rysky responded "You can though?" and you responded,
shroudb wrote:

And once more:

"what does your character do? "
" he heals after combat"
"yes, but what does he do? "
"... He heals after combat"

Out of combat healing isn't a character concept.

It was at this point that you switched from "build around" to "character concept." As Rysky has reiterated, those don't mean the same thing. A mutagenist may build "around" Perpetual Mutagens by taking Revivifying Mutagen to augment out-of-combat healing in addition to the feat's ability to end mutagen effects early. Yes, it's as much of a "side bonus" or as "built around" as combining Ward Medic and Continual Recovery.

shroudb wrote:

[3)yes. your point being?

You already take more damage than anyone else. It's only natural to be able to mitigrate some of it.

Also, what's the point of the mutagenist if you're not under a Mutagen. That whole conversation is about mutagenist, the other 2 paths are irrelevant.

My point was that ending a single mutagen early (a mutagen which might expire soon or might have exhausted it's usefulness) in exchange for the rapid restoring of all of your HP after combat could be useful to some mutagenist builds. BUT, if you don't think it is useful for you because you have a teammate that went all out on their Medicine skill abilities, you don't have to take the Revivifying Mutagens feat. I suggested the other Research Fields because you don't seem to like the Mutagenist. Options are useful, and mutagenists can do more than just imbibe mutagens, they don't have to be under the affects of a mutagen all the time, but it's up to you the player and I just thought the community would be interested to know about the interaction between the Mutagenist's Perpetual Infusion abilities with the Revivifying Mutatgen feat.

If, however, you are posting out of dissatisfaction with the Mutagenist because you pictured it differently yourself, I think we'd be more interested in hearing what you would do differently, such as when you suggested that Revivifying Mutagen should heal 1d6 per item level. But at this point I think we've mined what we can out of the conversation and it has dominated the comments long enough.


As a sidenote I think it would be good for Mutagens to come with a Neutralizer. So that when the user wants it to end they can end it as an interact action.

So making 1 mutagen gives a mutagen and a neutralizer or antigen (one item effectively). This would help mutagens in the skill department at least. Possibly the Sniper department as well as a tangential thing. Just have them imbibe the mutagen and keep the antigen/neutralize in their mouth to crunch on when the effect ends. I guess like gum or a sweet tart

Not being able to end them is a real problem in general. Whether you're an alchemist or not. As other stated, somehow forcing a Big Guy In Armour to eat a Quicksilver Mutagen would actually be a solid debuff in more than a few cases.
(Though I don't think there are really rules for it)

secondary sidenote: Quick Alchemy'd ones would still work, assuming the base mutagen item was consumed within the timelimit. Since results of quick alchemy items persist if the item is used in time. (Alch fire/acidflask's persistence continues, flat foot does, smoke from smoke pellet/stick. Antidote/plague. poison effects).
So if consuming the mutagen the antigen would still be " a thing" at least. (Presumably something you kept in the mouth you drank it and crunch on when you want it done)

(though I still dont' know if Sunrod's "light version" is an after effect or not for quick alchemy... I've seen no comments on it. I hope so just because it'd be the only item that isn't valid otherwise)


I am confused about the Unarmed Strike proficiencies.

Taking the errata at face value I get this.Basically this is equivalent to making Unarmed Strikes always match the highest proficiency of any other weapon. But it seems odd to me that Clerics or Irori would only get advanced proficiency in Unarmed Strikes but Clerics of Shelyn would get advanced proficiency in both Glaives and Unarmed Strikes. It also seems odd that all Fighters would eventually get legendary proficiency in Unarmed Strikes whether their Chosen Weapon Group is Brawling or not.

So I believe that the correct proficiencies would look like this. Here, the Unarmed Strike proficiency scales with the simple weapon set for each class unless it is the Deity's Favored Weapon or is part of the Fighter's Chosen Weapon Group. I would love any clarification from Paizo as to whether either of these two versions is correct.


Quandary wrote:
graystone wrote:
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...
Even blindly accepting your climatic/latitudinal assumptions, I don't believe this is true: Even in regions with cold winter many berries ripen late, and can remain so on the plant thru the winter. These may not be the berries you are familiar with eating, but they do exist. I don't even believe poisonous berries are a problem, since they are "turned into a goodberry" thus losing normal properties. EDIT: Requiring "freshly picked (within 1 day)" instead of "ripe" might be preferrable wording for Paizo's purposes, but I don't believe the "4 months" rationale is as strong as you believe.

Winterberries still ripen in the fall and are poisonous and unpalatable to humanoids: most birds don't even touch them until they've frozen and thawed several times to soften then up and because there is no other thing to eat: hungry birds are about the only thing that eat them, that's why they last until winter on the plant.

So I'd quibble on the word "ripe" which means 'developed to the point of readiness for harvesting and eating' which those kind of berries never get 'ready for eating' for humans [at BEST you're asking for stomach cramps and intestinal issues]. Change it to just berry, and it'd be less of an issue IMO. Even then though, you'd still have late winter and spring before the berries develop and even the leftover winterberries have been eaten by birds.

The only way it isn't an issue is if we say that the pathfinder world has ripe and ready to eat plants 24/7, 365 days of the year no matter where in the world you are... If that's how it's meant to be, great, but I'd like that in writing so I can show it to the next Dm that thinks it's odd that I'm eating fresh, ripe berries in the desert in the winter.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

The middle ground between 'available at only small parts of the year' and 'I think its more than that' is not 'all year everywhere'


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
graystone wrote:
The only way it isn't an issue is if we say that the pathfinder world has ripe and ready to eat plants 24/7, 365 days of the year no matter where in the world you are... If that's how it's meant to be, great, but I'd like that in writing so I can show it to the next Dm that thinks it's odd that I'm eating fresh, ripe berries in the desert in the winter.

Yup. It's basically a change from "ask you DM if you can cast this spell" to "ask your DM if you can cast this spell".

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Any idea when we will be seeing the errata changes in the PDF?

101 to 150 of 209 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Paizo Blog: Core Rulebook Errata: Round 1 All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.