Core Rulebook Errata: Round 1

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

https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42tt7?Errata-Changes-to-the-PDF

Leahcim wrote:

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

https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42tt7?Errata-Changes-to-the-PDF

They said "in" the pdf, not "to" the pdf.

They said "in" the pdf, not "to" the pdf.

You can't make changes 'in' the PDF without also making changes 'to' the PDF.

And, conversely, you cannot make changes 'to' the PDF without making changes 'in' the PDF.

We should expect the PDF to have parity with the most recent printed edition of the book. To do it more frequently discourages people from buying the more expensive paper version, and creates a lot of work (which results in no additional revenue) for Paizo.

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

But is the spell balanced with the idea that it's going to be unavailable at times in the game? I'm curious how available berries are meant to be in game as a base assumption as it's a base ability for one of the druids branches. It can be either extreme or in the middle, I'd like to know what it is. If it just said 'berry', it could be a dried/preserved berry and it wouldn't be much of an issue then so it it's meant to be usable most times it'd be reasonable to ask "ripe" be removed.

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".

One is much more specific: it's the difference between 'can I find a longsword' and can I find a longsword made by a Chelaxian dwarf'. I'm just asking how hard is it meant to be [or NOT meant to be] to use the focus spell. If possible, I'd rather not have to specifically as if I can expect the spell to work as I already have way too many 'ask your DM' questions already. :P

Just let people find some berries unless there's some pressing or interesting reason why they otherwise couldn't. No need to overcomplicate it.

I mean, a leaf druid will have a leshy familiar. There's nothing saying that there aren't berries growing on your leshy familiar.

I mean, a leaf druid will have a leshy familiar. There's nothing saying that there aren't berries growing on your leshy familiar.

Cannibalism!

Just let people find some berries unless there's some pressing or interesting reason why they otherwise couldn't. No need to overcomplicate it.

I'm not the DM: as such, how can I say that?

I mean, a leaf druid will have a leshy familiar. There's nothing saying that there aren't berries growing on your leshy familiar.

And nothing says they DO [or that they ripen any different than normal berries if they exist]...

I'm not sure I understand why there is so much push back on asking the question of how available the target of a base focus spell was designed to be and if the current wording reflects that. It's all fine and good to wave it off if you're the DM or in a home game, but when you're moving from Dm to Dm it'll have a big impact. Now is the time to ask as they are already changing it to make it more 'user friendly'.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, a leaf druid will have a leshy familiar. There's nothing saying that there aren't berries growing on your leshy familiar.

Cannibalism!

Now I'm imagining a leshy druid, with a leshy familiar, munching on it when damaged...

A question, but now we need to change all mentions for Alchemist's Tools in Alchemist's Lab regarding to Craft?

Page 445: "Item bonuses are granted by some item that you are wearing or using, either mundane or magical. For example, armor gives you an item bonus to AC, while expanded alchemist’s tools grant you an item bonus to Crafting checks when making alchemical items."

Page 480: "Gather Information: You use Diplomacy to canvass the area to learn about a specific individual or topic (page 246). Identify Alchemy: You use Craft and alchemist’s tools".

long quote stuff

Real Talk. If you go into a game where a GM is going to nitpick about your ability to routinely find some berries, just don't play with them. We waste so much energy trying to solve for people who are borderline sociopaths with a power complex. Just don't play with them.

And, with respect, your particular situation is fairly uncommon. Ultimately, the best solution to these issues is to have an early conversation with the GM and find out where their limits are. It isn't practical or useful for the vast majority of situations to define explicitly what can easily be handled by a chat. I feel like you've said that you don't like the idea of having to show up to a new game/GM with N-pages of questions they need to check off for any given character concept, but that's what most of us have to do anyway. A bad GM will find a way to ruin your experience no matter what the rules say.

(Disclaimer: This doesn't really apply to PFS. That's why they have their own special rules.)

Saedar: Again, what do you have against my asking the question? If you don't think it's a valuable question, ignore it. I didn't ask for gaming advice, I asked how the DEV's expected this spell to be run and how often it was expected to be available: if they don't want to answer, that's cool. What I'd ask you not assume that a DM is a "bad" one because they read "ripe fruit" when the party goes into an area without them and thinks that's a problem: if the game assumes that the spell is generally available, what possible harm is there in them saying so?

So for "real talk", in the future, could you please limit replies to the actual post topics and if you find my situation odd, then just don't reply as it adds nothing to the debate other than to tell me I'm having 'badwrongfun' the way I play the game and that's not helpful. I'm curious on the DEV's thought, not so much those of someone that's clearly got a different way of playing the game than I, knows it and wants to tell me I'm doing it wrong... :P

ERRATA: Page 459: In the first bullet point under Knocked Out and Dying, change the sentence to “You immediately move your initiative position to directly before the turn in which you were reduced to 0 HP.”

I'm having trouble with "directly before the turn" phrase. Turns don't have an initiative position.

What is the intent here, and how do I implement this?

Also, I echo graystone's concern about "ripe" in the goodberry spell. Any druid worth his salt can find a berry where any vegetation grows, and/or harvest and dry hundreds (although this spell favors forest druids over desert druids...) Shouldn't the magic turn any kind of berry into a goodberry? Not worth a DM question "can I cast?" from a druid player, imho, unless that was the designers' intent.

Page 550: Under Method of Exposure, in the Injury section, change the first sentence to read “An injury poison is activated by applying it to a weapon or ammunition, and it affects the target of the first Strike made using the poisoned item.” This allows you to poison ammunition as well as weapons.

Shouldn't it be the "first *successful* Strike"? If a dagger stab misses, shouldn't it still be coated in poison? What is the thinking here? I understand ammunition is destroyed when launched, and thus poison is gone after the attempt. But poison is only useful for a single melee attempt?

Page 550: Under Method of Exposure, in the Injury section, change the first sentence to read “An injury poison is activated by applying it to a weapon or ammunition, and it affects the target of the first Strike made using the poisoned item.” This allows you to poison ammunition as well as weapons.

Shouldn't it be the "first *successful* Strike"? If a dagger stab misses, shouldn't it still be coated in poison? What is the thinking here? I understand ammunition is destroyed when launched, and thus poison is gone after the attempt. But poison is only useful for a single melee attempt?

When contemplating published errata, always do so while looking at the section being changed. (Not that you'll be the last person to make that mistake.) In this case, the subsequent sentences address your concern, especially the one I've bolded.

Injury: An injury poison is activated by applying it to a weapon, and it affects the target of the first Strike made using the poisoned weapon. An injury poison is activated by applying it to a weapon or ammunition, and it affects the target of the first Strike made using the poisoned item. If that Strike is a success and deals piercing or slashing damage, the target must attempt a saving throw against the poison. On a failed Strike, the target is unaffected, but the poison remains on the weapon and you can try again. On a critical failure, or if the Strike fails to deal slashing or piercing damage for some other reason, the poison is spent but the target is unaffected.

Admittedly "it affects the target of the first Strike made" could stand to drop "the target of" leaving "it affects the first Strike made...."

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, a leaf druid will have a leshy familiar. There's nothing saying that there aren't berries growing on your leshy familiar.

And nothing says they DO [or that they ripen any different than normal berries if they exist]...

I mean, if a wizard player can declare that their familiar is a bat or a cat or a toad or whatever idea the player likes and we think that's fine. I don't see a problem with a druid player saying "my familiar is a leaf leshy that's whatever Golarion calls a raspberry bush".

But a lot of Druid stuff is dependent on "what sort of things are around" and if the GM is wholly uncooperative, there's always the Plant Growth ritual I guess.

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"

Ugh, very bummed on my Redeemer Blade Ally now. =(

Sif the game assumes that the spell is generally available, what possible harm is there in them saying so?

Perhaps they don't want to give the assumption? Although it goes against what you want, Paizo seems determined to not curtail narratives with their answer. Therefore saying "its assumed you can get berries if you need them" has the potential for shutting down things like "difficult survival game."

One is much more specific: it's the difference between 'can I find a longsword' and can I find a longsword made by a Chelaxian dwarf'. I'm just asking how hard is it meant to be [or NOT meant to be] to use the focus spell. If possible, I'd rather not have to specifically as if I can expect the spell to work as I already have way too many 'ask your DM' questions already. :P

Yup. I won't (currently) play a druid because while my DMs are reasonable people, I can't anticipate when reasonable shuts off the character's major method of offering the party healing, because we're playing somewhere berries aren't readily available. They could have written this to create the berries, but twice they chose not to. It's clear (to me) Paizo intends GMs to have leverage over if druids are able to heal people.

Goodberry has always functioned like that though, hasn’t it?

Goodberry has always functioned like that though, hasn’t it?

Going from "freshly picked" to "ripe" certainly seems to make it less restrictive. Now you can just pick up a pint of berries at the local farmer's market rather than having to leave the city to find a berry bush.

Rysky wrote:

Goodberry has always functioned like that though, hasn’t it?

Going from "freshly picked" to "ripe" certainly seems to make it less restrictive. Now you can just pick up a pint of berries at the local farmer's market rather than having to leave the city to find a berry bush.

*double checks 3.5, P1, P2, and Errata Goodberry*

Oh wow, yeah, it’s less restrictive than it’s ever been.

I think what happened with goodberry is mostly that, as a focus spell, it's more important so people pay more attention to it.

I am surprised that they missed the oddity of bulk-less manacles.

I mean, a leaf druid will have a leshy familiar. There's nothing saying that there aren't berries growing on your leshy familiar.

Wildberry Princess Leshy!

*double checks 3.5, P1, P2, and Errata Goodberry*

Oh wow, yeah, it’s less restrictive than it’s ever been.

I. Am. Wrong.

I mean, not completely wrong, in the sense that the situation is no less crappy than it was, but wrong in terms of what I recalled 3.5e/PF1 goodberry to do. Also know as factually incorrect.

The issue (which remains) is that goodberry is now a staple. In 3.5e/PF1 it wasn't... likely due mostly to the 8 hit points per day limit. Is the PF2 version more powerful? Yes. Is it more useful? Yes. Is it - as written - situationally inaccessible? Yes.

That all said, I suspect most of us will be able to lean on "material component pouch". I suppose that since the verbiage is now "ripe" as opposed to "freshly picked", a material component pouch can now be considered a valid supply, and since that's abstracted in quantity, should handle the problem. I mentioned my DMs are reasonable folk, and I'm comfortable that they'd accept the pouch doing what it says it does.

So I guess I can play a druid. I'm not happy with the design and the hoops involved to make it not be a potential liability, but it's not as bad as it seemed to me. That's an improvement. I'll drop the topic now, leaving those crucial three words up top as my final ones.

ERRATA: Page 459: In the first bullet point under Knocked Out and Dying, change the sentence to “You immediately move your initiative position to directly before the turn in which you were reduced to 0 HP.”

I'm having trouble with "directly before the turn" phrase. Turns don't have an initiative position.

What is the intent here, and how do I implement this?

"Turn" here means "whoever is taking their turn", and the person whose turn it is definitely does have an initiative position.

Sliska Zafir wrote:

ERRATA: Page 459: In the first bullet point under Knocked Out and Dying, change the sentence to “You immediately move your initiative position to directly before the turn in which you were reduced to 0 HP.”

I'm having trouble with "directly before the turn" phrase. Turns don't have an initiative position.

What is the intent here, and how do I implement this?

"Turn" here means "whoever is taking their turn", and the person whose turn it is definitely does have an initiative position.

That's correct.

The errata is just clarifying what happens because the original wording allowed for strange things to happen if it were a reaction that reduced you to 0 HP. The new language keeps the intention of somebody having an opportunity to help before you make a recovery check and possibly die, while the original wording could have resulted in getting dropped by a reaction at such a time as your initiative being moved to "now" and having to make a recovery check immediately after.

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?

I interpret the backpack "containing the other items" as meaning that the "ignore 2 bulk" from the backpack has already been taken into account in the 1 bulk weight.

Ravingdork wrote:

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?

I interpret the backpack "containing the other items" as meaning that the "ignore 2 bulk" from the backpack has already been taken into account in the 1 bulk weight.

I have been corrected on this. The 1 bulk weight is before applying the "ignore 2 bulk" property. My apologies

Kottin24 wrote:

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

Your post is not especially clear to me, but in regards to hardcoded alignment traits as exemplified by some Devil BL focus spells:

Quote:

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.

My concerns are more for Blood Magic effects on options like Aberrant and Fey. Where there are little to no options to use the effects on allies even though they're written as such. Also the wording has lead many to believe that the target of your spell doesn't need to be the same as blood effect,due to weird ambiguity in the wording.

What ambiguity?

Blood Magic says you or the target.

What ambiguity?

Blood Magic says you or the target.

The ambiguity is the lies in that some use different wording than others some say THE target other just simply say you or A target. This has lead to a whole reddit thread where people are throughly convinced that the ones that say A target are free choice. Their logic is that the only place it says it has the be the target of the spell is in the AoE description under reading the bloodlines.

Also Aberrant doesn't have an option that would allow you to share their effect with an ally as all of their abilities are offensive. Fey isn't much better either. So why even include or the target for those bloodlines. Whole thing wreaks or overlook similar to Alchemist and Wizard 1st level feat.

Am I alone in thinking that the Mutagenicist change was a good and helpful one?

It seems like people are getting bent out of shape because the buff didn't bring them up to par with fighters of barbarians for DPR output... honestly, I think 1 extra free Mutagen use per day was a great upgrade over a feature that did literally nothing.

Alchemists aren't supposed to be DPR/blasting machines, they're a support utility class that has awesome buffs and have a great spread of Skills. Right? If you're not happy playing a support role you should not be appealing to buff a support class, you should be playing a different class.

Removed posts and replies. Longform posts or discussions about how to houserule around rules/errata would be best posted in the homebrew or perhaps advice forums and not in the blog post thread.

In situations where someone(s) wants to do a deep dive into one small part of the threads subject, it would be ideal to start a new thread and link it in the ongoing discuss to invite folks over to discuss it. That allows the original discussion to not be derailed by subject matter that veers off course or into one very niche topic.

Am I alone in thinking that the Mutagenicist change was a good and helpful one?

I also think it's a good change, but I hear the complaints that as is, the path lacks support.

Personally, I think once more Class Feats come online to support the Mutagenist (and Poisoner Class Feats are more present) it will slay the rest of the issues.

The one aspect I do see as a problem though is the Alchemist's MAD status.

Bomber gets MAD relief, Chirgeon gets MAD relief, but the Mutagenist gets absolutely no MAD relief.

Now they tried to be broad with Mutagenist, because theoretically the Int/Cha/etc. based Mutagens are meant to fit under this as well.

However, by sweeping broad, I feel that it's in a pretty under par spot in terms of satisfying concepts.

For instance, even the Mutagenist feat itself lends itself to that concept: "You're supposed to be using multiple mutagens", which since the ability gains value as more Mutagens are used is implied.

However, there's just not much incentives mechanically outside that. You deal less damage than a bomber. You heal less than a Chirgeon.

But the biggest issue Mutagenists have, is Drawbacks. There are no drawbacks to the other Alchemical options. Throwing a bomb does damage. Poisoning poisons. Elixirs of healing heal.

A juggernaut mutagen sort of comes off as a wash, and since you don't really have the capacity to compete in the other fields, kind of like you traded for not much gain by picking the Field of study.

***I have not tried to build a mutagenist. I have built the other two though, and felt they are not only okay but pretty decent (particularly I made the bulk work since they were NPCs and I'm the GM in this case).

Rysky wrote:

What ambiguity?

Blood Magic says you or the target.

The ambiguity is the lies in that some use different wording than others some say THE target other just simply say you or A target. This has lead to a whole reddit thread where people are throughly convinced that the ones that say A target are free choice. Their logic is that the only place it says it has the be the target of the spell is in the AoE description under reading the bloodlines.

Also Aberrant doesn't have an option that would allow you to share their effect with an ally as all of their abilities are offensive. Fey isn't much better either. So why even include or the target for those bloodlines. Whole thing wreaks or overlook similar to Alchemist and Wizard 1st level feat.

It doesn’t matter if it says “a” or “one” or “any”, target still requires the person to be a target, it doesn’t mean any person you can think of, it means the target of the spell.

For the people arguing this, just ask what is the range on this “A target”.

Kottin24 wrote:

Rysky wrote:

What ambiguity?

Blood Magic says you or the target.

The ambiguity is the lies in that some use different wording than others some say THE target other just simply say you or A target. This has lead to a whole reddit thread where people are throughly convinced that the ones that say A target are free choice. Their logic is that the only place it says it has the be the target of the spell is in the AoE description under reading the bloodlines.

Also Aberrant doesn't have an option that would allow you to share their effect with an ally as all of their abilities are offensive. Fey isn't much better either. So why even include or the target for those bloodlines. Whole thing wreaks or overlook similar to Alchemist and Wizard 1st level feat.

It doesn’t matter if it says “a” or “one” or “any”, target still requires the person to be a target, it doesn’t mean any person you can think of, it means the target of the spell.

For the people arguing this, just ask what is the range on this “A target”.

For the record, I 100% agree with that interpretation.