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
201 to 209 of 209 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Sczarni

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

A PC untrained in Crafting wants to upgrade their +1 weapon to a +1 striking weapon.

A +1 weapon is 35gp.
A striking rune is 65gp.
A +1 striking weapon is 100gp.

Is upgrading as simple as paying the difference (65gp, in this case), or are there other costs or requirements necessary for upgrading?

The two sides of this debate are, basically, either "Just pay the difference; nothing else required" or "There are other requirements for upgrading, including any combination of 1) hiring and paying an NPC, 2) purchasing formulae and tools, 3) waiting X number of days, and even 4) it is only possible to upgrade via Crafting".

Here are just four of the most recent arguments about this:

Thread #1
Thread #2
Thread #3
Thread #4

This needs an answer soon, as there are a lot of Pathfinder Society members arguing this one way or the other, and either way it's ruled there will be characters that need fixing.

Silver Crusade

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

@Kottin24

Or it’s simply future proofing for when alternate abilities are added.

There’s not an issue (aside from Fey and Abberant not having any or few buff spells atm, but again, future proofing).

Reaching that since there’s no reason to buff the target so instead of buffing yourself target must mean anything is just a nonsensical stance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kottin24 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
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.

The problem arose based on how bad Aberrant and Fey blood magic effects were because they're buff effects that say you can use them on target or self, but in the case of Aberrant ,and basically the same for Fey, there just is no option to use in such a way on anyone but self. So rather than believe that Paizo simply overlooked these, they started grasping for straws to fix these half balanced effects. Also there is no line that specifically says it's always target.
It would just be nice to hear that this a problem that is even being acknowledged.

For me the target it refers is the target of the blood magic effect.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Demonknight wrote:
Kottin24 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
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.

The problem arose based on how bad Aberrant and Fey blood magic effects were because they're buff effects that say you can use them on target or self, but in the case of Aberrant ,and basically the same for Fey, there just is no option to use in such a way on anyone but self. So rather than believe that Paizo simply overlooked these, they started grasping for straws to fix these half balanced effects. Also there is no line that specifically says it's always target.
It would just be nice to hear that this a problem that is even being acknowledged.

For me the target it refers is the target of the blood magic effect.

This was my thought as well. Seems to me folks are making a mountain out of a mole hill.


Thank you for this. Time to go through it.


I was watching the Errata video & Lyz mentioned informing her about anything that needs to be changed. I don't remember what she said WHERE to post it, but if anyone has a link, I'd appreciate it.

But anyway, on the top of page 75, under Perpetual Infusions for the Mutagenist there is a mention of "Lesser Bullheaded Mutagen." Unfortunately, there is no mention of this mutagen in chapter 11. There is "Serene Mutagen" that is not mentioned on page 75, but is in chapter 11, so I assume they are the same thing.


OK, if you have an issue that isn't 100% clear and probably needs discussion,
if you just post a new thread in "Rules Discussion" the community can help clarify it and Paizo Devs will be able to see it.

If it doesn't need much discussion but is just a clear Errata issue, there is now a new thread for CRB Errata reporting (also in Rules Discussion forum):
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42tpd?CRB-Typos-Mistakes-Etc-Post-Errata-10

I started a thread for Lost Omens Character Guide Errata reporting, which is in Campaign Setting / Lost Omens Products / :
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42tz9?Lost-Omens-Character-Guide-Errata-thread


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Goodberry wrote:
A creature can eat the goodberry with an Interact action to regain 1d6+4 Hit Points.

Is the new Goodberry supposed to be able to heal constructs and undead? It used to have the word 'living' before creature, so I'm wondering if that was removed intentionally or just left off on accident. It feels pretty weird for natural magic to be healing the undead, but really strange to be able to heal things like constructs.


thewastedwalrus wrote:
Goodberry wrote:
A creature can eat the goodberry with an Interact action to regain 1d6+4 Hit Points.
Is the new Goodberry supposed to be able to heal constructs and undead? It used to have the word 'living' before creature, so I'm wondering if that was removed intentionally or just left off on accident. It feels pretty weird for natural magic to be healing the undead, but really strange to be able to heal things like constructs.

Well you can probably nix construct arguments because they can't really eat. Even one with a working mouth doesn't really have a digestive track.

201 to 209 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.