Core Rulebook Errata: Round 1

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.

@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.

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.

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

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.

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.

i want to know if from the errata The lesser elixir of life is a 3rd-level item that a 1st-level character can’t create or a 5th level item in the rule book since the errata says its a 3rd lvl but only for that part of the update so i am confused

i want to know if from the errata The lesser elixir of life is a 3rd-level item that a 1st-level character can’t create or a 5th level item in the rule book since the errata says its a 3rd lvl but only for that part of the update so i am confused

It should have said "Minor Elixir of Life", the level 1 version.

that part i understood but it was after it that it said lesser was a 3rd lvl item

that part i understood but it was after it that it said lesser was a 3rd lvl item

I think they need an Errata for the Errata, because in the book, Lesser EoL is a level 5 item, not 3. They are trying to explain the change they made, but it should read "The Lesser Elixir of Life is a level 5 item that a 1st level character can't create". Which brings up an interesting rules question: I thought the "Level" notation was simply to help GMs figure out what is a fair treasure reward and doesn't deny lower level characters from using or even creating the item if they have the formula. In fact, they even talk about placing higher level treasures as found loot on pg 510. They talk about crafting higher level items on pg 535, and there it just says "Unless stated otherwise, crafting an item of 9th level or above requires a master proficiency rank in Crafting, and items of 16th level or higher require legendary Crafting." So by those rules, a 1st level character COULD craft a level 5 item if he has the formula. So really, that entire "explanation line" should be cut, or changed to "The Lesser EoL is a level 5 item that a 1st level character should not yet have access to".

Deathe25 wrote:

that part i understood but it was after it that it said lesser was a 3rd lvl item

I think they need an Errata for the Errata, because in the book, Lesser EoL is a level 5 item, not 3. They are trying to explain the change they made, but it should read "The Lesser Elixir of Life is a level 5 item that a 1st level character can't create". Which brings up an interesting rules question: I thought the "Level" notation was simply to help GMs figure out what is a fair treasure reward and doesn't deny lower level characters from using or even creating the item if they have the formula. In fact, they even talk about placing higher level treasures as found loot on pg 510. They talk about crafting higher level items on pg 535, and there it just says "Unless stated otherwise, crafting an item of 9th level or above requires a master proficiency rank in Crafting, and items of 16th level or higher require legendary Crafting." So by those rules, a 1st level character COULD craft a level 5 item if he has the formula. So really, that entire "explanation line" should be cut, or changed to "The Lesser EoL is a level 5 item that a 1st level character should not yet have access to".

CRAFT

DOWNTIME MANIPULATE
You can make an item from raw materials. You need the
Alchemical Crafting skill feat to create alchemical items, the
Magical Crafting skill feat to create magic items, and the Snare
Crafting feat to create snares.
To Craft an item, you must meet the following requirements:
• The item is your level or lower. An item that doesn’t list
a level is level 0. If the item is 9th level or higher, you
must be a master in Crafting, and if it’s 16th or higher,
you must be legendary.

*giggles*

Is there any ETA on the next set of Erratas already?

Speaking of potion crafting: a clarification on how batches are handled is needed.

The book says "work on up to four potions with the same check," but does that mean that if a character gets a crit/success on the crafting check do they reduce the final cost by X (see downtime table) per potion or per batch?

If it is per potion, then potion brewing is very cost effective (earning the player four times the money of standard downtime income!) whereas if it is per batch, potion brewing (and batch crafting in general) makes no sense (it takes about four times as long to brew 4 potions than it does to brew one).

Why is it "Legendary Negotiation" rather than "Legendary Negotiator?" (p256 and p263). The others are Legendary Performers etc.

Rysky wrote:

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

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

Goodberry now replaces any need for a cleric, goodberry (1d6+4)is more powerful that heal spell (1d8), and the druid can refocus and cast it every 10 minutes. So at first level a druid can heal for 240-480 hit points in an 8 hour shift.

Rysky wrote:

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

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

Goodberry now replaces any need for a cleric, goodberry (1d6+4)is more powerful that heal spell (1d8), and the druid can refocus and cast it every 10 minutes. So at first level a druid can heal for 240-480 hit points in an 8 hour shift.

Heal is 1d8+8 per spell level if you cast it using two actions, or 1d8 per spell level per party member if you cast it with three. An expert in medicine can also restore 2d8+10 hp per 10 minutes to two people at once. Out of combat healing isn't a big deal, and Goodberry is worse than Heal as a combat spell.

You're also responding to a post from over a year ago.

Maybe he's new here. Or never noticed this thread before. I know I tend not to notice new threads in many forums here, because I'm always "focused" on the stuff I've already read.

He necro'd two threads on Goodberry yesterday; his only two posts ever. Makes me think he just came across them from a Google search and isn't aware how Forums work.

Either way, noncombat healing from magic is almost irrelevant in PF2e.