RSS Facebook Twitter Email
Community / Paizo Blog
​

Core Rulebook 2nd Printing Errata

Monday, November 9, 2020

With the Pathfinder Core Rulebook 2nd printing beginning to arrive, we’ve published a list of errata found by Paizo staff and fans alike. Many thanks to those of you from paizo.com and other fan communities who helped find potential errata. While there’s a variety of small improvements, here’s a list of five of the changes that appear in the errata that had the most scope. Some of these were also present in the first set of errata:

  • All classes increase their unarmed attack proficiency along with their weapons.
  • Alchemists gain a scaling item DC without taking a feat and can make more of their field specialty items at 1st level, instead of 5th. They all gain medium armor proficiency in addition to unarmored and light armor.
  • We simplified how you carry items into held, worn, and stowed items, making it easier to determine where you can find each of your items without needing to go nitty gritty and buy every bandolier, pouch, and pocket to contain them.
  • We lowered the Bulk of several items and separated out the alchemist’s kit, which is for travel, from the alchemist’s lab, which is very heavy. These changes make it easier to carry your important tools on the go.
  • We clarified Sustained spells to make it clear whether you could Sustain them multiple times in the same turn and get a benefit.

We hope these errata make the game even easier and more fun to play and run. Thanks to all the editors and playtesters for the Core Rulebook for helping us put out a product with relatively few errors despite how massive it is. While of course, no book is ever perfect and more errata may come down the line, we’re expecting that there won’t be any future updates of this size.

Mark Seifter
Design Manager

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Errata Pathfinder Pathfinder Second Edition
Search Thread

Search this Thread:

51 to 100 of 521 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Big thanks to Paizo for getting this errata done! Looking forward to playing with these improvements.

EDIT: Hmm, well unfortunately this makes it difficult to view the errata. Is this an extension of the main page error that's been around for a few weeks?

EDIT2: Here's the console errors if that's helpful.
10 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
Spiritual Weapon no longer has the attack trait, making it pretty dang strong IMO, but also several other spells lost the trait

Spiritual Weapon itself doesn't have the Attack trait, but the text makes it clear that the Strikes you make with it are still affected by and contribute to MAP.

23 people marked this as a favorite.
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:


Lightdroplet wrote:
I like the bandoliers and other containers getting abstracted away into worn items. Although, am I missing something or is there nothing preventing a character from declaring every single of their items is worn? There's the 2 Bulk limit on worn tools, but nothing on other worn items.

Yeah, this feels a bit... loose?

To the point where I might have to houserule something just so it doesn't become a point of contention with some of my players.

GM: You can't wear an infinite number of worn items!

PC: Have you ever seen a Wayne Reynolds iconic illustration?

GM: You win.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Staffan Johansson wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:
Spiritual Weapon no longer has the attack trait, making it pretty dang strong IMO, but also several other spells lost the trait

Spiritual Weapon itself doesn't have the Attack trait, but the text makes it clear that the Strikes you make with it are still affected by and contribute to MAP.

Yeah, the only real change is that this means the free attack you get when you cast the spell isn't at -5, which isn't even how most people I saw run it anyways because it doesn't really make sense.

Staffan Johansson wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:
Spiritual Weapon no longer has the attack trait, making it pretty dang strong IMO, but also several other spells lost the trait

Spiritual Weapon itself doesn't have the Attack trait, but the text makes it clear that the Strikes you make with it are still affected by and contribute to MAP.

That makes way more sense, just didn’t have the spell in front of me. It’s weird to have listed it with a bunch of other spells where that change actually matters (like force bolt and chill touch for instance).

1 person marked this as a favorite.
PlantThings wrote:
Quote:
Page 373: In spiritual weapon, you might not have a deity, particularly if you're an occult caster, so change it to manifest a "a club, a dagger, or your deity's favored weapon."
This is neat for Spiritual Weapon on top of losing the attack trait. It's not mentioned directly, but I'm sure this means the deity requirement is removed as well.

It is.

The game is still fairly hostile to neutral or non-theist divine casters when it comes to blasting spells, but at least Spiritual Weapon is fair game.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Am I missing something or does the 2nd printing pdf NOT include medium armor proficiency upgrades for alchemists at 13th and 19th level? The new errata indicates that medium armor should go to expert / master at 13th / 19th level, but the PDF only mentions light armor and unarmed defense.

Have you redownload it because I did and mine does.
Silver Crusade
1 person marked this as a favorite.
CrystalSeas wrote:
Ryan Heck | Aqualith Media wrote:
Awesome! Here's hoping for a Pocket Edition in the near future!

PF2 CRB Pocket Edition

Listed for early December release

Excellent news!

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Midnightoker wrote:

There’s some other stuff I’m still processing, but this is confusing to me and seems to have interesting ramifications:

Quote:
Page 446: Attack Rolls. There was some confusion as to whether skill checks with the attack trait (such as Grapple or Trip) are also attack rolls at the same time. They are not. To make this clear, add this sentence to the beginning of the definition of attack roll "When you use a Strike action or make a spell attack, you attempt a check called an attack roll."
So now finesse weapons with trip can’t use Dex for athletics? Weird.

Basically. It also means that grapple/trip/disarm/etc. bypass things like Mirror Image. Maybe.

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Creative Burst wrote:
Have you redownload it because I did and mine does.

Yep - I redownloaded the pdf. I'm looking at a pdf with "2nd printing" in its filename. I'm seeing on page 288 there is no mention of an item called "bandolier," which makes me believe I'm looking at the updated pdf. And then on pages 75 and 76, I'm seeing armor mastery / expertise class features that only name light armor and unarmored defense, with no mention of medium armor. The list of class features on page 72 also only mentions light armor proficiency increases at 13th and 19th levels.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Huh, sacks are now pointless unless you want to hand over a large number of items in one action.

So many weird interactions. Have to wonder why backpacks have a 4 bulk limit at all now outside of maybe oversight.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
LarsC wrote:
Creative Burst wrote:
Have you redownload it because I did and mine does.
Yep - I redownloaded the pdf. I'm looking at a pdf with "2nd printing" in its filename. I'm seeing on page 288 there is no mention of an item called "bandolier," which makes me believe I'm looking at the updated pdf. And then on pages 75 and 76, I'm seeing armor mastery / expertise class features that only name light armor and unarmored defense, with no mention of medium armor. The list of class features on page 72 also only mentions light armor proficiency increases at 13th and 19th levels.

Look on page 71 and yea the proficiency increases are not there.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:

There’s some other stuff I’m still processing, but this is confusing to me and seems to have interesting ramifications:

Quote:
Page 446: Attack Rolls. There was some confusion as to whether skill checks with the attack trait (such as Grapple or Trip) are also attack rolls at the same time. They are not. To make this clear, add this sentence to the beginning of the definition of attack roll "When you use a Strike action or make a spell attack, you attempt a check called an attack roll."
So now finesse weapons with trip can’t use Dex for athletics? Weird.
Basically. It also means that grapple/trip/disarm/etc. bypass things like Mirror Image. Maybe.

Maybe this solves the battleform issue too, since attacks no longer means battleforms can’t use athletics actions now...

But I feel like this is one of those changes that radically changes some fundamentals in a lot of places for weird reasons. Why wouldn’t actions with the attack trait that target people be expected to be attack rolls?

Just a weird way to handle what could probably just been a few specific lines added to other sections instead of blanket removal that leaves us wondering about all the changes interactions.
LarsC wrote:
Creative Burst wrote:
Have you redownload it because I did and mine does.
Yep - I redownloaded the pdf. I'm looking at a pdf with "2nd printing" in its filename. I'm seeing on page 288 there is no mention of an item called "bandolier," which makes me believe I'm looking at the updated pdf. And then on pages 75 and 76, I'm seeing armor mastery / expertise class features that only name light armor and unarmored defense, with no mention of medium armor. The list of class features on page 72 also only mentions light armor proficiency increases at 13th and 19th levels.

Same, mine grants medium proficiency at level 1, but doesn't advance it at level 13 and level 19.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Since Grapple isn't an attack roll, it reads that it doesn't suffer from Multiple Attack Penalty (but does contribute). Is this the intended functionality?
2 people marked this as a favorite.

To help out those confused with the DEX athletics issue, I've figured it out and have a few helpful pointers:

-Athletics actions are attacks, they accrue MAP, but they're not Attack Rolls.
-Anything that specifies attack rolls only does not apply to athletics rolls. That includes things like inspire courage, Finesse, and bless.

So yes, as stated before, DEX athletics options are NOTABLY less appealing. Poor whip...

Also, note the wording on Multiple Attack Penalty

P.446
You take this penalty on all attacks after the first on your
turn. This is a –5 penalty on your second attack and –10 on all subsequent attacks
(or –4 and –8 if your weapon or unarmed attack has the agile trait).

It states attacks, not just attack rolls, which includes athletics actions.
2 people marked this as a favorite.

I also found this gem that's not on the errata page:
"While in Mountain Stance, you gain a +4 item bonus to AC and a +2 circumstance bonus to any defenses against being Shoved or Tripped. You have a Dexterity modifier cap to your AC of +0, meaning you don’t add your Dexterity to your AC, and your Speeds are all reduced by 5 feet. The item bonus to AC from Mountain Stance is cumulative with armor potency runes on your explorer’s clothing, mage armor, and bracers of armor."

This clears up various weird interactions when combining Mountain Stance with battle forms and such.

Yeah, they apparently changed it in this errata bundle - MAP was previously written as only affecting attack rolls. My bad on the misinterpretation - in my defense, I think this is a very non-intuitive change given how many weapons with trip or grapple have finesse, and I can't actually access the written rules due to paizo 500s.
TheWulfie wrote:

To help out those confused with the DEX athletics issue, I've figured it out and have a few helpful pointers:

-Athletics actions are attacks, they accrue MAP, but they're not Attack Rolls.
-Anything that specifies attack rolls only does not apply to athletics rolls. That includes things like inspire courage, Finesse, and bless.

So yes, as stated before, DEX athletics options are NOTABLY less appealing. Poor whip...

Also, note the wording on Multiple Attack Penalty

P.446
You take this penalty on all attacks after the first on your
turn. This is a –5 penalty on your second attack and –10 on all subsequent attacks
(or –4 and –8 if your weapon or unarmed attack has the agile trait).

It states attacks, not just attack rolls, which includes athletics actions.

It doesn't appear that they listed that change to the wording of MAP in the FAQ? The entry on Nethys specifies attack roll specifically for 446, I'd have to dig out my physical book to compare: https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=322

By that wording, several actions would no longer suffer from MAP even though they contribute to it, which is a significant benefit to several feats. And almost certainly not intended.
Midnightoker wrote:
Quote:
Page 446: Attack Rolls. There was some confusion as to whether skill checks with the attack trait (such as Grapple or Trip) are also attack rolls at the same time. They are not. To make this clear, add this sentence to the beginning of the definition of attack roll "When you use a Strike action or make a spell attack, you attempt a check called an attack roll."
So now finesse weapons with trip can’t use Dex for athletics? Weird.

I always read it as such. That's why I suggested that Dex to Athletics feat for your Drifter homebrew, so that they could use their whip maneuvers effectively.

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

It looks like the armor proficiency increases for alchemist at 13 and 19 were accidentally not updated, so alchemist never gets past Trained in medium armor in the updated PDF. Hopefully that is still on the list to change in the text when things get compiled for the next printing.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:
Quote:
Page 446: Attack Rolls. There was some confusion as to whether skill checks with the attack trait (such as Grapple or Trip) are also attack rolls at the same time. They are not. To make this clear, add this sentence to the beginning of the definition of attack roll "When you use a Strike action or make a spell attack, you attempt a check called an attack roll."
So now finesse weapons with trip can’t use Dex for athletics? Weird.
I always read it as such. That's why I suggested that Dex to Athletics feat for your Drifter homebrew, so that they could use their whip maneuvers effectively.

The feat does far more than that though, it allows you to use Dex period with multiple maneuvers.

Only being able to use Dex for Weapons that have both the finesse and trip traits is a much different ball game. In the Playtest, Stephen McFarlane even stated explicitly that whips could use Dex for trip attempts and it was generally assumed that Disarm with Rapiers were a similar story.

Tbh, it makes little sense to me to make these changes for those weapons and it seems like they are honestly collateral to deal with the slew of other issues (battleforms can’t use them).

Edit: dex based stances with the trait will be effected too, so Wolf Stance Dex builds are taking a hit.
4 people marked this as a favorite.
Dubious Scholar wrote:
TheWulfie wrote:

To help out those confused with the DEX athletics issue, I've figured it out and have a few helpful pointers:

-Athletics actions are attacks, they accrue MAP, but they're not Attack Rolls.
-Anything that specifies attack rolls only does not apply to athletics rolls. That includes things like inspire courage, Finesse, and bless.

So yes, as stated before, DEX athletics options are NOTABLY less appealing. Poor whip...

Also, note the wording on Multiple Attack Penalty

P.446
You take this penalty on all attacks after the first on your
turn. This is a –5 penalty on your second attack and –10 on all subsequent attacks
(or –4 and –8 if your weapon or unarmed attack has the agile trait).

It states attacks, not just attack rolls, which includes athletics actions.

It doesn't appear that they listed that change to the wording of MAP in the FAQ? The entry on Nethys specifies attack roll specifically for 446, I'd have to dig out my physical book to compare: https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=322

By that wording, several actions would no longer suffer from MAP even though they contribute to it, which is a significant benefit to several feats. And almost certainly not intended.

Archives of Nethys haven't updated their errata yet. However, it actually seems that multiple instances of the attack trait contradict one another. In the glossary for the 2nd printing, both Attack(trait) and multiple attack penalty only ever specify the word "attack". However, on Page 446 it specifies that the rolls are attack rolls, yet Athletics actions contribute to the MAP (But supposedly don't suffer from them?)

This Errata has raised more questions than it has given answers.

+1 to the Alchemist's errata not being applied.

There's a lot of really good changes! But I am confused about there not being an upper limit on the amount of Worn items on a person. Plus, there's no way I can easily convert back the money my players spent on the container items. So I'm scratching my head over this.

Overall though, I'm really happy! Alchemists are a LOT better off than before!
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
TheWulfie wrote:

To help out those confused with the DEX athletics issue, I've figured it out and have a few helpful pointers:

-Athletics actions are attacks, they accrue MAP, but they're not Attack Rolls.
-Anything that specifies attack rolls only does not apply to athletics rolls. That includes things like inspire courage, Finesse, and bless.

So yes, as stated before, DEX athletics options are NOTABLY less appealing. Poor whip...

I think another big thing, and I apologize if others have already said this, is that +1/+2/+3 runes on weapons seem to not give you bonuses to non-strike attack actions (such as from shove / trip / grapple / disarm weapon traits), since those magic weapon bonuses only apply to attack rolls.

EDIT - this is incorrect, since those actions granted by weapon traits specifically call out item bonuses. Sorry for creating confusion, and thanks to TheWulfie for the correction.
Grand Lodge
errata wrote:
Page 278: In critical hits, "When you make an attack and roll a natural 20...or if the result of your attack exceeds the target's AC by 10" was too broad a brush and thus slightly inaccurate for how to determine a critical hit, in an attempt to state the conditions succinctly. Replace the first section with "When you make an attack and succeed with a natural 20" so that it's clear the natural 20 must succeed based on the total result in order to get a critical success.

So, a natural 20 is not a crit anymore? It has to beat the AC or DC by 10 now?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:


Maybe this solves the battleform issue too, since attacks no longer means battleforms can’t use athletics actions now...

But I feel like this is one of those changes that radically changes some fundamentals in a lot of places for weird reasons. Why wouldn’t actions with the attack trait that target people be expected to be attack rolls?

Just a weird way to handle what could probably just been a few specific lines added to other sections instead of blanket removal that leaves us wondering about all the changes interactions.

I don't think it does solve the isse with Battle Forms not being able to grapple or escape. The Battle form text uses the term "attack". It says nothing about attack rolls or attack traits.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
LarsC wrote:
TheWulfie wrote:

To help out those confused with the DEX athletics issue, I've figured it out and have a few helpful pointers:

-Athletics actions are attacks, they accrue MAP, but they're not Attack Rolls.
-Anything that specifies attack rolls only does not apply to athletics rolls. That includes things like inspire courage, Finesse, and bless.

So yes, as stated before, DEX athletics options are NOTABLY less appealing. Poor whip...

I think another big thing, and I apologize if others have already said this, is that +1/+2/+3 runes on weapons seem to not give you bonuses to non-strike attack actions (such as from shove / trip / grapple / disarm weapon traits), since those magic weapon bonuses only apply to attack rolls.

Thankfully the athletics traits for weapons specify that you apply item bonuses that you would gain for attack rolls onto the athletics checks.

Midnightoker wrote:
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:
Quote:
Page 446: Attack Rolls. There was some confusion as to whether skill checks with the attack trait (such as Grapple or Trip) are also attack rolls at the same time. They are not. To make this clear, add this sentence to the beginning of the definition of attack roll "When you use a Strike action or make a spell attack, you attempt a check called an attack roll."
So now finesse weapons with trip can’t use Dex for athletics? Weird.
I always read it as such. That's why I suggested that Dex to Athletics feat for your Drifter homebrew, so that they could use their whip maneuvers effectively.
The feat does far more than that though, it allows you to use Dex period with multiple maneuvers.

Sure, but that was your idea. This was me:

AnimatedPaper wrote:
One further suggestion: a feat that allows you to use Dex for Athletics checks you make through a finesse weapon. I'm not sure if one already exists, but if not the Pacifist tack could use it.

I'm not arguing one way or another if this was a good or needed change, just that I had assumed it already worked that way. Probably helped that I mostly didn't participate in the playtest and only tuned back into PF2 once the final rules were released.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So Grapple not being an attack roll anymore means that it does not suffer MAP on the roll, but would increase it for the next action?
2 people marked this as a favorite.
Frames Janco wrote:
So Grapple not being an attack roll anymore means that it does not suffer MAP on the roll, but would increase it for the next action?

If that’s how it reads maneuvers just became god tier third actions and feats like combat grab were nerfed a lot by proxy so I have to assume that’s not the case.

Gortle wrote:

I don't think it does solve the isse with Battle Forms not being able to grapple or escape. The Battle form text uses the term "attack". It says nothing about attack rolls or attack traits.

Then I’m really struggling to understand why this change was even made at all. It’s only created questions.

Was there a change to battleform not mentioned like the MAP change?
4 people marked this as a favorite.
roll4initiative wrote:
errata wrote:
Page 278: In critical hits, "When you make an attack and roll a natural 20...or if the result of your attack exceeds the target's AC by 10" was too broad a brush and thus slightly inaccurate for how to determine a critical hit, in an attempt to state the conditions succinctly. Replace the first section with "When you make an attack and succeed with a natural 20" so that it's clear the natural 20 must succeed based on the total result in order to get a critical success.
So, a natural 20 is not a crit anymore? It has to beat the AC or DC by 10 now?

I think it's just clarifying a natural 20 isn't always a critical hit, as is the rule. It would have needed to be a success for the natural 20 to turn it into a crit. If you were to fail with a roll of a 20, it would still upgrade to a success, but not a critical success.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
roll4initiative wrote:
errata wrote:
Page 278: In critical hits, "When you make an attack and roll a natural 20...or if the result of your attack exceeds the target's AC by 10" was too broad a brush and thus slightly inaccurate for how to determine a critical hit, in an attempt to state the conditions succinctly. Replace the first section with "When you make an attack and succeed with a natural 20" so that it's clear the natural 20 must succeed based on the total result in order to get a critical success.
So, a natural 20 is not a crit anymore? It has to beat the AC or DC by 10 now?

A natural 20 increases your success level by one step. If you roll a 20 and the roll would have been a success, it becomes a critical success. If you roll a 20 and the roll would have been a failure, it becomes a regular success — rare, but it can happen with things like third attacks. And should you find yourself doing something so ridiculously difficult that you would normally critically fail on a 20, you instead get a regular failure, and you should probably try doing something else.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
roll4initiative wrote:
errata wrote:
Page 278: In critical hits, "When you make an attack and roll a natural 20...or if the result of your attack exceeds the target's AC by 10" was too broad a brush and thus slightly inaccurate for how to determine a critical hit, in an attempt to state the conditions succinctly. Replace the first section with "When you make an attack and succeed with a natural 20" so that it's clear the natural 20 must succeed based on the total result in order to get a critical success.
So, a natural 20 is not a crit anymore? It has to beat the AC or DC by 10 now?

Attack rolls critically succeed with either a natural 20 that is a high enough number to be a success or a total 10 higher than the target. The same as every other check. The same way they've always worked. This is not a change, just a clarification.

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Went through the previous document and this new one and found all of the new changes. Anything bolded is what's changed for similarly-worded bullet points (and apologies for not italicizing the spells).

New Changes:
* Page 52 and 59: Halfling and Orc Weapon Familiarity has the wrong language for how to treat weapons with the halfling or orc trait; all ancestries with Weapon Familiarity should only treat the weapons as a different category for the purpose of determining proficiency. Change the final sentence to "For the purpose of determining your proficiency, martial halfling/orc weapons are simple weapons and advanced halfling/orc weapons are martial weapons."

*Page 85: In the barbarian's greater juggernaut class feature, change the last sentence to read “When you roll a failure on a Fortitude save against an effect that deals damage, you halve the damage you take.” This removes confusion about how to handle critical failures on saves against damaging effects.

*Page 103: Remove the Requirement in the bard's Effortless Concentration to match all the other Effortless Concentration feats.

*Page 112: Add tenets of good to the Prerequisites of Smite Evil. We accidentally omitted it.

*Page 113: Blade of Justice should not be limited to paladins only. Remove the paladin prerequisite from Blade of Justice, and the last sentence becomes "Whether or not the target is evil, you can convert all the physical damage from the attack into good damage, and if you are a paladin, the Strike applies all effects that normally apply on a Retributive Strike (such as divine smite)."

*Page 121: Deadly Simplicity had a benefit for unarmed attack favored weapons, but such clerics did not actually qualify. Change the prerequisites to add unarmed attacks.

*Several classes were accidentally missing an important limitation for 10th level spells. In the following class features, add “You can’t use this spell slot for abilities that let you cast spells without expending spell slots or that give you more spell slots.”
Page 121: Miraculous Spell
Page 133: Primal Hierophant
Page 207: Archwizard's Spellcraft

*Page 125: Emblazon Antimagic has the wrong counteract level. Change it to "your counteract level is equal to half your level, rounded up"

*Page 129: Druid mistakenly was trained in a class DC, when it shouldn't have a class DC. Remove it.

*Page 138: In Plant Shape, the level of the plant form spell if you don't have Wild Shape wasn't clear. It should say it's " heightened to the same level as your highest druid spell slot"

*Page 139: Hierophant's Power wasn't supposed to have the prerequisite of legendary in Nature; it's a holdover from the playtest. Remove the prerequisite.

*Page 145: The adjustment to the Aid reaction after the playtest caused Assisting Shot not to do anything. Replace it with this version.
Assisting Shot [one-action] Feat 2
Fighter, Press
Requirements You are wielding a ranged weapon. With a quick shot, you interfere with a foe in combat. Make a Strike with a ranged weapon. If the strike hits, the next creature other than you to attack the same target before the start of your next turn gains a +1 circumstance bonus on their roll, or a +2 circumstance bonus if your Strike was a critical hit.

*Page 152: Determination has the wrong counteract level. Change it to "your counteract level is equal to half your level, rounded up"

*Page 163: Sleeper Hold shouldn't have the attack trait, meaning it doesn't apply or increase your multiple attack penalty.

*Page 165: Master of Many Styles lists "Your turn begins" as a requirement, but it should be a trigger. Change it to a trigger.

*Page 177: In order to make it completely clear how the Manifold Edge feat works, change the second sentence to read "When you use Hunt Prey, you can gain a hunter’s edge benefit other than the one you selected at 1st level." With the previous wording, a few people thought you gained both benefits, rather than a substitution.

*Page 188: Blank Slate, like a few other entries, was still erroneously running on a level 1 to 20 scale for counteract levels. Replace "counteract level of 20" with "counteract level of 10."

*189: Dispelling Slice should use the default counteract level of "half your level (rounded up)", in the final sentence.

*Page 205: In Drain Bonded Item, remove the unnecessary Requirement of "Your turn begins."

*Page 217: Familiars' level wasn't explicit. Add "A familiar has the same level you do." The description of familiars didn't define any Strikes but also wasn't explicit that they couldn't make them. Add "It can't make Strikes" to the beginning of the third sentence.

*Page 233: Clarifying the general rule on repeated skill training that gives you a replacement skill, add at the end of the second paragraph "though if the skill is a Lore skill, the new skill must also be a Lore skill"

*Page 242: In Grapple, the restrained condition doesn't technically also make a creature grabbed, so to make it clear, in the requirements of the action and at the end of the first paragraph about not needing a hand if you're already grabbing someone, change "grabbed" to "grabbed or restrained"

*248: To reflect the clarification on healer's tools allowing you to draw them as part of the action if you're wearing them, change the Requirements to "You are holding healer's tools, or you are wearing them and have a hand free"

*Page 249: Add "Drop Prone" to the list of basic commands you can tell your animal friend to lie down.

*Page 258: In Battle Medicine, change the Requirements entry to “You are holding or wearing healer's tools.” Change the second sentence of the effect to “Attempt a Medicine check with the same DC as for Treat Wounds, and restore a corresponding amount of Hit Points; this does not remove the wounded condition.” This means you need to use your healer's tools for Battle Medicine, but you can draw and replace worn tools as part of the action due to the errata on wearing tools on page 287.

*Page 259: Bonded Animal didn't explain the logistics of bonding the animal directly, leading a small number of people to be unsure that it was necessary to locate and interact with the animal to bond with it. To make it explicit, change the second sentence to "You can spend 7 days of downtime regularly interacting with a normal animal (…) that is friendly or helpful to you."

*Page 260: The Cloud Jump feat referred to exceeding a "limit" without spelling out exactly which limit. It's supposed to be the limit of not being able to Leap farther than your Speed. To make it clear, change the second paragraph to read "You can jump a distance greater than your Speed by spending additional actions when you Long Jump or High Jump. For each additional action spent, add your Speed to the limit on how far you can Leap."

*Page 260: The Connections feat requires a great deal of improvisation and adjudication on the part of a GM, more in line with an option that has uncommon rarity due to the narrative load. Because of this, change the feat's rarity to uncommon.

*Page 260: Dubious Knowledge's effect should only happen on a failure, not a critical failure. Change the effect to explicitly state it doesn't occur on a critical failure.

*Page 268: Because the word "action" could have broad or narrow scopes, it wasn't clear exactly when you could use the Unified Theory feat to substitute Arcana for the other magical skills. Change the beginning of the second sentence to "Whenever you use a skill action or a skill feat" to make it clear you can use it with skill actions (such as the ones in Chapter 4) and skill feat, but not for other actions, such as when casting spells or rituals.

*The Held, Worn, and Stowed item section that I’m not going to bother copy-pasting all of.

*Page 278: In critical hits, "When you make an attack and roll a natural 20...or if the result of your attack exceeds the target's AC by 10" was too broad a brush and thus slightly inaccurate for how to determine a critical hit, in an attempt to state the conditions succinctly. Replace the first section with "When you make an attack and succeed with a natural 20" so that's it's clear the natural 20 must succeed based on the total result in order to get a critical success.

*Page 283: Weapon traits. In the definition of the Parry weapon trait, change "spend an Interact action" to "spend a single action" to make it so setting up a parry doesn't trigger Attacks of Opportunity or similar reactions.

*Page 283: In Critical Specialization Effects, it uses the generic term attack but should specifically refer to Strikes. In the first sentence, change "when you make an attack with certain weapons" to "when you make a Strike with certain weapons"

*Page 288: Change the price of the the adventurer's pack to 15 sp and the bedroll to 2 cp.

*Page 289: Due to other changes (particularly the adventurer's pack, which was in all of the kits), the Bulk and cost of all of the class kits have changed. All kits are included in full in this entry so you don't have to cross-reference two places to use them.
[Bunch of kit stuff that I’m not going to copy-paste]

*Page 300: The text on cantrips was confusing and implied that they might use spell slots, even though they don't. Change the second to last sentence in the first paragraph to "If you're a prepared spellcaster, you can prepare a specific number of cantrips each day. You can't prepare a cantrip in a spell slot."

*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." Also add a final one-sentence paragraph covering innate spells "Any character casting an innate spell can replace any material component with a somatic component."

*Pages 316-407 and 573: Damaging spells and items meant to harm PCs do way too much damage for your gear to survive if it could be targeted, so such spells almost never are supposed to be able to damage objects. A few target lines slipped by with "creatures or objects." Remove the ability to target or damage objects from acid splash, acid arrow, eclipse burst, polar ray, sunburst, fire ray, moon beam, force bolt, and the horn of blasting. Limit hydraulic push to "creatures and unattended objects."

*Page 318 and 400: In antimagic field and storm lord, you can't exclude yourself from the emanation as you can for many other emanations, so change the area to explicitly states "which affects you."

*Page 330, 358, 377: Add the attack trait to disintegrate, polar ray, and tanglefoot.

*Page 336: In enlarge, change the Heightened (6th) entry to read “Choose either the 2nd-level or 4th-level version of this spell and apply its effects to 10 willing creatures.” in case you want to make a large number of creatures Large but Huge would be too big for your circumstances.

*Page 338, 346, 379, 400: Several sustained spells are meant to provide once per turn benefits when they are sustained, not be used multiple times per turn. In flaming sphere, implosion, unfathomable song, impaling briars, and storm lord add "the first time you Sustain this Spell each round"

*Page 339: Once flesh to stone has completely petrified you, the spell ends but you still remain petrified, meaning you can't remove the effects with dispel magic or similar abilities that counteract active spells; you need stone to flesh. Change the last two sentences of the failure condition to read "When a creature is unable to act due to the slowed condition from flesh to stone, the creature is permanently non-magically petrified. The spell ends if the creature is petrified or the slowed condition is removed."

*Page 343: Even if you aren't a humanoid, you too can be a hero. In heroism, remove "humanoid" from the targets line so it just reads "1 creature"

*Page 345: Illusory disguise, a Perception check to disbelieve just happens, it isn't a free action, so change "attempt a Perception check to disbelieve the spell as a free action" to read "attempt an immediate Perception check to disbelieve the spell."

*Page 349: Some corner cases in magic fang and magic weapon. In magic fang, change the Targets entry to “1 willing creature.” Change the first sentence to “Choose one of the target’s unarmed attacks.” Change the last sentence to “The unarmed attack becomes a +1 striking unarmed attack, gaining a +1 item bonus to attack rolls and increasing the number of damage dice to two if it had only one.” This makes the spell less restrictive and more versatile. In magic weapon change the Targets entry to remove the word "nonmagical" so you can still cast it on a +1 weapon to get the extra striking die.

*Page 358: Polar ray left out what happened on a critical hit with your spell attack roll. It should double the damage (but not the drained value) on a critical hit.

*Page 362: Purple worm sting used to have both a spell attack roll and a Fortitude save, but in changing to only a save, some of the damage is now automatic and should be reduced. Reduce the piercing damage automatically taken from the spell to 3d6.

*Page 363: The regenerate spell had an incorrect interaction with the doomed condition that would cause a doomed character to still die while regenerating. To handle that, instead of preventing a creature from progressing to dying 3, change it to "its dying condition can't increase to a value that would kill it (this stops most creatures from going beyond dying 3)."

*Page 373: In spiritual weapon, you might not have a deity, particularly if you're an occult caster, so change it to manifest a "a club, a dagger, or your deity's favored weapon."

*Page 377: Telekinetic haul should work only on unattended objects, not objects in creatures' possessions.

*Page 377: In tangling creepers, instead of having the creepers make an unarmed attack using your spell attack modifier, change it to just say "Make a melee spell attack roll against the target."

*Page 379: In true target, the way the spell used its targets was confusing, and it wasn't clear it applied to more attacks. There are several changes to make this clear; here is the final text with changes in bold:
TRUE TARGET SPELL 7
DIVINATION FORTUNE PREDICTION
Traditions arcane, occult
Cast [one-action] verbal
Range 60 feet; Targets 4 creatures
Duration until the start of your next turn
You delve into the possible futures of the next few seconds to understand all the ways your foe might avoid harm, then cast out a vision of that future to your allies. Designate a creature. The first time each target makes an attack roll against that creature during true target’s duration, the attacker rolls twice and uses the better result. The attacker also ignores circumstance penalties to the attack roll and any flat check required due to the designated creature being concealed or hidden.

*Page 381: In visions of danger, there's no description of what the Will save does, other than the critical success allowing you to disbelieve. It should be a basic Will save against the mental damage.

*Page 385: In zealous conviction, add the emotion and mental traits.

*Page 390: In charming touch, remove "humanoid" from the target line so you can charm any kind of creature that could find you attractive.

*Page 393: In healer's blessing, boost the additional healing from the base spell from 1 to 2.

*Page 403: Angelic halo should scale based on the level of the heal spell, not based on angelic halo's level. Remove the heightened entry and instead, replace the status bonus to healing from the spell with "Allies in your halo’s emanation who are healed by a heal spell gain a status bonus to Hit Points regained equal to double the heal spell’s level."

*Page 446: Attack Rolls. There was some confusion as to whether skill checks with the attack trait (such as Grapple or Trip) are also attack rolls at the same time. They are not. To make this clear, add this sentence to the beginning of the definition of attack roll "When you use a Strike action or make a spell attack, you attempt a check called an attack roll."

*Page 452: At the end of the description of bleed damage, add "Bleed damage ends automatically if you’re healed to your full Hit Points."

*Page 453: Weaknesses like "salt" and "water" weren't fully explained. At the beginning of the second paragraph in weakness, add "If you have a weakness to something that doesn’t normally deal damage, such as water, you take damage equal to the weakness value when touched or affected by it."

*Page 453 and 634: In Nonlethal Attacks, nonlethal effects other than Strikes weren't explained directly, so at the end add "Spells and other effects with the nonlethal trait that reduce a creature to 0 Hit Points knock the creature out instead of killing them" On page 634, add the nonlethal trait "An effect with this trait is nonlethal. Damage from a nonlethal effect knocks a creature out rather than killing it."

*Page 481: Retraining. It wasn't clear how long it took to retrain spells in a spell repertoire, but it should take just 1 week. Add ". Some, like changing a spell in your spell repertoire, take a week." to retraining class features.

*Page 421: Disabling a Hazard. How to run disabling a hazard with skills other than Thievery wasn't completely clear. Add "Like using Disable a Device, using these skills to disable a trap is a 2-action activity with the same degrees of success, though the activity might have different traits determined by the GM."

*Page 535: Craft Requirements. Add text about upgrading an item from a lower-level version into a higher-level version. "The GM might allow you to Craft a permanent item from a lower-level version of the same item as an upgrade. For example, you might upgrade a bag of holding from a type I to a type II bag, but you couldn’t upgrade a clear spindle aeon stone into an orange prism aeon stone. The cost for this upgrade is the full difference in Price between the items, and the Crafting check uses a DC for the item’s new level."

*Page 537 and 583: Shadow and slick runes. Since a character can't actually use those runes unless they have a +1 armor first (a 5th level item), move the items from 3rd level to 5th level when they become usable (keeping the price from the original version, even though it's unusually low for a 5th level item).

*Page 542 and 548: The true elixir of life's price is incorrect. Change it to 8,000 gp.

*Page 544: The example in the splash trait is confusing. Replace it with this clearer version of the example "For example, if you throw a lesser acid flask and hit your target, that creature takes 1 acid damage, 1d6 persistent acid damage, and 1 acid splash damage. All other creatures within 5 feet of it take 1 acid splash damage. On a critical hit, the target takes 2 acid damage and 2d6 persistent acid damage, but the splash damage is still 1. If you miss, the target and all creatures within 5 feet take only 1 splash damage. If you critically fail, no one takes any damage."

*Page 551: Deathcap powder should be held in 1 hand, like other ingested poisons, not held in 2 hands.

*Page 573: In the decanter of endless water, add a usage entry of 2 hands and a Bulk entry of L. Page 574: Maestro's instrument should have DCs for the charm effects, DC 27 for the moderate version and DC 38 for the greater version.

*Page 587: Arrow-catching shield. This shield had a built in usage frequency based on being fairly fragile that worked in the playtest rules for shields, but switching from dents to HP, the shield became too easily destroyed and needs to offer more protection. Increase the basic shield statistics to Hardness 10, HP 60, BT 30 and add a frequency of once per minute on the activation.

*Page 588: Forge warden's durability is too low. Increase its basic shield statistics to Hardness 10, HP 40, BT 20.

*Page 594: Greater staff of necromancy has enervation, a spell that's in Advanced Player's Guide instead of this book. Replace it with a 4th level vampiric touch. (slightly different wording from before)

*Page 597: Wands become broken when you overcharge them and succeed at the flat check, and you need to know their statistics to Repair them. While they use the normal statistics for a thin item of their composition, it makes sense to call that out. At the end of Varying Statistics, add "A wand has the normal Hardness, BT, and HP of a thin item of its material (page 577)."

*Page 612: Healer's gloves' activation was unclear as to whether it was a healing effect. Change the activation effect to the following: "You can soothe the wounds of a willing, living, adjacent creature, restoring 2d6+7 Hit Points to that creature. This is a positive healing effect. You can’t harm undead with this healing."

*Page 618: In the definition for the broken condition, change the second sentence to “An object is broken when damage has reduced its Hit Points to equal or less than its Broken Threshold.” This matches the definition of broken on page 272 (the inconsistency before was what happened when its HP were exactly equal to the Broken Threshold).

*Page 620, 631, and 454: In the definition of fatigued, the intention is that it prevents the exploration tactics you take while traveling or exploring an area, but you can still stop and Refocus, Treat Wounds, and so on. Change the last sentence to "You can’t use exploration activities performed while traveling, such as those on pages 479–480."

*Page 621: The prone condition said you could Take Cover to gain cover against ranged attacks, but it should say you gain Greater Cover. When combined with still being flat-footed, it allows you to hunker down for a net of 2 more AC against ranged attacks.

*Page 621: Persistent damage sidebar. Clarifying Assisted Recovery, at the end of the first paragraph, change the last sentence to "This allows you to attempt an extra flat check immediately, but only once per round." and add the bullet point "• The action to help might require a skill check or another roll to determine its effectiveness." Remove Administer First Aid as an example of assisted recovery, as it's a separate action.

*Pages 629–633: In the definitions of the chaotic, evil, good, and lawful traits, remove the last sentence. Creatures can use abilities of an alignment without matching that alignment, but they might be anathema or change a creature’s alignment over time with repeated use.

*Page 630: In curses, add "Effects with this trait can be removed only by effects that specifically target curses." This makes it clear that you need to use spells like remove curse to remove a curse, even one put in place by a spell, as opposed to dispel magic.

*Pages 337, 403, 405: In feeblemind, celestial brand, and jealous hex, make it clear that they are applying a curse.

*And everything under the Pathfinder Core Rulebook Errata (Part 2) spoiler
6 people marked this as a favorite.

Really appreciated the new buffs to the alchemist. However, none of the most problematic issues were addressed. Seems like other than what's changed, the Alchemist is working as intended. If that's truly is the case, then the class definitely is not for me, which is a shame, since I had some neat character ideas I wanted to play with but the class in play definitely would just frustrate me and it doesn't inspire me to test out different builds.

All I have to say is... Bye, bye! Healbot Cleric! We're in the Item Dispenser Alchemist age now!
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16
1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Page 287 adds a paragraph on Wearing Tools: "You can make a set of tools (such as alchemist’s tools or healer’s tools) easier to use by wearing it. This allows you to draw and replace the tools as part of the action that uses them. You can wear up to 2 Bulk of tools in this manner; tools beyond this limit must be stowed or drawn with an Interact action to use." Fine clothing reduces that limit to light Bulk worth of tools.

Oof, the 2 bulk limit for tool kits is really rough, especially for alchemists and rogues who will already have carry capacity issues.

graystone wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
graystone wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
So you need a hand free to use a worn item, right?

Yes. Worn just changes how many actions it takes to draw/retrieve it.

PS: I also wanted to note that the FAQ page is VERY hard to read, possibly because of my colorblindness. Any chance of swapping the color to easier to read ones?

And does this actually settle battlefield medicine?
Unfortunately [for me] yes: Needing 2 free hands to use battle medicine kills a lot of builds as most non-pure casters have something in hand during combat.

It's weird, because they never explicitly stated how many hands it needs, and for literally every Medicine skill except Treat Wounds (since it's on a different page from the one listed), it just says you need one hand free:

Quote:
248: To reflect the clarification on healer's tools allowing you to draw them as part of the action if you're wearing them, change the Requirements to "You are holding healer's tools, or you are wearing them and have a hand free"

So now I don't know if this was intentional or they accidentally left off page 249 as well.

KingTreyIII wrote:
graystone wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
graystone wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
So you need a hand free to use a worn item, right?

Yes. Worn just changes how many actions it takes to draw/retrieve it.

PS: I also wanted to note that the FAQ page is VERY hard to read, possibly because of my colorblindness. Any chance of swapping the color to easier to read ones?

And does this actually settle battlefield medicine?
Unfortunately [for me] yes: Needing 2 free hands to use battle medicine kills a lot of builds as most non-pure casters have something in hand during combat.

It's weird, because they never explicitly stated how many hands it needs, and for literally every Medicine skill except Treat Wounds (since it's on a different page from the one listed), it just says you need one hand free:

Quote:
248: To reflect the clarification on healer's tools allowing you to draw them as part of the action if you're wearing them, change the Requirements to "You are holding healer's tools, or you are wearing them and have a hand free"
So now I don't know if this was intentional or they accidentally left off page 249 as well.

Page 258: In Battle Medicine, change the Requirements entry to “You are holding or wearing healer's tools.” Change the second sentence of the effect to “Attempt a Medicine check with the same DC as for Treat Wounds, and restore a corresponding amount of Hit Points; this does not remove the wounded condition.” This means you need to use your healer's tools for Battle Medicine, but you can draw and replace worn tools as part of the action due to the errata on wearing tools on page 287.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Midnightoker wrote:
Frames Janco wrote:
So Grapple not being an attack roll anymore means that it does not suffer MAP on the roll, but would increase it for the next action?

If that’s how it reads maneuvers just became god tier third actions and feats like combat grab were nerfed a lot by proxy so I have to assume that’s not the case.

I’m noticing that the side bar on page 447 still specifically mentions that the grapple action and things like it still have MAP affect their rolls.

In that sidebar specifically, the use of the terms “strike” and “attack roll” really seem inconsistent to me now. I’m not sure what was intended by the clarification about non-strike attack actions and attack rolls was, but I think where we are now is significantly less clear than where we were before this errata.
Cyrad wrote:
Quote:
Page 287 adds a paragraph on Wearing Tools: "You can make a set of tools (such as alchemist’s tools or healer’s tools) easier to use by wearing it. This allows you to draw and replace the tools as part of the action that uses them. You can wear up to 2 Bulk of tools in this manner; tools beyond this limit must be stowed or drawn with an Interact action to use." Fine clothing reduces that limit to light Bulk worth of tools.
Oof, the 2 bulk limit for tool kits is really rough, especially for alchemists and rogues who will already have carry capacity issues.

That's for worn tools that are immediately accessible. 2 bulk is enough to wear two tool kits, and depending on how you interpret things you might be able to sneak in a set of thieves' tools as well (depending on whether you think "anything less than 10 instances of light bulk is no bulk" applies here). I think it's going to be fairly rare to be using more than two toolkits regularly in encounter mode, which is where this kind of thing would be relevant.

There's nothing preventing you from carrying all the disguise kits, artisan's tools, repair kits, and the like in your backpack (or bag of holding), you just won't have them immediately available for use.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
LarsC wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:
Frames Janco wrote:
So Grapple not being an attack roll anymore means that it does not suffer MAP on the roll, but would increase it for the next action?

If that’s how it reads maneuvers just became god tier third actions and feats like combat grab were nerfed a lot by proxy so I have to assume that’s not the case.

I’m noticing that the side bar on page 447 still specifically mentions that the grapple action and things like it still have MAP affect their rolls.

In that sidebar specifically, the use of the terms “strike” and “attack roll” really seem inconsistent to me now. I’m not sure what was intended by the clarification about non-strike attack actions and attack rolls was, but I think where we are now is significantly less clear than where we were before this errata.

The fact that agile Maneuvers is a thing also suggests they should suffer MAP. Unless that is going to get changed in the first APG errata.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Page 258: In Battle Medicine, change the Requirements entry to “You are holding or wearing healer's tools.” Change the second sentence of the effect to “Attempt a Medicine check with the same DC as for Treat Wounds, and restore a corresponding amount of Hit Points; this does not remove the wounded condition.” This means you need to use your healer's tools for Battle Medicine, but you can draw and replace worn tools as part of the action due to the errata on wearing tools on page 287.

So for Administer First Aid, Treat Disease (a downtime activity), and Treat Poison you only need to have them stored and a hand free, but for Battle Medicine you need both hands? From a strict RAW reading, yes, but I respectfully disagree because Treating Wounds (and by extent Battle Medicine) should not require two hands when Treating a Disease only requires one.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
KingTreyIII wrote:
graystone wrote:
Page 258: In Battle Medicine, change the Requirements entry to “You are holding or wearing healer's tools.” Change the second sentence of the effect to “Attempt a Medicine check with the same DC as for Treat Wounds, and restore a corresponding amount of Hit Points; this does not remove the wounded condition.” This means you need to use your healer's tools for Battle Medicine, but you can draw and replace worn tools as part of the action due to the errata on wearing tools on page 287.
So for Administer First Aid, Treat Disease (a downtime activity), and Treat Poison you only need to have them stored and a hand free, but for Battle Medicine you need both hands? From a strict RAW reading, yes, but I respectfully disagree because Treating Wounds (and by extent Battle Medicine) should not require two hands when Treating a Disease only requires one.

I think the implication is that to use Battle Medicine you need to have a worn bandolier and a free hand, which would only require the one hand.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
KingTreyIII wrote:
graystone wrote:
Page 258: In Battle Medicine, change the Requirements entry to “You are holding or wearing healer's tools.” Change the second sentence of the effect to “Attempt a Medicine check with the same DC as for Treat Wounds, and restore a corresponding amount of Hit Points; this does not remove the wounded condition.” This means you need to use your healer's tools for Battle Medicine, but you can draw and replace worn tools as part of the action due to the errata on wearing tools on page 287.
So for Administer First Aid, Treat Disease (a downtime activity), and Treat Poison you only need to have them stored and a hand free, but for Battle Medicine you need both hands? From a strict RAW reading, yes, but I respectfully disagree because Treating Wounds (and by extent Battle Medicine) should not require two hands when Treating a Disease only requires one.
I think the implication is that to use Battle Medicine you need to have a worn bandolier and a free hand, which would only require the one hand.

If this is the case they did a very super bad job at making that assumption even a little clear. This assumes I didn't miss any change to the number of hands required to use Healers Tools.

roll4initiative wrote:
errata wrote:
Page 278: In critical hits, "When you make an attack and roll a natural 20...or if the result of your attack exceeds the target's AC by 10" was too broad a brush and thus slightly inaccurate for how to determine a critical hit, in an attempt to state the conditions succinctly. Replace the first section with "When you make an attack and succeed with a natural 20" so that it's clear the natural 20 must succeed based on the total result in order to get a critical success.
So, a natural 20 is not a crit anymore? It has to beat the AC or DC by 10 now?

That's a clarification, not a change. A natural 20 only has to meet the AC/DC at all to become a crit, because natural 20s increase your degree of success by one.

Likewise, a natural 1 can still hit, but only if the total would have otherwise crit (you will only ever see this happen when bosses smack you though, tbh)

Perhaps I’m wrong on healers tools, I just assumed all kits use two hands and the worn items text on tools worn in that way describes them as being usable with one hand (and you’re limited to 2Bulk tools worn in this way)
1 to 50 of 521 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Paizo Blog: Core Rulebook 2nd Printing Errata All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.