Core Rulebook 2nd Printing Errata

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)

Yes, kits use 2 hands: full stop. Nothing under worn reduces this number that I can see. Worn alter only the number of actions to draw it but does nothing to number of hands.

This means battle medicine is untenable for the majority of characters I'd want it on as they don't have 2 hands free.

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"

Cool but that doesn't override the 2 hands needed to use the tools that this says in the errata "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." As I said, unless they've changed how many hands you need to use the healers tools, that errata quote means it needs 2 hands.

Midnightoker wrote:

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)

Yes, kits use 2 hands: full stop. Nothing under worn reduces this number that I can see. Worn alter only the number of actions to draw it but does nothing to number of hands.

This means battle medicine is untenable for the majority of characters I'd want it on as they don't have 2 hands free.

bugleyman wrote:

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"

Cool but that doesn't override the 2 hands needed to use the tools that this says in the errata "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." As I said, unless they've changed how many hands you need to use the healers tools, that errata quote means it needs 2 hands.

My logic in how it is one had is that it either holding or wearing in a bandolier has it a bandolier is like holding it in two hands and so you only need a hand to take it out. That's is how I interpret it.

bugleyman wrote:

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"

Cool but that doesn't override the 2 hands needed to use the tools that this says in the errata "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." As I said, unless they've changed how many hands you need to use the healers tools, that errata quote means it needs 2 hands.

Doesn't it, in a specifc vs general sense since everything says "Requirements You’re holding or wearing healer’s tools (page 209)." One would assume that is all that is needed RAW.

Amusing note "and have a hand free" is missing from the medicine actions in the 2nd printing.

So RAW unless I am missing something we are back to stupid psychic battle medicine, it is just requires that you are wearing it or holding it now.

Now if all of the entries had the "and have a hand free" element or "and have two hands free" we wouldn't have this issue. Boy howdy do I feel silly for looking forwards to this errata though.

The errata includes rules that drawing a tool to use them in an action as part of that action, so the psychic battle medicine is dead.

CRB 287 "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."

Interesting update to the 500 error I mentioned before on the FAQ page: It goes away if I both sign out and clear out my cookies for this site, but then comes back immediately when I sign back in and I gain an error cookie. Wonder if something similar is on the main page.

My logic in how it is one had is that it either holding or wearing in a bandolier has it a bandolier is like holding it in two hands and so you only need a hand to take it out.

I don't see how that overrides the item requirements: the one hand requirement contradicts the specific wording that you must USE the tools and that item requires 2 hands.

Doesn't it, in a specifc vs general sense since everything says "Requirements You’re holding or wearing healer’s tools (page 209)." One would assume that is all that is needed RAW.

While I agree on specifics, I that the specific clarification as the specific: "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." Nothing overrides the 2 hand requirement that I see: We'll most likely need 2 more years to clear that up though... :P

Finally, the second printing! Although it seems some points did not make it to the PDF (I can't check it out because I'm out of home)...

I'm a P2E Sorcerer. I know Feather Fall as a 1st-level spell and not as a signature spell. I'm completely out of 1st-level spell slots (never mind why here as well) and also have plenty of higher level slots. I'm falling to my doom, too. What do I do? Is the only appropriate spell slot for a 1st-level, NON-signature spell a 1st-level slot (and therefore I'm going SPLAT)? Or is it a spell slot of AT LEAST 1st-level (therefore allowing 2nd-level, 3rd-level, and so on slots to also be used, albeit with the caveat that the resulting 1st-level Feather Fall counts in ALL ways as a 1st-level spell, including ease of dispelling, despite being fueled by a higher level slot)?

Ah, this buggy issue. I second the notion!

I'd love to be able to look at this new errata thing, but I can't because the link to it leads to a "we're having some trouble right now" page even after several tries. And the "let us know what's going on" link on that page does exactly nothing.

The errata includes rules that drawing a tool to use them in an action as part of that action, so the psychic battle medicine is dead.

CRB 287 "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."

"This allows you to draw and replace the tools as part of the action that uses them"

This does not say you have to draw healers tools with those actions specifically. It is saying that you are allowed to draw and replace tools as part of the action that uses them. If an action allows you to bypass that requirement surely that would be the more specific rule.

Battle medicine just says you need to be wearing them to use it, don't get me wrong I am not arguing intent as I am sure Paizo want people to have the tools in at least one hand.
I am saying that the requirements change and tools change are still weirdly obtusely worded given the other intended "and have a hand free" requirements for other medicine actions. These are either an override for needing two hands free (in which case it isn't clear), or a still require two hands because it is a tool kit and are wasted text.

And in either case, why mention worn in the requirements at all if it requires the tools to be in your hand and uses the base tool held/worn rules? The requirement should then just be "holding xxxx tools" instead, as them being worn has no bearing on the requirements.

And in either case, why mention worn in the requirements at all if it requires the tools to be in your hand and uses the base tool held/worn rules? The requirement should then just be "holding xxxx tools" instead, as them being worn has no bearing on the requirements.

yeah, the new errata/clarifications on this makes me even less sure how it's meant to be run... :P

What we REALLY need is an example of battle medicine in use, action by action including all the sub-actions like free draw and stow of tools with use so everyone is on the same page.

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!

After reading Powerful Alchemy becoming a class feature, I was hopeful a few other feats would go the same way. I was actually surprised and disappointed after reading the clarification on Alchemical Alacrity that Enduring Alchemy didn't get the Powerful Alchemy treatment.

What we REALLY need is an example of battle medicine in use, action by action including all the sub-actions like free draw and stow of tools with use so everyone is on the same page.

I volunteer my Warpriest of Sarenrae, who wields a shield in his left, wears two bandoliers full of healers kits mexican bandit style and usually has his right hand free to do other stuff like wielding his trusty scimitar, holding his holy symbol when a material component is needed or to grapple or trip.

Lightning Raven wrote:

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!

After reading Powerful Alchemy becoming a class feature, I was hopeful a few other feats would go the same way. I was actually surprised and disappointed after reading the clarification on Alchemical Alacrity that Enduring Alchemy didn't get the Powerful Alchemy treatment.

especially since with alacrity we are still left with 3 items, 1 of them stowed, that you only have this round to use and only 2 actions remaining to use them.

Without taking additional feats (which shuld be bonuses and not mandatory) i fail to see how you can use all 3 items before expiring since we are up to 4 actions now to use them with only 2 actions remaining.

if the design philosophy is "you have to pick an optional bonus to even use your core feature" then i think that's contradiction to the whole stated PF2 feat design.

After reading Powerful Alchemy becoming a class feature, I was hopeful a few other feats would go the same way. I was actually surprised and disappointed after reading the clarification on Alchemical Alacrity that Enduring Alchemy didn't get the Powerful Alchemy treatment.

I second you on this, Alchemical Alacrity is still virtually useless without feat support, you need either Enduring Alchemy or Alchemical Familiar since by the start of your next turn the items created with Quick Alchemy will have lost their potency.

Sounds like PDF download link is broken for now,
Did anybody who downloaded PDF see if Warpriest Trained (only) Martial Weapon Proficiency changed to normal Expert advancement?

Sounds like PDF download link is broken for now,

Did anybody who downloaded PDF see if Warpriest Trained (only) Martial Weapon Proficiency changed to normal Expert advancement?

No, it doesn't. Still no Expert in Simple Weapons either. The Cleric remains the only class with fewer expert weapons than the Wizard. Which seems hardly reasonable on the Cloistered Cleric and completely absurd on the WARpriest.

can anyone help me parse this:

To help make those reagents last longer at 1st through 4th levels, add a limited version of the Field Discovery class feature at 1st level. "Your research field adds a number of formulas to your formula book; these are your signature items. When using a batch of infused reagents to create your signature items using advanced alchemy, you create three items instead of two. Each time you gain a level, you can swap one of your signature items with another formula in your formula book. This new signature item must be on your research field’s list of possible signature items."

so, the initial 2 free formulas from your field are "signature items".

from what i can tell you never again gain formulas from your field.

so then what's the point of "Each time you gain a level, you can swap one of your signature items with another formula in your formula book. This new signature item must be on your research field’s list of possible signature items." if you already have all initial (and possible) such formulas as your signature formulas already?

or is there an expanded "signature list" as you level up that's simply not posted in the erratta document?

can anyone help me parse this:

Quote:

To help make those reagents last longer at 1st through 4th levels, add a limited version of the Field Discovery class feature at 1st level. "Your research field adds a number of formulas to your formula book; these are your signature items. When using a batch of infused reagents to create your signature items using advanced alchemy, you create three items instead of two. Each time you gain a level, you can swap one of your signature items with another formula in your formula book. This new signature item must be on your research field’s list of possible signature items."

so, the initial 2 free formulas from your field are "signature items".

from what i can tell you never again gain formulas from your field.

so then what's the point of "Each time you gain a level, you can swap one of your signature items with another formula in your formula book. This new signature item must be on your research field’s list of possible signature items." if you already have all initial (and possible) such formulas as your signature formulas already?

or is there an expanded "signature list" as you level up that's simply not posted in the erratta document?

You choose 2 formulas from your field at level 1 and they become your signature items. At your next level up, you can change thise signature item to any other formulas you could have chosen.

Say you're a bomber and take fire and lightning boms as your formulas and signature items at level 1. When reachitng level 2, you also have the ice and acid bomb formulas*, which are possible choices for your signature items. You can now switch one or both your signature items to those other bombs.

*As far as I can tell, you can have those formulas either as your (non-research fied) free formulas at level OR the formulas you get for free at level up OR you could just have learned them the regular way via crafting before you hit level 2.

ah yeah, forgot that there was a list of things to pick up for the 2 free forumals, my bad.

sadly it does absolutely nothing for the poor chirurgeon, since his main issue at low levels was not the amount of elixirs but that for some inexplicable reason there doesn't exist a level 3 elixir of life.

no matter "how many" 1d6 you heal at levels 3-4 it's still at the level of cantrip healing and not suitable at all for combat use.

they could have at least put a level 3 elixir since the forumal of how they scale is pretty much constant (1d6+3/2 item levels)

I know this question has been asked since Day One. The pertinent text of the CRB seems to leave room for multiple interpretations. I didn't see this addressed in the new errata, though I'll look a second time. In the meantime, though, is there any chance we can get an answer here?

Consider the following scenarios:
I'm a P1E Sorcerer. I know Feather Fall. I am completely out of 1st-level spell slots (never mind why), though I still have all my higher level slots. I'm falling to my doom. What do I do? I accept the slight inefficiency of using a 2nd-level slot to cast a 1st-level spell (since all I need is a spell slot of AT LEAST the spell's level), avoid dying, and go about my day.

I'm a P2E Sorcerer. I know Feather Fall as a 1st-level spell and not as a signature spell. I'm completely out of 1st-level spell slots (never mind why here as well) and also have plenty of higher level slots. I'm falling to my doom, too. What do I do? Is the only appropriate spell slot for a 1st-level, NON-signature spell a 1st-level slot (and therefore I'm going SPLAT)? Or is it a spell slot of AT LEAST 1st-level (therefore allowing 2nd-level, 3rd-level, and so on slots to also be used, albeit with the caveat that the resulting 1st-level Feather Fall counts in ALL ways as a 1st-level spell, including ease of dispelling, despite being fueled by a higher level slot)?

Also, I'm aware of a one-word maybe-it's-an-answer response from a developer to a similar question on another website. Given its brevity, it's no more definitive an answer than the CRB's text, assuming it's even answering the question at hand (an assumption due to, again, the response's brevity). So if this question is answered here, can we please get a FULL and unambiguous answer?

Thanks!

I hear your pain. I have always assumed that the sorcerer plumets to his death in this rules situation. But it is not mentioned explicity so I do see why you want it clarified.

For the record they have fixed a large number of little problems in this release of errata. Many of which I never knew were rules problems. Which is all good. However they have fixed precisely zero of my significant rules questions. I don't see that they have fixed any of the major rules arguments here either. Which is frustrating. I can only conclude that they don't wish to.

Yeah, Chirurgeon gets left in the dust once again. I still think they should have made him the master of non-mutagenic body altering elixiers and add more (or even all) non-Mutagen elixirs to the research field in some way. Or at least use the Errata to give him the new alchemical items with the healing trait from the APG.

As it stands, the Herbalist is a more versatile healer than the chirurgeon.

even a simple "small elixir of life level 3", 2d6+3 healing, would be enough to help him in the early game without actually changing the actual scaling or power level of elixirs vs healing spells.

for the rest "missing" elixirs of life the issue isn't as big since by that point, the difference of something like (as an exmaple) the level 9 elixir being 5d6+12, missing level 11 elixir, level 13 elixir being 7d6+18, means that the "missing formula" is just around 20% stronger than the one you have.

but for level 1->3->5 you have 1d6, missing, 3d6+6. Meaning that the "missing" 2d6+3 formula is a huge step up from the one you have as a starting character.

So you have a class that's "it can be done" for level 1-2, then completely incapable of healing at level 3-4 and then suddenly jumps back to "it can be done" at level 5

A proposal for the low level Chirurgeon; just undo the first errata, and let him play as was written on the very first print, with the level 5 healing consumible.
An while we are on it, you can return the first level extra feat to the Wizard that was an error on the fist print. Low level wizard would appreciate a bit of love, sooo...why not give them what was already printed? XD

Due to the 500 error, the FAQ and the errata download link is still inaccessible to me. Since the errata document is likely a free non-account-linked download anyway, could someone post a direct download link to the pdf here, please? Kind of as a temporary work-around until the 500 error issue is solved.

Since the errata document is likely a free non-account-linked download anyway,

No, it's a standard Paizo webpage with spoiler tags.

Due to the 500 error, the FAQ and the errata download link is still inaccessible to me. Since the errata document is likely a free non-account-linked download anyway, could someone post a direct download link to the pdf here, please? Kind of as a temporary work-around until the 500 error issue is solved.

I don't think there is an errata document to download. The errata is only available in the FAQ.

However, you can see the new changes on reddit.

So what's the purpose of finesse weapons with combat maneuvers now? If these traits are mutually exclusive then every such weapon has wasted trait economy. The poor whip has gone right back to its embarrassing PF1 state.

albadeon wrote:

Due to the 500 error, the FAQ and the errata download link is still inaccessible to me. Since the errata document is likely a free non-account-linked download anyway, could someone post a direct download link to the pdf here, please? Kind of as a temporary work-around until the 500 error issue is solved.

I don't think there is an errata document to download. The errata is only available in the FAQ.

However, you can see the new changes on reddit.

Whoops, I totally assumed it was published as a pdf, just like the first one. Even tried to make the obvious manual change to the 1.0 download link with no success...

So what's the purpose of finesse weapons with combat maneuvers now? If these traits are mutually exclusive then every such weapon has wasted trait economy. The poor whip has gone right back to its embarrassing PF1 state.

It's not much, but you can still wield those weapons with strength if you want to use their maneuvers effectively and with dexterity if you want their attack.

Many finesse attackers will have some strength anyway and skill checks like Athletics are overall easier than attacks, especially for low-proficiency classes.

But yes, that's mostly grasping a straws. Finesse weapons just took a serious blow.

We hadn't realized Humble Bundle orders were coming out until a few hours ago, and they managed to get this all up and running at lightning speed. They are the heroes who got you this information tonight!

Is there a new Humble Bundle on its way or am I misinterpreting this sentence?? :-o

Mark Seifter wrote:

We hadn't realized Humble Bundle orders were coming out until a few hours ago, and they managed to get this all up and running at lightning speed. They are the heroes who got you this information tonight!

Is there a new Humble Bundle on its way or am I misinterpreting this sentence?? :-o

Nah, they said the errata would be released once shipment of the secon printing started. I think Mark just meant that paizo was surprised that Humble Bundle started the shipment so soon.

Can someone with the PDF tell me if they changed the Cleric spell chart? Until then, it indicated that your font granted you level 10 slots at level 19 and 20. But now that we know that you can't gain additional slots of these levels, I wonder if the cleric spell chart has been corrected accordingly.

bugleyman wrote:

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"

Cool but that doesn't override the 2 hands needed to use the tools that this says in the errata "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." As I said, unless they've changed how many hands you need to use the healers tools, that errata quote means it needs 2 hands.

Specific vs general. The hands column of the item table is the general requirement for use of the kit. The "Requirements:" field of battle medicine is a specific list of what you need to use the ability. Wearing with one hand free overrides needing two hands.

Can someone with the PDF tell me if they changed the Cleric spell chart? Until then, it indicated that your font granted you level 10 slots at level 19 and 20. But now that we know that you can't gain additional slots of these levels, I wonder if the cleric spell chart has been corrected accordingly.

It hasn't been changed.

Lightdroplet wrote:

Can someone with the PDF tell me if they changed the Cleric spell chart? Until then, it indicated that your font granted you level 10 slots at level 19 and 20. But now that we know that you can't gain additional slots of these levels, I wonder if the cleric spell chart has been corrected accordingly.

It hasn't been changed.

So now we have a spell chart that contradicts the rules themselves. I can see quite a lot of confusion stemming from this.

The idea that Battle Medicine doesn't do anything due to using two hands feels firmly "too bad to be true".

So what's the purpose of finesse weapons with combat maneuvers now? If these traits are mutually exclusive then every such weapon has wasted trait economy. The poor whip has gone right back to its embarrassing PF1 state.

The even sillier part of this is that all it allows you to do is use a maneuver if your hands are already full, since if the other hand was empty you already could have made the maneuver and the weapon doesn't matter anyways.

You get item bonuses to the Athletics checks and the weapons reach (if it is greater than yours) and you can drop the weapon I guess.

But you can get item bonuses to Athletics checks using Armbands of Athleticism and I'd say generally dropping your weapon is nearly as bad as falling prone anyways (depends, one is interact, the other is a move).

Like, most of the weapons that had Finesse and a maneuver trait were encouraged to be used with open hands anyways.

And even after all that, changing the finesse trait to read "You can use your Dexterity bonus to Strikes made with this weapon" would have been a lot less work.

Does anyone know what the other intended consequences of this change were? Besides a nerf to finesse trait and making Mirror Image a little stronger.

EDIT: Great. My favorite weapon Spiked Chain has been nerfed back to its PF1 state. BIG SAD.

Arachnofiend wrote:

So what's the purpose of finesse weapons with combat maneuvers now? If these traits are mutually exclusive then every such weapon has wasted trait economy. The poor whip has gone right back to its embarrassing PF1 state.

The even sillier part of this is that all it allows you to do is use a maneuver if your hands are already full, since if the other hand was empty you already could have made the maneuver and the weapon doesn't matter anyways.

You get item bonuses to the Athletics checks and the weapons reach (if it is greater than yours) and you can drop the weapon I guess.

But you can get item bonuses to Athletics checks using Armbands of Athleticism and I'd say generally dropping your weapon is nearly as bad as falling prone anyways (depends, one is interact, the other is a move).

Like, most of the weapons that had Finesse and a maneuver trait were encouraged to be used with open hands anyways.

And even after all that, changing the finesse trait to read "You can use your Dexterity bonus to Strikes made with this weapon" would have been a lot less work.

Does anyone know what the other intended consequences of this change were? Besides a nerf to finesse trait and making Mirror Image a little stronger.

Moving attacks to strikes and away from skills seems to make it where you can trip, or grapple as a third action without suffering MAP since it only applies to attack rolls.

The idea that Battle Medicine doesn't do anything due to using two hands feels firmly "too bad to be true".

Oh, it still very much does something. Healing in combat is kinda useful :-). It's just not as good.

Note that how Battle Medicine works is again very unclear. The CRB and the Errata disagree :-(. Errata pretty much says 1 hand free (or maybe two), CRB says two.

Moving attacks to strikes and away from skills seems to make it where you can trip, or grapple as a third action without suffering MAP since it only applies to attack rolls.

Mark has already stated on a discord that is not true.

The Attack Trait specifically says MAP applies, and all of the maneuvers have the Attack Trait.

Thus creating even more confusion, clearly.

Perhaps in the future Paizo might consider having an errata sticker product? It would help updating old print run books.

I get that Paizo didn't want to announce possible changes until they had settled on the exact language for them, but it really seems like something that helped a lot during the PF2 playtest in getting rules changes settled in well was having a live stream where the developers talked about what was changing and then folks got to immediately respond with questions. That way the developers had to be sure they could fully explain what the change was going to do and would sometimes even adjust the final language for the next round of fixes. I get that you don't want multiple rounds of errata before fixing issues, but having a stream to talk out the issues and make sure the source of differences of interpretation are clearly understood by both the developers and the users might cut down on confusion later.

So if there were a stream to address rules questions again, even if it did not issue official fixes, but simply discussing where users (GMs and players) are having differences of interpretation, it could help settle down the restless mobs trying to figure out intent.

I'm still wondering about alchemist's attacks proficiencies... Should they reach master at any time?

Interesting update to the 500 error I mentioned before on the FAQ page: It goes away if I both sign out and clear out my cookies for this site, but then comes back immediately when I sign back in and I gain an error cookie. Wonder if something similar is on the main page.

If you figure this one out please let me know. I'm having the same issue.

VestOfHolding wrote:

Interesting update to the 500 error I mentioned before on the FAQ page: It goes away if I both sign out and clear out my cookies for this site, but then comes back immediately when I sign back in and I gain an error cookie. Wonder if something similar is on the main page.

If you figure this one out please let me know. I'm having the same issue.

I had to open unauthenticated in Microsoft Edge to view it and just left myself logged in on Firefox/Chrome.

Unicore wrote:

Moving attacks to strikes and away from skills seems to make it where you can trip, or grapple as a third action without suffering MAP since it only applies to attack rolls.

Mark has already stated on a discord that is not true.

The Attack Trait specifically says MAP applies, and all of the maneuvers have the Attack Trait.

Thus creating even more confusion, clearly.

Yep, map applies to the attack roll you make as part of the maneuver... But you don't make an attack roll as part of the maneuver... so, umm, yeah, even more more confusion, I concur.

EDIT: Just found the bit under skills that states you apply map. So guessing it's specific trumps general, but it's still all sorts of confusing.

I'm still wondering about alchemist's attacks proficiencies... Should they reach master at any time?

Well, seems like the medium armor proficiency does not go up at all. :D Still only light armor goes up.

Dedagn wrote:

VestOfHolding wrote:

Interesting update to the 500 error I mentioned before on the FAQ page: It goes away if I both sign out and clear out my cookies for this site, but then comes back immediately when I sign back in and I gain an error cookie. Wonder if something similar is on the main page.

If you figure this one out please let me know. I'm having the same issue.

I had to open unauthenticated in Microsoft Edge to view it and just left myself logged in on Firefox/Chrome.

Edge refuses to load the page at all for me. It worked on Firefox.

Yep, map applies to the attack roll you make as part of the maneuver... But you don't make an attack roll as part of the maneuver... so, umm, yeah, even more more confusion, I concur.

Attack trait states this:

"An ability with this trait involves an attack. For each attack you make beyond the first on your turn, you take a multiple attack penalty."

Clear as mud right?

Yeah, they probably would have been better off creating a 4th kind of attack roll called "Skill Attacks" than this, or renaming Spell attack rolls to a "Non-weapon Attack".

Actually I suppose Skill Attack would work as the consolidated name, since you're using your spell casting ability as if it was a skill.

In any case, not this.