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
201 to 250 of 521 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Cheers, all. Time to get my robe and weighted blanket and continue working on my spell compendium for Astral while putting on British Baking Show, lol. Probably theory craft a new Alchemist with the errata changes too. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Alas, I’m still at least an hour from my first beer. But it is a fine idea nonetheless.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

After all the errata and all this time, the battle rages on for Battle Medicine. What an aptly named feat.


so is the second part of the errata already corrected in the second printing or is that stuff that's been found out after it was printed?

Design Manager

3 people marked this as a favorite.

It all is included. The second section is just for the entries that did not fit in the system the website uses for FAQs in errata. There's just a few because it almost held all of them before running out of space.


Ah, thanks for the answer, I had been waiting for the biggest changes and corrections to be made before getting a physical version of the book


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Not to change the subject too much, but as I'm a bit let down by no clarifications to how wild shape interacts with potency runes, extra damage like sneak attack, weapon specialization, etc. I remembered that one of the characters in the band of bravos group is a druid who wild shapes. I haven't kept up with it (only watched up to episode 8 I think?) but can anything be gleaned just from them playing? They're pretty far along now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
It all is included. The second section is just for the entries that did not fit in the system the website uses for FAQs in errata. There's just a few because it almost held all of them before running out of space.

Let me be sure I understand.

The Errata on this website lists all the differences between the 1st printing hardcover version of the Core Rulebook and the 2nd printing hardcover version of the Core Rulebook

The 2nd printing hardcover version of the Core Rulebook;
the pocket edition of the Core Rulebook;
and the PDF version of the Core Rulebook
are identical, and there are no differences between the copy in each of the three versions.

Can staff confirm that that is, at the very least, how it should be?


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd give my left arm for a dev to just tell us explicitly how many hands you need free to use Battle Medicine. I was pretty sure I understood how it worked before this errata but now I'm even more confused than launch when you RAW didn't even need a healer's kit...


23 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
I'd give my left arm for a dev to just tell us explicitly how many hands you need free to use Battle Medicine. I was pretty sure I understood how it worked before this errata but now I'm even more confused than launch when you RAW didn't even need a healer's kit...

Yes, but if you gave your left arm, would you still be able to use Battle Medicine?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
tivadar27 wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
I'd give my left arm for a dev to just tell us explicitly how many hands you need free to use Battle Medicine. I was pretty sure I understood how it worked before this errata but now I'm even more confused than launch when you RAW didn't even need a healer's kit...
Yes, but if you gave your left arm, would you still be able to use Battle Medicine?

Okay, I admit it, I laughed.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Will the interactions with finesse and "maneuver" weapon traits also get clarified or fixed? Not being able to apply finesse on Athletics maneuvers is a pretty huge blow.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyrad wrote:
Will the interactions with finesse and "maneuver" weapon traits also get clarified or fixed? Not being able to apply finesse on Athletics maneuvers is a pretty huge blow.

Seems to be the intentional purpose of the change (to remove the ability to use Dex for Athletics). Here lay Whips, never to be used again.

Unless... I just realized, but does the Agile trait still work for weapon manoeuvres? The original text of Agile trait just says "The multiple attack penalty you take with this weapon on the second attack on your turn is –4 instead of –5, and –8 instead of –10 on the third and subsequent attacks in the turn." Still seems to affect Athletics actions made with the weapon.

Marketing & Media Manager

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CrystalSeas wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
It all is included. The second section is just for the entries that did not fit in the system the website uses for FAQs in errata. There's just a few because it almost held all of them before running out of space.

Let me be sure I understand.

The Errata on this website lists all the differences between the 1st printing hardcover version of the Core Rulebook and the 2nd printing hardcover version of the Core Rulebook

The 2nd printing hardcover version of the Core Rulebook;
the pocket edition of the Core Rulebook;
and the PDF version of the Core Rulebook
are identical, and there are no differences between the copy in each of the three versions.

Can staff confirm that that is, at the very least, how it should be?

Correct.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Quote:
Page 548: To make it clearer that elixir of life only works on living creatures due to the healing trait, change the first sentence to "Elixirs of life accelerate a living creature’s natural healing processes and immune system."

Where does it say that in the healing trait?

Quote:
A healing effect restores a creature's body, typically by restoring Hit Points, but sometimes by removing diseases or other debilitating effects.

The way I read it, that's a feature of the positive trait.

Quote:
Effects with this trait heal living creatures with positive energy, deal positive energy damage to undead, or manipulate positive energy. Planes with this trait are awash with life energy of such intensity that it can harm living creatures. Creatures with this trait are natives of the Positive Energy Plane. They can survive the basic environmental effects of the Positive Energy Plane.

Non-living creatures are generally immune to healing, but that appeared to be due to the creature's immunity, not the healing trait.

Would an elixir of life work on a dhampir? Dhampir are not undead, so they do not have the undead immunity to healing, but they do have negative healing which means that they are healed by negative energy that heals undead and damaged by positive energy, but an elixir of life has neither the negative or positive traits, only the healing trait. Similarly the soothe spell is in the same boat. I would think as written either would work on a dhampir.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Aaron Shanks wrote:
CrystalSeas wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
It all is included. The second section is just for the entries that did not fit in the system the website uses for FAQs in errata. There's just a few because it almost held all of them before running out of space.

Let me be sure I understand.

The Errata on this website lists all the differences between the 1st printing hardcover version of the Core Rulebook and the 2nd printing hardcover version of the Core Rulebook

The 2nd printing hardcover version of the Core Rulebook;
the pocket edition of the Core Rulebook;
and the PDF version of the Core Rulebook
are identical, and there are no differences between the copy in each of the three versions.

Can staff confirm that that is, at the very least, how it should be?

Correct.

Can you please !et us know which to use when they disagree? For example, alchemist armor and Battle Medicine are DIFFERENT in the pdf and in the Errata.


PlantThings wrote:
After all the errata and all this time, the battle rages on for Battle Medicine. What an aptly named feat.

Yes, the monkey knife fight is down to 1 or 2 hands at least so it's something. Oh, and it might now be a reaction for some reason! [see Beginner Box]


2 people marked this as a favorite.
pauljathome wrote:
Aaron Shanks wrote:
CrystalSeas wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
It all is included. The second section is just for the entries that did not fit in the system the website uses for FAQs in errata. There's just a few because it almost held all of them before running out of space.

Let me be sure I understand.

The Errata on this website lists all the differences between the 1st printing hardcover version of the Core Rulebook and the 2nd printing hardcover version of the Core Rulebook

The 2nd printing hardcover version of the Core Rulebook;
the pocket edition of the Core Rulebook;
and the PDF version of the Core Rulebook
are identical, and there are no differences between the copy in each of the three versions.

Can staff confirm that that is, at the very least, how it should be?

Correct.
Can you please !et us know which to use when they disagree? For example, alchemist armor and Battle Medicine are DIFFERENT in the pdf and in the Errata.

I'm not an official person, but I'm pretty sure the second printing just doesn't include some of the errata due to oversight or lack of time, so go with the errata. It's more recent.

For the record, I'm also pretty sure Battle Medicine is one hand if healer's tools are worn or two if they're carried in the hands, like Treat Wounds and other Medicine skill actions, for reasons I've expressed elsewhere. Guess we'll see how that goes.

Marketing & Media Manager

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you’re having trouble seeing the page, please try logging out of your Paizo account, clearing your cache, and logging back in.


graystone wrote:

This isn't true: I quoted the errata FOR BATTLE MEDICINE. It explains you have to use the tools and to do so, you need 2 hands.

PS: "Hands
Source Core Rulebook pg. 287 1.1
This lists how many hands it takes to use the item effectively. Most items that require two hands can be carried in only one hand, but you must spend an Interact action to change your grip in order to use the item"
The errata quote says you have to use healers tools and doesn't alter the hands required.

Ahhhhhh. I see. I thought page 248 was battle medicine's page, and was reading the page 248 entry as if those were the requirements for BM, in which case, I would continue to make this argument. But clearly it's very wrong and battle medicine requires 2 hands. Oof. BIG oof.

Maybe paizo is just allergic to saying "Battle medicine requires X hands"


Cyrad wrote:
Will the interactions with finesse and "maneuver" weapon traits also get clarified or fixed? Not being able to apply finesse on Athletics maneuvers is a pretty huge blow.

I'll second this question.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hearsay suggests that Mark Seifter didn't agree with that interpretation in the first place, so the lack of interaction would be intended if that's true...but there's still a rule saying that GMs can allow skill actions to be rolled with different attributes if it makes sense, I believe, and the finesse+trait interaction fits snugly into that space.

Marketing & Media Manager

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Alfa/Polaris wrote:
pauljathome wrote:
Aaron Shanks wrote:
CrystalSeas wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
It all is included. The second section is just for the entries that did not fit in the system the website uses for FAQs in errata. There's just a few because it almost held all of them before running out of space.

Let me be sure I understand.

The Errata on this website lists all the differences between the 1st printing hardcover version of the Core Rulebook and the 2nd printing hardcover version of the Core Rulebook

The 2nd printing hardcover version of the Core Rulebook;
the pocket edition of the Core Rulebook;
and the PDF version of the Core Rulebook
are identical, and there are no differences between the copy in each of the three versions.

Can staff confirm that that is, at the very least, how it should be?

Correct.
Can you please !et us know which to use when they disagree? For example, alchemist armor and Battle Medicine are DIFFERENT in the pdf and in the Errata.

I'm not an official person, but I'm pretty sure the second printing just doesn't include some of the errata due to oversight or lack of time, so go with the errata. It's more recent.

For the record, I'm also pretty sure Battle Medicine is one hand if healer's tools are worn or two if they're carried in the hands, like Treat Wounds and other Medicine skill actions, for reasons I've expressed elsewhere. Guess we'll see how that goes.

To clarify, my understanding is that,

“The 2nd printing hardcover version of the Core Rulebook;
the pocket edition of the Core Rulebook;
and the PDF version of the Core Rulebook
are identical, and there are no differences between the copy in each of the three versions.“

However, I have no information regarding any discrepancies between the above and the errata on the FAQ page. The FAQ’s are potentially fresher.

We are closed tomorrow. I’ll explore internally on Thursday. Be well.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Alfa/Polaris wrote:
Hearsay suggests that Mark Seifter didn't agree with that interpretation in the first place, so the lack of interaction would be intended if that's true...but there's still a rule saying that GMs can allow skill actions to be rolled with different attributes if it makes sense, I believe, and the finesse+trait interaction fits snugly into that space.

The GM declaring that it makes sense to finesse trips with a whip when Paizo just broke the attack rules to stop that interaction is functionally identical to the GM saying they disagree with Paizo's stance on the issue and are therefore houseruling.

Like, I'd be with the GM in this situation for sure, but let's call a spade a spade. Not really the same thing as the GM deciding that this swim check should be done with charisma because it's synchronized swimming performed for a judge.


Also, is the special edition of the core rulebook also in a 2nd printing?
Is the special edition even getting a second print actually


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Alfa/Polaris wrote:
pauljathome wrote:
Aaron Shanks wrote:
CrystalSeas wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
It all is included. The second section is just for the entries that did not fit in the system the website uses for FAQs in errata. There's just a few because it almost held all of them before running out of space.

Let me be sure I understand.

The Errata on this website lists all the differences between the 1st printing hardcover version of the Core Rulebook and the 2nd printing hardcover version of the Core Rulebook

The 2nd printing hardcover version of the Core Rulebook;
the pocket edition of the Core Rulebook;
and the PDF version of the Core Rulebook
are identical, and there are no differences between the copy in each of the three versions.

Can staff confirm that that is, at the very least, how it should be?

Correct.
Can you please !et us know which to use when they disagree? For example, alchemist armor and Battle Medicine are DIFFERENT in the pdf and in the Errata.

I'm not an official person, but I'm pretty sure the second printing just doesn't include some of the errata due to oversight or lack of time, so go with the errata. It's more recent.

For the record, I'm also pretty sure Battle Medicine is one hand if healer's tools are worn or two if they're carried in the hands, like Treat Wounds and other Medicine skill actions, for reasons I've expressed elsewhere. Guess we'll see how that goes.

There are some cases that work the other way. For example, Mountain Stance was changed to an item bonus in the book, but that isn't mentioned in the errata.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Alfa/Polaris wrote:
Hearsay suggests that Mark Seifter didn't agree with that interpretation in the first place, so the lack of interaction would be intended if that's true...but there's still a rule saying that GMs can allow skill actions to be rolled with different attributes if it makes sense, I believe, and the finesse+trait interaction fits snugly into that space.

The GM declaring that it makes sense to finesse trips with a whip when Paizo just broke the attack rules to stop that interaction is functionally identical to the GM saying they disagree with Paizo's stance on the issue and are therefore houseruling.

Like, I'd be with the GM in this situation for sure, but let's call a spade a spade. Not really the same thing as the GM deciding that this swim check should be done with charisma because it's synchronized swimming performed for a judge.

I get the point but it is not a house rule, because the core rules on skill checks specifically tell the GM to do this type of thing.

For the record:
The rules for grapple weapon trait have always told you that this was a skill check. The finesse trait says you can use DEX for attack rolls. Now attack rolls are not the same as the attack trait due to the new errata. So the grapple action is just a skill check not actually an attack roll.
But you are still left with that the GM is encouraged to use different key abilities. I don't think it is reasonable for a GM to say no to using DEX for a grapple with a whip, but they always had the option anyway.

It is likely these Grapple Shove Trip Disarm can occur without a weapon. It is more obviously a GM call there. But I guess that runs into the problem of fist having finesse.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Archdracolich wrote:

Also, is the special edition of the core rulebook also in a 2nd printing?

Is the special edition even getting a second print actually

The answer was no, its not


14 people marked this as a favorite.

Although not listed in the errata, the Druid Dedication has been changed. It now makes it clear that you are bound by the general Druidic anathema, and not just by the Order anathema. So no teaching others the Druidic language.

Also no metal armor or shields if you MC into Druid. They even changed the picture on that page so the character is wearing leather armor instead of metal.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aaron Shanks wrote:
We are closed tomorrow. I’ll explore internally on Thursday. Be well.

Thanks so much Aaron

Liberty's Edge

Will PFS characters impacted by the errata be eligible for a free rebuild?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

That should be a question for the Organized Play forum. And you'll want to specify what specific rules change and what kind of impact you're asking about.


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

That question is better suited in the Organized Play forums.

However, at present nothing have been said, so there's two existing options:

1) Normal retraining w/ downtime options for some changes
2) Purchase one of the ACP retaining boons (which has the 85% wealth aspect)

There are some corner cases, that probably should be asked about with concrete examples for the campaign leadership in the OP forums. I would not expect a blanket rebuild though.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Erratum: an error in printing or writing
Errata: a list of corrected errors appended to a book or published in a subsequent issue of a journal
FAQ: acronym for "frequently asked question(s)". In the plural, refers to a list of such questions and their answers.

If Paizo are using their FAQ list to record corrections to errors in their books, that's a mite inconvenient compared to errata which can be printed out and kept with the relevant book or to errata which are included (errors corrected in place) in a subsequent edition of the book. Of course, the latter is going to cost a bit. Just sayin'. :-)


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Gisher wrote:

Although not listed in the errata, the Druid Dedication has been changed. It now makes it clear that you are bound by the general Druidic anathema, and not just by the Order anathema. So no teaching others the Druidic language.

Also no metal armor or shields if you MC into Druid. They even changed the picture on that page so the character is wearing leather armor instead of metal.

A very reasonable ruling and probably what we should have assumed anyway.

But yes this is hidden errata. Thankyou for pointing it out.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Multiple attack penalty applies. The CRB says "Striking multiple times in a turn has diminishing returns. The multiple attack penalty (detailed on page 446) applies to each attack after the first, whether those attacks are Strikes, special attacks like the Grapple action of the Athletics skill, or spell attack rolls." We're looking to push an update soon to explain this in the errata entry in question.

OK. I found this. It is in the text at the bottom of the panel on Striding and Striking on page 447.

The text on page 446 on MAP has text that only says the penalty is to attack rolls.

Neither of these changed with the errata or the updated CORE RuleBook PDF

At least this clears it up.


Gortle wrote:
Gisher wrote:

Although not listed in the errata, the Druid Dedication has been changed. It now makes it clear that you are bound by the general Druidic anathema, and not just by the Order anathema. So no teaching others the Druidic language.

Also no metal armor or shields if you MC into Druid. They even changed the picture on that page so the character is wearing leather armor instead of metal.

A very reasonable ruling and probably what we should have assumed anyway.

But yes this is hidden errata. Thankyou for pointing it out.

You're welcome. :)

To be honest it was always that picture that made me lean toward the conclusion that metal armor wasn't restricted. But it does make sense that the general anathema still apply.


16 people marked this as a favorite.

This battle medicine thing feels like being on the the final hole of mini golf trying to putt it into the cup but you just keep overshooting it stroke after stroke

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:

Hope the errata is helpful to everyone! :)

Before folks start talking about the errata in detail in this thread, I just want to take a moment to tell everyone how amazing the work of Katina Davis, Maryssa Lagervall, and Andrew White was to get all of these coordinated and up. 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!

Thanks for finally releasing it. It doesn't contain everything I was hoping for, but it's still nice to have.

Also, why didn't you release a pdf version? Just reading it on screen is much harder than downloading it as a pdf.

Shadow Lodge

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:
Note how there are multiple official Paizo reps in this very thread but that they all studiously avoid addressing the Battle Medicine debacle.

One is part of marketing, the other is a designer. It's like the developers have learned it's not worth responding to debates. I wonder why?


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Aaron Shanks wrote:

“The 2nd printing hardcover version of the Core Rulebook;

the pocket edition of the Core Rulebook;
and the PDF version of the Core Rulebook
are identical, and there are no differences between the copy in each of the three versions.“

However, I have no information regarding any discrepancies between the above and the errata on the FAQ page. The FAQ’s are potentially fresher.

We are closed tomorrow. I’ll explore internally on Thursday. Be well.

Mark Seifter wrote:
It all is included. The second section is just for the entries that did not fit in the system the website uses for FAQs in errata. There's just a few because it almost held all of them before running out of space.

Can we please have dates listed with errata entries. Even if it is bracketed at the end of each entry (inline text). That way community efforts can better keep track of changes, I have already made am excel sheet but keeping the versions up to date and cross referencing stealth changes will be a problem in time without dates.

I can understand that stuff like the weird errata presentation might be out of your hands, but something small like this is better than nothing for us on the other end of it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It would be awesome if you could make a second version of the errata pdf.

That is a lot nicer for printing out and tucking into the CRB.

Thanks!

Mark Seifter wrote:

Hope the errata is helpful to everyone! :)

Before folks start talking about the errata in detail in this thread, I just want to take a moment to tell everyone how amazing the work of Katina Davis, Maryssa Lagervall, and Andrew White was to get all of these coordinated and up. 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!


9 people marked this as a favorite.
theservantsllcleanitup wrote:
This battle medicine thing feels like being on the the final hole of mini golf trying to putt it into the cup but you just keep overshooting it stroke after stroke

It looks like battle medicine is going to become the bardic masterpiece debacle of 2e. The bizarre thing is that it really doesnt need to be. The issue is far less complex than masterpieces and it is baffling why they have chosen not to answer the question. It has been asked repeatedly now for over a year and we still have no clear answer.

Grand Archive

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
TOZ wrote:
Zapp wrote:
Note how there are multiple official Paizo reps in this very thread but that they all studiously avoid addressing the Battle Medicine debacle.
One is part of marketing, the other is a designer. It's like the developers have learned it's not worth responding to debates. I wonder why?

Just to be clear:

Designers write the rules.
Developers use the rules to write content.
:O
But yeah. They need to go through a full pipeline to make sure the answers are legit and to not create more controversy.

I saw a good breakdown:
Forum asks a question. Forum agrees they prefer X over Y.
1.
Designer A replies with X.
The official answer ends up X. It's ok, but A might be seen as a hero vs the team even if there is no proof that the team might have gone with Y.
2.
Designer A replies with Y.
The official answer ends up X. A is seen as a villain that wanted Y.
3.
Designer A replies with Y.
The official answer ends up Y. A is seen as a villain that forced Y.
4.
Designer A replies with X.
The official answer ends up Y. A is seen as a hero versus the big bad team.

So no-win scenario.

201 to 250 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.