Core Rulebook 2nd Printing Errata

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.

But there is, they say "Hey, I can't say if it's X or Y but I'll raise the issue in the next errata round" and then when it isn't addressed say "sorry guys, don't know how we missed it with 10 extra months to get this errata out. We'll make it a priority and hope to have it out by *insert date*"

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.
...

I think the biggest issue is they do not explain anything. Just "we chose X" and they pretend like it was always meant to be X and the community is foolish/wrong for thinking it was ever Y.

It's like when people just say "no" and then you go "why" and they say "because I said so!". Now, you might argue that "if they say anything other than because I said so, people will debate them!". To which I would say, people are already doing that anyway.

In software, releasing patches and updates are generally things people get excited not only to receive but to release because you know you're generally making your community happier by solving problems they specifically asked to be solved.

"We changed X because users were seeing an issue when doing Y, so now when they do Y they shouldn't experience issues with W."

Now let's read a sample errata:

"Attack Rolls. There was some confusion"

Already basically putting the blame on the people for being "confused" because the rules were apparently crystal clear before (which is why a large sum of the community played it this way...right?)

...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.

No explanation as to why they are not, not why it's important they are not, not what all is intended to be affected by the change, nothing.

Just you were wrong and confused about the rules we wrote and its your fault for not understanding why we changed it, oh and figure out all the places our new rule affects your games on your own we didn't want to list them.

It literally comes off as practically scolding the people for "doing it wrong".

Let's see if we can't change the errata to be a little less abbrasive:

"Attack Rolls. The rules were written in a way that skill checks with the attack trait (such as Grapple or Trip) could also be read as being attack rolls, which is unintended. The reason this is unintended is because things that were meant to only affect attack rolls like True Strike, Inspire Courage, and Finesse are not meant to apply to maneuvers. 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. In addition, since we know some of our players were relying on Finesse maneuvers, we have added the following Skill Feat:

Dexterous Maneuvers
expert in athletics
_________
You can make Trip and Disarms using your Dexterity modifier for Athletics instead of your Strength modifier."

__________________

The above treats us like customers of their dedicated product. No one that's a casual probably even cares about errata unless they are in PFS.

The way errata is currently released, I personally feel, that it treats anyone that wasn't playing by their previously written rules (Playtest rules at the VERY least) as if they are collateral damage for the "greater good".

Not to mention fixes that end up being non-fixes because they didn't check the other places in the rules where they didn't make the appropriate changes (see tools 2 hands and Battlemedicine).

It comes off as releasing untested changes, which in software is a huge no-no.

__________________

I do agree this community can be abrasive at times, but it's not like they are doing themselves any favors IMO when it comes to errata.

I feel like the "confusion" part was basically saying that multiple people were reading it differently. There's nothing more to it really. And yes, multiple people were indeed reading it differently. I know a lot of people that were surprised when they read that errata and never played with finesse working on athletic checks.
A state of confusion can also be applied to a community, meaning that the community doesn't have the same understanding of something.

1. lack of understanding; uncertainty.

"There seems to be some confusion about which system does what"

It was also used in the "uncertainty" sense.

Also, I don't recall Paizo pointing any fingers.
In the past, these same devs have apologized for their choice of phrasing or for missing words, etc. Them saying there's confusion is acknowledging the situation, with the implication that Paizo will takes steps to clarify...not blame. Gaslighting is several degrees removed from this, and involves shifting blame, manipulation, and subversive intent. None of that is present in noting that some people are confused when everybody knows that there are people in the community that actually are confused.

FWIW when I first read the notion of using Dex to Trip with the right finesse weapon I was kind of skeptical of that interpretation. Until I saw a post from someone at Paizo confirming that was the intent (albeit on string of Facebook comments that no longer exists).

In that context it does feel, uh... weird, to have them not only suddenly reverse their position after a year of silence but also to insist this was always the way the game was meant to be played and people had simply misinterpreted the rulebook.

I'm not one to throw oil on a fire, but I must admit that this last argument hit a sensitive spot, mostly because I remember being in those shoes a couple years ago. And here is what I had to learn the hard way: assuming someone's intent is usually a bad idea. Most people don't INTEND to hurt others, however rude or condescending words may seem. There is a lot going on in conversation, and written word loses much of it by not providing non-verbal cues, such as tone and facial expressions.

That doesn't mean that feeling insulted or misunderstood is wrong in itself. Those feelings are totally valid and should be expressed and addressed as such. But it is usually a better approach to keep an open mind about the intent, than to presume of it. More often than not, it is a question of individual experience and implicit vs explicit understanding. Different dictionaries don't always agree on the exact, explicit meaning of a word, even less so on implicit interpretations.

All in all, I'm suggesting to all implicated parties to "keep their cool" and open their mind to different interpretations - and therefore intentions - than what is immediately understood.

I read the FAQ language as referring to a general "crowd".

As an aside, here we are again, should we delay the next year of books, so that designers can make sure everyone feels good about the errata/faq? Maybe so, maybe not, but whatever decision is made there will be consequences. No doubt.

Just some thoughts ...

As many have already begun, I suggest the community simply start developing a potential 3rd round of errata/faq.

Also, start a community "sage advice" somewhere (Something like a wiki, etc). A centralized location.

I think at this point, it is pretty clear that there just simply isn't enough time and money for Paizo to offer everyone what they want in the for form of a FAQ, so let's move on and be productive.

I think acting like the rules always inherently were read one way after a playtest comment from a developer said the opposite during the playtest and leaving no alternatives for the people that enjoyed a rule says enough on its own.

Acting like it was never that way and then calling people confused is where it goes from "innocent wording" to "gaslighting" to me personally. You can't just act like it never happened for those of us that were playing it that way because we were literally told it works that way.

Not to mention the other things I outlined in the original comment I made:

- They do not tell us what the intent is at all

- They do not tell us where these changes are meant to be applied

- They do not tell us why they felt this change was important and had to be made

And while I will say "never assume ill-intent" is definitely true, I agree, I never see that logic get applied to community comments/posts but somehow Paizo always has someone willing to come in and argue "no no, they meant the secondary definition of confusion, like general confusion!".

I am not calling them villains or myself a victim.

I am saying their errata and specifically, their wording to address the community comes off as callous to those affected by the decisions they decided to make because they didn't acknowledge the ways that it would affect tables that were not playing it that way.

I can confirm that the errata meant an overall state of confusion for the community with multiple opinions (using confusion as a gentler term rather than something like "argument" and to pair with confusion leading to clarification), and the existence of that confusion is 100% on us for our wording, not on any of you, especially when we have an off-the-cuff playtest designer response in the mix. We realized partway through the playtest that we didn't have a good record for those and stopped giving them, and I'm at least happy we don't seem to have caused any further confusion in the final game from that period of time, other than that one point. Avoiding confusion is our job, and it's on us if we don't, it's never on you. We're probably among the most upset about mistakes or unclear passages because we always want to get everything clear and correct if we can.

Glad that was resolved.

I can confirm that the errata meant an overall state of confusion for the community with multiple opinions (using confusion as a gentler term rather than something like "argument" and to pair with confusion leading to clarification), and the existence of that confusion is 100% on us for our wording, not on any of you, especially when we have an off-the-cuff playtest designer response in the mix. We realized partway through the playtest that we didn't have a good record for those and stopped giving them, and I'm at least happy we don't seem to have caused any further confusion in the final game from that period of time, other than that one point. Avoiding confusion is our job, and it's on us if we don't, it's never on you. We're probably among the most upset about mistakes or unclear passages because we always want to get everything clear and correct if we can.

Thank you, Mark. Sorry about my frustration.

Mark Seifter wrote:

I can confirm that the errata meant an overall state of confusion for the community with multiple opinions (using confusion as a gentler term rather than something like "argument" and to pair with confusion leading to clarification), and the existence of that confusion is 100% on us for our wording, not on any of you, especially when we have an off-the-cuff playtest designer response in the mix. We realized partway through the playtest that we didn't have a good record for those and stopped giving them, and I'm at least happy we don't seem to have caused any further confusion in the final game from that period of time, other than that one point. Avoiding confusion is our job, and it's on us if we don't, it's never on you. We're probably among the most upset about mistakes or unclear passages because we always want to get everything clear and correct if we can.

Thank you, Mark. Sorry about my frustration.

It's completely understandable. And I've seen everyone talking about how long it took above. I wish we could have had these errata out sooner. Lyz took charge of the errata and was doing a phenomenal job, great with the details, working efficiently, working with Joe to build a new system for them that the two of them really understood. But she left, and that slowed us down a lot. I'm sorry about that. It would have been better to have many of these out around the time APG launched if we could have.

It's completely understandable. And I've seen everyone talking about how long it took above. I wish we could have had these errata out sooner. Lyz took charge of the errata and was doing a phenomenal job, great with the details, working efficiently, working with Joe to build a new system for them that the two of them really understood. But she left, and that slowed us down a lot. I'm sorry about that. It would have been better to have many of these out around the time APG launched if we could have.

That's rough :(

I'm especially sad to hear about Lyz, I loved her work on the Witch and was not aware she left the company.

Mark Seifter wrote:

It's completely understandable. And I've seen everyone talking about how long it took above. I wish we could have had these errata out sooner. Lyz took charge of the errata and was doing a phenomenal job, great with the details, working efficiently, working with Joe to build a new system for them that the two of them really understood. But she left, and that slowed us down a lot. I'm sorry about that. It would have been better to have many of these out around the time APG launched if we could have.

That's rough :(

I'm especially sad to hear about Lyz, I loved her work on the Witch and was not aware she left the company.

Lyz is wonderful, and she is now the Managing Editor for all of Magic the Gathering, which is an incredible position for her. Eventually after that we added Michael Sayre to the team, and I think and hope you'll enjoy his creative designs. He was previously the Pathfinder Society Developer and has done a lot of 3rd Party work. For PF2 design, you might know him from the marshal archetype and about half the monk content from Advanced Player's Guide.

Lyz is wonderful, and she is now the Managing Editor for all of Magic the Gathering, which is an incredible position for her. Eventually after that we added Michael Sayre to the team, and I think and hope you'll enjoy his creative designs. He was previously the Pathfinder Society Developer and has done a lot of 3rd Party work. For PF2 design, you might know him from the marshal archetype and about half the monk content from Advanced Player's Guide.

Hard to argue with a change in a position like that! Well wishes to her.

And that's exciting to hear about Michael Sayre, the Marshall already made an appearance in one of my groups already (especially since Barbarian is compatible with it!).

To the future!

It's completely understandable. And I've seen everyone talking about how long it took above. I wish we could have had these errata out sooner. Lyz took charge of the errata and was doing a phenomenal job, great with the details, working efficiently, working with Joe to build a new system for them that the two of them really understood. But she left, and that slowed us down a lot. I'm sorry about that. It would have been better to have many of these out around the time APG launched if we could have.

Mark, thanks for chiming in on the topic and straightening out some question marks. If I may add a suggestion? Reading through the errata, it is pretty clear that it is indeed errata — a list of things that are wrong in the rules, and need correcting. However, what I think many of us were hoping for, and what I think the game would be well served by an FAQ in addition to the errata — answers to things that are unclear, without necessarily being incorrect. Ideally, this would both cover concrete questions (e.g. "Do handwraps of mighty blows help with wild shape attacks?" or "How many hands do I need for Battle Medicine?"), and perhaps give some insight to more overarching questions as well (e.g. "Why aren't there any items that improve spell attack rolls, particularly considering that monsters generally have spell attack bonuses that are 2 points better than their save DC implies?"). Something like that would be a great addition to the errata.

[SNIP](e.g. "Why aren't there any items that improve spell attack rolls, particularly considering that monsters generally have spell attack bonuses that are 2 points better than their save DC implies?"). Something like that would be a great addition to the errata.

IMHO, I see it more as their DCs are two lower, to count for the fact it's harder for players to boost their saves, and almost no character can boost their 3 saves equally. So the DCs are lower. But that's just my speculations based on the general discussions and design philosophies the designers talked about these last few years, and the monster creation rules.

Staffan Johansson wrote:

[SNIP](e.g. "Why aren't there any items that improve spell attack rolls, particularly considering that monsters generally have spell attack bonuses that are 2 points better than their save DC implies?"). Something like that would be a great addition to the errata.

IMHO, I see it more as their DCs are two lower, to count for the fact it's harder for players to boost their saves, and almost no character can boost their 3 saves equally. So the DCs are lower. But that's just my speculations based on the general discussions and design philosophies the designers talked about these last few years, and the monster creation rules.

Of you actually look at the math, monsters end up hitting PCs on 6s at some levels (regular melee attacks) but saving throws tend pretty stable at needing a 9-11.

The net result is the same, but either:

(a) spell attacks maintain parity with melee monster attacks and saving throws across the board are 2 points easier, resulting in a descrepancy.
(b) saving throws across the board are exactly where they're supposed to be at needing a 9-11 to succeed and spell attacks are boosted by 2 points in comparison.

Regardless PC spell attacks are missing those 2 points: monsters differ by 8, PCs differ by 10.

I always thought something odd was up with finesse maneuver weapons. I mean, it makes sort of sense that you can dexterously disarm someone with a rapier. On the other hand, all these weapons also let you do maneuvers that you otherwise needed a free hand for. And strikes with your hands would be like Fist weapons that had finesse, but you couldn't do finesse maneuvers with your bare hands, which was kind of weird then...

Hi all, a quick note on how these errata fold into Organized Play and Pathfinder Society:

With these errata, there may now be discrepancies between your Pathfinder Society character and the published rules. The Organized Play team therefore would like to issue a few clarifications for addressing the Core Rulebook errata in Pathfinder Society:

1. If your character owns an item that no longer exists in the Core Rulebook due to errata, or that is no longer legal for purchase (for instance, staves with property runes), your character loses this item and immediately regains the full gold piece price you paid for it.
2. If your character owns an item whose price has increased due to errata, you can either sell it back at the price you paid for it, or you can pay the difference in price.
3. If an item decreased in price due to errata, you immediately regain the difference in price.
4. The errata states that “the GM might allow you” to upgrade an item from a lower-level version to a higher-level version (for instance, upgrading a type I bag of holding to type II). This is allowed for Pathfinder Society.

These changes take effect immediately and will be reflected in the next update to the Guide to Organized Play and other more permanent sources, but I'd like to post here as well just to get the word out. We are also working on creating a standard set of rules for bringing your character up to date when affected by errata, similar to the rules present in the Guide for Starfinder Society.

I always thought something odd was up with finesse maneuver weapons. I mean, it makes sort of sense that you can dexterously disarm someone with a rapier. On the other hand, all these weapons also let you do maneuvers that you otherwise needed a free hand for. And strikes with your hands would be like Fist weapons that had finesse, but you couldn't do finesse maneuvers with your bare hands, which was kind of weird then...

On fist, I always read it as fist never had the traits for maneuvers, so therefore you needed special training to be dexterous with them and add the traits to fists (ala Wolf Stance).

So basically fists were like any other finesse weapon that didn’t have a maneuver trait, so therefore you could only use base athletics which required STR.

I thought it was rather elegant and intentional. Now I feel silly lol.

IMHO, I see it more as their DCs are two lower, to count for the fact it's harder for players to boost their saves, and almost no character can boost their 3 saves equally. So the DCs are lower. But that's just my speculations based on the general discussions and design philosophies the designers talked about these last few years, and the monster creation rules.

Either way, there's a two-point discrepancy for almost all monsters compared to PCs. For PCs, spell save DC is universally* spell attack +10, for monsters it's spell attack +8. And monsters' spell attacks seem to scale fairly well with their physical attacks, whereas PC spell attacks are generally 1-3 points behind martial characters' attacks.

Either way, I did not mean to make this thread about that particular issue — we've danced this dance many times before. But it would be interesting to peek under the hood about why it is so, instead of just having to speculate.

* Or nearly so — there might be something that changes it, but nothing comes to mind.

Hi folks, friendly reminder to practice grace with other community members. Everyone has a lot going on right now and if you can't come to the forums without getting into spats or making snide remarks, consider taking a break from the keyboard. Roll some dice, read a book (might I suggest some of our $5.00 Pathfinder Tales Novels?), or otherwise find space to relax until you are able to come back to the discussion without being accusatory or argumentative.

Elfteiroh wrote:

IMHO, I see it more as their DCs are two lower, to count for the fact it's harder for players to boost their saves, and almost no character can boost their 3 saves equally. So the DCs are lower. But that's just my speculations based on the general discussions and design philosophies the designers talked about these last few years, and the monster creation rules.

Either way, there's a two-point discrepancy for almost all monsters compared to PCs. For PCs, spell save DC is universally* spell attack +10, for monsters it's spell attack +8. And monsters' spell attacks seem to scale fairly well with their physical attacks, whereas PC spell attacks are generally 1-3 points behind martial characters' attacks.

Either way, I did not mean to make this thread about that particular issue — we've danced this dance many times before. But it would be interesting to peek under the hood about why it is so, instead of just having to speculate.

* Or nearly so — there might be something that changes it, but nothing comes to mind.

It's not really germane to the discussion on the various errata, but Elfteiroh is mainly correct that it's the "High DC" column that rises at a steady but eventually slower pace over the course of 20 levels than a PC's DCs can (for much the reason Elfteiroh points out about saving throws). Note that for instance the lich, or other monsters that have spell DCs above high typically have a spell attack roll of -10 (there have been some exceptions, but they are generally supposed to work like that). The GMG creature building guidelines explains the fact that high DC doesn't eventually keep up with a PC spellcaster and suggest going higher than high for a dedicated spellcaster enemy at very high levels, but I realize it didn't mention the corollary about how that applies to spell attack.

Mark, can you answer whether or not we'll have a clarification on how many hands you need to use Battle Medicine?

It's the most asked question over the last 15 months and it would really mean a lot if we could finally get an answer.

Mark, can you answer whether or not we'll have a clarification on how many hands you need to use Battle Medicine?

It's the most asked question over the last 15 months and it would really mean a lot if we could finally get an answer.

I'm working on it. I know it's not really fair for me to ask "Please be patient" when it's been a while already, but there's not much I can do otherwise other than not answer.

Ok. Thank you.

That is more than enough. Thank you Mark.

I’ve communicated with both Mark S and Joe P (re: Starfinder) about how we might implement regular blogs to address rules errata, FAQ’s, and/or best practices. I’ll be following their lead as to content and timing, so we can’t make any commitments at this time, but I’m standing by to amplify them. I wanted to let the community know that you are heard.

The design team has had some recent turnover and that has created delays, but the good news is they are adding a full time position overall. This means that, after a training period, capacity should increase and more frequent communication could occur.

Look for a Paizo-People blog in mid-December celebrating our recent new hires and promotions. I’m so proud of the productivity and innovation the staff has maintained while working from home. Their devotion is inspiring. As always, thanks to the players for your passion, patronage, and in this case, patience.

Nefreet wrote:

Mark, can you answer whether or not we'll have a clarification on how many hands you need to use Battle Medicine?

It's the most asked question over the last 15 months and it would really mean a lot if we could finally get an answer.

I'm working on it. I know it's not really fair for me to ask "Please be patient" when it's been a while already, but there's not much I can do otherwise other than not answer.

I realize you probably don't want more to think about this right now, but it has been pointed out that The "How many hands to use worn healers tools" has some implications for "How many hands to pick locks / disable traps with worn thieves tools."

I’ve communicated with both Mark S and Joe P (re: Starfinder) about how we might implement regular blogs to address rules errata, FAQ’s, and/or best practices. I’ll be following their lead as to content and timing, so we can’t make any commitments at this time, but I’m standing by to amplify them. I wanted to let the community know that you are heard.

The design team has had some recent turnover and that has created delays, but the good news is they are adding a full time position overall. This means that, after a training period, capacity should increase and more frequent communication could occur.

Look for a Paizo-People blog in mid-December celebrating our recent new hires and promotions. I’m so proud of the productivity and innovation the staff has maintained while working from home. Their devotion is inspiring. As always, thanks to the players for your passion, patronage, and in this case, patience.

Thanks to Aaron for all his dedication in moving things forward. Aaron is right that we are adding a full time position, which brings us from 3/5 capacity to 4/5 capacity. That's still not full capacity, so we can't make any promises, but it's an awful lot closer, and if we're lucky it might lead to more time for communication tasks. I really enjoy writing blogs, going on streams, and other forms of communication, and I hope we can get caught up from behind so we can have more of all of these, with Aaron's help.

Just remember: the hurrieder you go, the behinder you get. :-)

Thanks for the communication to all above.

4. The errata states that “the GM might allow you” to upgrade an item from a lower-level version to a higher-level version (for instance, upgrading a type I bag of holding to type II). This is allowed for Pathfinder Society.

I really appreciate this, but to echo a question I've already heard asked about it: do we simply pay the difference in price between the two items, or do we need to do crafting/hire a crafter?

James Case wrote:

4. The errata states that “the GM might allow you” to upgrade an item from a lower-level version to a higher-level version (for instance, upgrading a type I bag of holding to type II). This is allowed for Pathfinder Society.

I really appreciate this, but to echo a question I've already heard asked about it: do we simply pay the difference in price between the two items, or do we need to do crafting/hire a crafter?

To piggyback off of this: what about using downtime and the Craft activity to upgrade it?

So I have a question regarding the "you created" in Glib Mutagen. In the first errata it was mentioned that "you created" had no meaning overall for Alchemist things and it then gave a list of things that you should ignore the "you created" part but Glib Mutagen was not on the list. And now in this printing, it stills say the "you created" line. Was this just missed or does Glib intentionally have that line.

Any answer to whether the Errata or the updated rules in the pdf are considered the current set of rules?

James Case wrote:

4. The errata states that “the GM might allow you” to upgrade an item from a lower-level version to a higher-level version (for instance, upgrading a type I bag of holding to type II). This is allowed for Pathfinder Society.

I really appreciate this, but to echo a question I've already heard asked about it: do we simply pay the difference in price between the two items, or do we need to do crafting/hire a crafter?

They are talking about upgrading, so it would have to be a craft related if it is following the existing upgrade rules.

This is the kind of thing that makes me want to quit playing.

Everyone, thank you for your patience. The great way you all responded here, offering that patience again despite how long you've had to wait, was helpful to me in expediting some of the talks I needed to have with various people. Here's what we've got:

1) We want one-handed weapon characters who keep a free hand to be able to use their worn tools, and that includes Battle Medicine. Last night, Jared Thaler cleverly noticed the same thing that the design team had noticed just a bit earlier ourselves that this applies to more than just healer's tools so was a bit bigger than it seemed.

The end result was adding an update on the errata for Battle Medicine and for worn tools. Basically if you're wearing a set of tools, you don't need one hand to hold the kit and the other hand to hold the specific thing you're using (bandage, lockpick, or what have you), you just need one hand to draw the items you need, and the kit as a whole stays worn.

2) In the errata entry for attacks, added a breakdown explanation of attack rolls, the attack trait, and multiple attack penalty.

3) Much more minor, but to clarify the math of Cloud Jump, added an example of a character with 40 foot Speed who rolled a 25 and has Cloud Jump.

4) A few of the errata moved to the "Part 2" section because of the expansion of the "Part 1" errata made "Part 1" run out of space again.

These should all be live right now, thanks to Andrew White again for pushing the update.

Hmm, are there any plans to clarify what the signature items are?
Like, can Bombers get Moderate Alchemist's Fire as a signature once they reach level 3?

1) We want one-handed weapon characters who keep a free hand to be able to use their worn tools, and that includes Battle Medicine. Last night, Jared Thaler cleverly noticed the same thing that the design team had noticed just a bit earlier ourselves that this applies to more than just healer's tools so was a bit bigger than it seemed.

Credit should go to GM The Gnome for bringing it to my attention.

We heard you the first time.

Thanks for caring.