Changes to the Way We Make Changes

Other changes are good! I agree with someone up above that either the Healing trait needs to be adjusted so it doesn't kill off Soothe's purpose as an Undead healing spell, or the Undead PCs stuff from BotD should have an FAQ clarification about the Healing trait and how it interacts with the Undead trait that all Undead PCs gain.

My opinion: fix it in the undead trait. It would just be as simple as omitting the last clause in that trait (“…and don't benefit from healing effects.”), or even just adding the word “positive” right before “healing.” It’s silly to me that an undead creature is immune to restoration and remove curse. Like, if an undead BBEG gets blinded by a PC, they should be able to use restore senses on themselves.

And it won’t even render Stitch Flesh obsolete, because Treat Wounds still says it has to target a living creature.

...andpleasefortheloveofgodnerfelectricarcpleasepleaseplease--

Ah. I see I’m not the only one.

Really, most of the reason I saw people taking voluntary flaws was to turn an ancestry flaw into a bonus (so to get +2 Str on a Gnome or +2 Cha on a Dwarf) or turn an ancestry bonus into a flaw for RP reasons. Effectively- you could start with an 8 in anything except a Key Ability and an 18 in your Key Ability no matter what ancestry you had.

But being able to get the human array of Free, Free on any chassis means you can get an 18 in your KAS no matter what and the new Voluntary Flaws rule means if that 8 matters to you then you can have it.

Mathematically the new rule is stronger, since if you wanted a Strength and Cha bonus on a Gnome you could use your free boost on strength to negate the flaw and take two ability flaws to get get an extra boost to strength. Now you can just have +Str, +Cha on a gnome.

All I can say is that while that may be the most common reason you've seen, it's not the most common reason I've experienced or personally had, and I don't see any reason that my fun should be less important to support when so little is lost in doing so. Like, I like playing weird builds. It's not just about access to the dump or access to an 18 KAS or whatever (I often prefer to go for 16s anyways, haha), it's about being able to customize my abilities how I like.

Really, most of the reason I saw people taking voluntary flaws was to turn an ancestry flaw into a bonus (so to get +2 Str on a Gnome or +2 Cha on a Dwarf) or turn an ancestry bonus into a flaw for RP reasons. Effectively- you could start with an 8 in anything except a Key Ability and an 18 in your Key Ability no matter what ancestry you had.

But being able to get the human array of Free, Free on any chassis means you can get an 18 in your KAS no matter what and the new Voluntary Flaws rule means if that 8 matters to you then you can have it.

Mathematically the new rule is stronger, since if you wanted a Strength and Cha bonus on a Gnome you could use your free boost on strength to negate the flaw and take two ability flaws to get get an extra boost to strength. Now you can just have +Str, +Cha on a gnome.

I used it a lot to get 18/14/14/14/8/8 because I almost always don't care about 2 stats and I like finishing with 24/20/20/20. Not even entirely for optimization but because all the boosts line up nicely.

Really like the change to changes, it will enable a much more fluid and adaptable system. Specially for you're also making changes to APs and Lost Omens, which earlier ones had many errors that needed fixing.

I'm sure some people will not be happy with the ability score changes to ancestries, but you can still just say that's not how it works at your table and problem solved.

… it’s an optional rule.

Unikatze wrote:

Really like the change to changes, it will enable a much more fluid and adaptable system. Specially for you're also making changes to APs and Lost Omens, which earlier ones had many errors that needed fixing.

I'm sure some people will not be happy with the ability score changes to ancestries, but you can still just say that's not how it works at your table and problem solved.

… it’s an optional rule.

The Voluntary Flaws change is not.

There are a ton of reasons to like the old rule! Another one I was hesitating to bring up is play conditioning. Like, I know this might sound weird, but creating a mechanical benefit to lowering ability scores helps guide players to consider doing so. Weaknesses are helpful in building characters and in differentiation across parties--there's a reason PF2 has such a strong bias towards specialists! Encouraging players to give their PCs weak points helps teach players how to have a more fun and customized experience in character creation.

Without a reward, sure, players can still voluntarily dump their stats, and many of us will. It just feels worse, because it's clearly not something the system is really giving us any reason to do. You know how we sometimes say that roleplay should happen in tandem with the rules, not in spite of them? Voluntarily weakening your character for no reason other than roleplay is working against what the system encourages you to do. It's not the same.

Also, like, flaws-for-boosts was fun! Like, PF2's "flaws for boosts" mechanic has always been a bit threadbare, but it's like a tiny little puzzle to think about what to sacrifice, picking and choosing my priorities. Sometimes I don't dump my stats at all, but sometimes I do, and I find it to be, you know, fun! And that's also a valid reason to want the option of a reward for dump stats to stay.

To be clear, the Voluntary Flaws change is also an optional matter, since it's a change to a variant rule... but that's honestly what makes this weirder. It was already opt-in only! Why discourage tables even more from using it?

Yeah uh... The voluntary flaws part I am not a fan of. Like Guntermench above 18/14/14/14/8/8 for a strong finish at the end game was my go to. Also really helped with requirements for multiclass archetypes early. This is a really weird errata, some people are going to have to totally remake characters?

Really promising update.

More timely errata is a huge boon. While I get waiting for a reprint, there are too many minor changes that need to be done that just weren't getting out (Arcane Cascade, looking at you).
More ancestry boost options is good. It makes the game more modular to suit tables taste and homebrew settings. No notes.
Can't wait to see the updated Alchemist! I was already looking forward to Treasure Vault, but this makes it even better.
Not too concerned one way or another about the flickmace, though hopefully it'll make it less of a meme you see on the boards/Reddit.

Glad to see Paizo keeps improving.

Very pleased to see an errata improvement. I am happy to see Paizo prioritising the health of their much-beloved game and I hope it will instil further adoration and increase longevity of the system. Kudos.

Anything that causes Golarion’s Gnomish—adoption rates to plummet can only be good for global mental and emotional health Earthside. Adoption-for-crunch is an anathema, no matter the ancestry (though egregious with gnomes/halflings/dwarves where longshank bebbies are concerned). Ok, Ok - Carrot was funny, a bit. Once. But this…sport… of ridiculousness is…ridiculous.

Now I'm wanting to play a gnome mom who's going adventuring now that all her adopted fighter children have grown up and left the nest.

Rysky wrote:

Unikatze wrote:

Really like the change to changes, it will enable a much more fluid and adaptable system. Specially for you're also making changes to APs and Lost Omens, which earlier ones had many errors that needed fixing.

I'm sure some people will not be happy with the ability score changes to ancestries, but you can still just say that's not how it works at your table and problem solved.

… it’s an optional rule.

The Voluntary Flaws change is not.

Which was not being discussed.

I'm actually not sure which one they were discussing. Surprisingly, nobody's complained about the "good" part of the new ability score change yet, so maybe Unikatze meant the Voluntary Flaws change.

I'm putting "good" in quotes because I feel bad implying there's a "bad" part of the change. Like, I think it's a little bad, but I don't want to be smarmy about it. :P

Any plans to errata the Captivstor archetype so the first dedication feat id a 2nd lvl fear rather than a 4th?

You can still do an 18/14/14/12/10/10. I'm not sure I would want to get two -1s for that extra +1.

Unikatze wrote:

Really like the change to changes, it will enable a much more fluid and adaptable system. Specially for you're also making changes to APs and Lost Omens, which earlier ones had many errors that needed fixing.

I'm sure some people will not be happy with the ability score changes to ancestries, but you can still just say that's not how it works at your table and problem solved.

… it’s an optional rule.

It's not an optional rule. It's the new rule.

The change to ancestry ability score bonuses is a new rule, but only in the sense that it's a new rule that every player gets to choose. It's effectively still optional. It's a different set of player options.

You can still do an 18/14/14/12/10/10. I'm not sure I would want to get two -1s for that extra +1.

Maybe you wouldn't, but hey, some of us would! This game is full of diverse playstyles, and I think we should be careful before we errata one out for little reason other than, "Well, I personally don't play that way, and it feels like clutter." It was always an optional rule, after all.

I like the changes. The voluntary flaws changes does somewhat nerf humans and other non flawed ancestries but overall, it adds more versatility to the system and supports more concepts. Which was the intended point I think. Good job.

Personally, I think 3 Boosts + 1 Flaw should have become the alternative, with the option to buy out of the Flaw as per usual. I don't hate the 2 Boosts option, it's gonna make a lot of my character ancestry choices more focused on theme and PC identity rather than stats, but it leaves me wondering if there's a reason 3 Boosts + 1 Flaw didn't become standard. I'm not sure I like the change to the Voluntary Flaws system either, if only because it felt relatively balanced as-is and gave some players the option to tweak stats a bit more to meet a concept. As long as the limitations on how many boosts and flaws a stat can receive within the same step remains intact, I don't see it breaking anything personally.

Side note on the Soothe clarification: while in the playing undead section, that sidebar seems to imply that it works on all Undead because it doesn't specify playable undead. But the Undead trait still says "don't benefit from healing effects". So is the sidebar still wrong, or is the Undead trait wrong?

I really like 2 Boosts + the (variant rule) option to get 1 Flaw in exchange for a third Boost. It puts humans on an equal footing with elves and dwarves and gives everyone a nice diverse set of options to choose from. I'm honestly really surprised we didn't go with that.

Anyways, I'm gonna try to tap out of this thread for now, because I don't want to start any huge debate. I've given my thoughts. I love the customizability the main ability change brings, and I just wish it didn't come attached to a change that directly reduces customizability elsewhere.

Personally, I think 3 Boosts + 1 Flaw should have become the alternative, with the option to buy out of the Flaw as per usual. I don't hate the 2 Boosts option, it's gonna make a lot of my character ancestry choices more focused on theme and PC identity rather than stats, but it leaves me wondering if there's a reason 3 Boosts + 1 Flaw didn't become standard. I'm not sure I like the change to the Voluntary Flaws system either, if only because it felt relatively balanced as-is and gave some players the option to tweak stats a bit more to meet a concept. As long as the limitations on how many boosts and flaws a stat can receive within the same step remains intact, I don't see it breaking anything personally.

That would be handy. My take on it though is that would be an unintended buff to most builds that don't fit in a specific ancestry/class. Many builds would end up with an extra boost on their hands with int or cha flaw, which I get why they wouldn't want that.

Happy to see the changes and more frequent updates. The two free boosts feel fair as I often felt like 3 boosts + 1 flaw was stronger than 2 free boosts anyway.

While I'm happy to see the alchemist get some love, I am disappointed because I feel it doesn't address its core issues. Every time I play an alchemist, I can never get past the feat taxes and the fact it's literally the only class in the game that has nothing to fall back on when its out of resources. At least up until level 7, which a lot of campaigns don't reach.

LuniasM wrote:

Personally, I think 3 Boosts + 1 Flaw should have become the alternative, with the option to buy out of the Flaw as per usual. I don't hate the 2 Boosts option, it's gonna make a lot of my character ancestry choices more focused on theme and PC identity rather than stats, but it leaves me wondering if there's a reason 3 Boosts + 1 Flaw didn't become standard. I'm not sure I like the change to the Voluntary Flaws system either, if only because it felt relatively balanced as-is and gave some players the option to tweak stats a bit more to meet a concept. As long as the limitations on how many boosts and flaws a stat can receive within the same step remains intact, I don't see it breaking anything personally.

That would be handy. My take on it though is that would be an unintended buff to most builds that don't fit in a specific ancestry/class. Many builds would end up with an extra boost on their hands with int or cha flaw, which I get why they wouldn't want that.

This is true, but is that actually a net power increase in a game where INT and CHA govern both most downtime activities and valuable skill actions for combat, such as Demoralize and Recall Knowledge? I'm personally of the opinion that it's a sidegrade at the end of the day.

Oh, because I think it's easy to get lost in the weeds of optimization and abstract ideas, I do want to share a PC I'm playing right now who's directly negatively affected by the Voluntary Flaws change. She's a human cleric with the rogue archetype. At sixth level, she's got an array of 8 Str, 16 Dex, 8 Con, 18 Int, 18 Wis, and 16 Cha. Each of these abilities plays into her character. She's frail and weak, but smart as a whip, extremely sensible and nurturing, and pretty much the party face. She also has a dark past as a bandit doctor, which is why it was always important to me that she be good with a gun. She almost never takes the gun out, but every time she does, something dies. I mean, that's true for any combat that involves the PCs, but... well, anyways. I'm really happy with her build. Dump stats don't have to sabotage the character. In fact, if I hadn't been encouraged to dump her Str and Con, the idea of her surviving with chronic pain due to a war injury never would have surfaced.

I could create her with the new rule, obviously, but I liked her with the old rule. I liked being able to justify a 16 Int for a cleric at first level. The new rule makes her demonstrably just a tiny bit further from her concept, and I think that's a shame.

And yes, this is just me being self-indulgent and gushing about a PC, but it's relevant! Like, this isn't just me being cranky over minor hypothetical problems. This is me being cranky over minor very real problems! :P

Ultimately in a home game you can use any way of generating stats you want (there are still rules for rolling for them). One benefit to the new system of "just get two free bonuses" is that how to use this for what you want is much, much easier to understand than the old rule.

Remember the old rule included "you can't put two bonuses in a stat unless there was also a flaw, and you can't put two flaws in a stat unless there was also a bonus" and this kind of rule doesn't exist anywhere else in the game. Like I've had to explain to lots of people why you can't get two 18s even with the rule.

Sure, but I figured that was why it was a variant rule--it's a little complicated, but allows for greater versatility for people who like getting to customize their PCs just right.

Rysky wrote:

Unikatze wrote:

Really like the change to changes, it will enable a much more fluid and adaptable system. Specially for you're also making changes to APs and Lost Omens, which earlier ones had many errors that needed fixing.

I'm sure some people will not be happy with the ability score changes to ancestries, but you can still just say that's not how it works at your table and problem solved.

… it’s an optional rule.

It's not an optional rule. It's the new rule.

To be clear: this is an alternative for all characters and campaigns, not a variant rule, since it’s expected to be in line with the power level of other options. If you have made or want to make a character using an ancestry’s printed options (such as a dwarf with a Con boost, Wisdom boost, free boost, and Charisma flaw), those options remain, and those characters still follow the updated rules.

It’s optional.

Uhhh.... It just dawned on me that the Chirugeon change came a bit weirdly. So what happens is a Chirugeon trained in crafting and not medicine takes medic dedication which can boost medicine to expert? Usually, it doesn't matter because you have to be trained in medicine to get access to the archetype but now we have a case where you can't.

I don't really think it matters much since you're unlikely to use medicine anyway.

Uhhh.... It just dawned on me that the Chirugeon change came a bit weirdly. So what happens is a Chirugeon trained in crafting and not medicine takes medic dedication which can boost medicine to expert? Usually, it doesn't matter because you have to be trained in medicine to get access to the archetype but now we have a case where you can't.

That is probably worth creating its own thread in the rules forum.

Sweet... now we can add weapon groups to the Iruxi unarmed feats.

All hail my 16-18 starting CHA dwarves...

Schtroumpf wrote:

Does this mean we won't be seeing updated PDFs of books with errata (unless a new printing occurs)? I would love it if the pdfs would stay up to date, as well as the third party sites like Archives of Nethys. I often use both during a game to look stuff up, so having consistency would be real nice. Referencing these FAQ pages as the official way to use the errata, without the context around the changes does not sound like a good time.

We share our errata with our licensed partners, often before the public, so Demiplane, Archives of Nethys, Foundry, HeroLab, Roll20, Fantasy Grounds, etc., should all have access.

There is a lot of labor in updating the PDF, so for now, we plan that will still occur when/if print copies are reprinted.

Does this mean that, going forward, we should be looking to the sources found via licensed partners rather than the PDF for current information?

If I'm on a trip (Edit: prepping for a session to play later on Foundry or some other VTT) and don't have access to an online connection, the PDF is my primary source of truth. This change would invalidate that.

aobst128 wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Unikatze wrote:

Really like the change to changes, it will enable a much more fluid and adaptable system. Specially for you're also making changes to APs and Lost Omens, which earlier ones had many errors that needed fixing.

I'm sure some people will not be happy with the ability score changes to ancestries, but you can still just say that's not how it works at your table and problem solved.

… it’s an optional rule.

It's not an optional rule. It's the new rule.

Quote:

To be clear: this is an alternative for all characters and campaigns, not a variant rule, since it’s expected to be in line with the power level of other options. If you have made or want to make a character using an ancestry’s printed options (such as a dwarf with a Con boost, Wisdom boost, free boost, and Charisma flaw), those options remain, and those characters still follow the updated rules.

It’s optional.

Right. It's an option for players but it's a given that GMs would have to decide they don't want which I suspect many will but if you're going by RAW, it's not an option. These are the new rules. I was thinking of that same quote.

Does this mean that, going forward, we should be looking to the sources found via licensed partners rather than the PDF for current information?

If I'm on a trip and don't have access to an online connection, the PDF is my primary source of truth. This change would invalidate that.

Your PDF will be just as up-to-date as it has always been. There is not change in how often the PDF copy will be updated. It has always been updated when a new print version is released. That will still be true.

What is also true is that the partner information will be updated at the same time that the errata are released. Same as always.

What is new is that the errata will be released more frequently than in the past, without waiting for the print version to be out-of-stock. So, sometimes it will be true that the errata (and thus the partner information) will be more up-to-date than the PDF.

You know, I think I've come around on the suggested 3 boosts one flaw alternative. If anything, that would be the logical conclusion of the reasons given for the current changes. Flaws still exist as natural parts of certain ancestries. Would do away with that last bit of baggage.

Okay, so, I am personally unhappy with the change to Voluntary Flaws. ....I will be ignoring this errata, but I am not looking forward to dealing with GMs who see it differently.

Honestly, justice for dump stats.

I get your point. They have effectively removed voluntary flaws from the game. It is a small nerf and I rule I often used. But if this is the worst thing here I'm happy with the other changes. Which exceeds my expectations anyway.

Do these and all other changes/errata exist or will they exist in a single file or do we have to keep looking around the site? Personally I prefer everything together in a single file...

The errata exists on the FAQs page, link in blog. It will exist in reprints of books. The 4th printing of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook is in the warehouse now and I believe will start shipping when the inventory audit is complete. The errata will exist in the databases of our partners (including any OGL tool) subject to their internal update processes. In this case, they will need some extra time, but I expect we will find a stride knowing that updates will occur semi-annually. We have no plans too make a single downloadable PDF file for you to download, but the FAQ page can be printed to a PDF or on paper, if you wish to do so.

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

Okay, so, I am personally unhappy with the change to Voluntary Flaws. ....I will be ignoring this errata, but I am not looking forward to dealing with GMs who see it differently.

Honestly, justice for dump stats.

I get your point. They have effectively removed voluntary flaws from the game. It is a small nerf and I rule I often used. But if this is the worst thing here I'm happy with the other changes. Which exceeds my expectations anyway.

Totally agree! I like this errata overall! It's a net gain. I'd love it if they walked this one part back, of course, so I wanted to express my feelings about it as the one change I didn't like, but it's a good sign when there's only one thing people are complaining about and it's the removal of a variant rule. :P

...andpleasefortheloveofgodnerfelectricarcpleasepleaseplease--

Other than that, uh, great work!

I've been using my own variant for electric arc,

Electric Arc (This version replaces the version presented in the book in All games I DM.)

Cantrip 1
Cantrip: Electricity Evocation
Source: Core Rulebook pg. 335 2.0
Traditions: arcane, primal
Mystery: tempest
Cast: Two Actions somatic, verbal
Range: 30 feet; Targets 1 creature, and another within 30 feet of that one.
Saving Throw: basic Reflex

An arc of lightning hits one target and leaps to another. You deal electricity damage equal to 1d4 plus your spellcasting ability modifier to the primary target. Then choose a secondary target within 30 feet of your primary target. You do not need line of sight to the secondary target from your position, but you must know what square the secondary target is in and you must be able to draw line of sight and line of effect from the primary target to the secondary target. The secondary target takes half the damage of the primary target (basic reflex save)

Heightened (+1) The damage increases by 1d4 to the primary target

My players like this variation. It reduces electric arcs damage slightly but it adds a bit or range to it so you can affect secondary targets that are further away than 30 feet. It also feels a little more like what one might expect for an arc of lighting.

I imagine three boosts and a flaw wasn't allowed to prevent adding say, all of your boosts to physical stats, and just dumping physical. Personally I don't think I care enough about that to not allow it. I wouldn't have minded seeing it somehow limited to where you had to take at least one physical and at least one mental, but I can see that being dropped for streamlining.

I am confused if future new ancestries will be having printed ability boosts alongside the option to take two free instead, or if ancestries simply won't have printed ability boosts going forward?

I’d prefer the ability boosts being included still. I like having the average trait stated to know where the ancestry usually ended up.

Yeah, Winkle, I was honestly thinking about it, and I wonder if the "one physical, one mental" division has been a shibboleth for a while without anyone realizing it. It's a relic from an edition where mental abilities were literally considered less valuable than physical abilities in the DMG.

Ares, I agree! I think it's fun to see the stereotypes, if for no other purpose than the joy of defying them. Plus, it can be helpful sometimes--like, it's useful to know that kobolds tend to have dextrous but frail builds, or that gnoll culture tends to discourage thinking things through carefully. Also, leshies, as goofy magical little plant children, are probably the one ancestry with an Int penalty that really works.

Honestly, justice for dump stats.

I was pretty happy they didn't completely remove ancestry flaws yeah since I was worried they might do that, but this change does mean that some ancestries have "3 stats plus flaw" option while others have "one specific stat and free stat OR two free stat" options which feel weird.

Justice for wisdom 16 goblin druids!

Uhhh.... It just dawned on me that the Chirugeon change came a bit weirdly. So what happens is a Chirugeon trained in crafting and not medicine takes medic dedication which can boost medicine to expert? Usually, it doesn't matter because you have to be trained in medicine to get access to the archetype but now we have a case where you can't.

You get it for free but you aren't using it anyway. You almost certainly will have better crafting anyway. I think it is fine.

So, my Bomber is one Scenario away from 11th level, and Perpetual Potency. And now, where once my path was laid out for me... upgrading my Lesser Acid Flasks and Bottled Lightnings to Moderate... I have decisions to make. Fantastic! (Assuming the Society adopts the Alchemist Errata. Hope they will, we apparently find out on Thursday.)

Strongly considering leaving Bottled Lightning at Lesser for the flat footed Debuff, learning Lesser Dread Ampoule for another Debuff, and going with Moderate Acid Flask and Alchemist's Fire for the damage...

Man, if they don't modify Perpetual Breadth when they do APG errata, my Bomber could end up with twelve Perpetual Infusions Bombs at 17th, four in each Tier...That's a *lot* of potential Persistent Damage with Sticky Bomb...

Plus, thank you so much for the improvements to Chirurgeon. Although it's a shame that their Perpetual Perfection tops out at L11 Elixirs when there is no 11th Level Elixir of Life (or *is* there? Wondering even more what's in Treasure Vault... :-P )

Gortle wrote:

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

Okay, so, I am personally unhappy with the change to Voluntary Flaws. ....I will be ignoring this errata, but I am not looking forward to dealing with GMs who see it differently.

Honestly, justice for dump stats.

I get your point. They have effectively removed voluntary flaws from the game. It is a small nerf and I rule I often used. But if this is the worst thing here I'm happy with the other changes. Which exceeds my expectations anyway.

Totally agree! I like this errata overall! It's a net gain. I'd love it if they walked this one part back, of course, so I wanted to express my feelings about it as the one change I didn't like, but it's a good sign when there's only one thing people are complaining about and it's the removal of a variant rule. :P

Just chiming in with my thoughts on changing how the optional Voluntary Flaws rule works. Though I didn't always use it, I often did. Currently playing an old woman witch that has 2 8's in physical stats but the bonus went to a mental stat. It makes sense for her since with age often comes wisdom and knowledge but also physical frailties.

I've played with DM's that did not like voluntary flaws, so they didn't include it, and I've played with others that were fine with it. That's the point of something that's optional. Nerfing an optional rule seems asinine.

If anything, clarifying that it is optional rule at the DM's discretion should have been enough.

The clarification section is something I've longed for. I love it and can't wait for more! It's already answered a bunch of longstanding questions in my groups.

Clarifying how slow and haste works on minions is helpful, but it seems to indicate that summoned zombies do in fact only have 1 action. That seems like an unfortunate oversight and THAT specific instance could use further clarification if that is the intended effect.

If anything, clarifying that it is optional rule at the DM's discretion should have been enough.

Semantics. It is not a variant rule. It is optional for any player to use it. A GM doesn't get a choice as to whether they use it or not, except by using rule zero to do whatever they want.