Changes to the Way We Make Changes

Tuesday, January 03, 2023

Welcome to 2023 everyone! With the Second Edition of Pathfinder now in its third year, the folks on the rules team are really thrilled to see how all of you are engaging with the game and telling thrilling stories of adventure with friends and family. Behind the scenes, we’re continuing to make the game as good as it possibly can be by creating brand new content and going back to make sure that our existing books are working the way we intended.

That means errata, and today we’re happy to announce several exciting changes to the Pathfinder Core Rulebook that make the game a little easier to play and bring certain aspects of it more in line with our current thoughts and sensibilities. But before I toss the blog over to Lead Designer Logan Bonner to walk you through some of the highlights, I want to take a moment to talk about some upcoming changes to the errata process itself!

In the past, our errata process has been tied to when we reprint books, so that you could make sure your print edition matched what was currently on store shelves. While this had its advantages, it often meant that changes were made quite infrequently. In addition, if a book didn’t see a reprint, it might mean that we never went in to apply a patch. The result was a process that just was not living up to our needs and desire to make sure you have a great game experience. So, we are changing the process.

Starting this year, we will release errata twice per year, once in the spring and once in the fall. Since errata will no longer be tied to reprints, it frees us up to cover errata issues from a wide range of products as well. We hope this will allow us to be a bit more responsive to your questions and any issues you might have spotted with the game, so keep posting your questions to Paizo.com. Your passion helps us make a better Pathfinder!

Alright, that’s enough process talk from me. I’m going to toss it over to Logan to take a look at some of the changes made to the Pathfinder Core Rulebook!


Pathfinder Second Edition Core Rulebook, featuring an image of the Iconics battling a red dragon breathing fire through a crumbling stone wall, on a red background


Core Rulebook Errata

Thanks, Jason! You might notice that Jason said spring and fall, and it’s not... either of those. This batch of errata is coming to coincide with the new fourth printing of the Core Rulebook. While typically any such errata will have already been covered under the new process, this one is playing catch-up. You’ll find all the errata on the FAQ page, but I want to give context and explanations for a few of the major changes.

First comes the most expansive change: alternate ancestry boosts. We’re implementing the option for you to choose two free ability boosts for a character of any ancestry. There have been many ongoing conversations in the gaming community and within Paizo about biological essentialism in RPGs. We think it’s time to address this issue and have added this universal option. This makes it clearer that ancestries aren’t a monolith, and adds more nuance to the world and a wider breadth of characters. 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. We started heading toward this adjustment in July and are very pleased to have this chance to implement it and bring it to the community!

The alchemist gets major changes to add more flexibility. This dovetails with new alchemy options coming in Treasure Vault, allowing more flexibility in choosing items for a research field instead of a narrow list. The largest number of changes are with the chirurgeon. An alchemist with this field can choose elixirs with the healing trait and can fully substitute Crafting for Medicine checks and proficiency prerequisites. Now that they can choose items that heal HP, we needed to add a limit for perpetual healing items to keep out-of-combat healing from careening out of control. As with alternate boosts, any alchemist you already made remains a valid character!

Most of the remaining changes are smaller improvements, like fixing an oversight on Simple Weapon Proficiency for clerics, making the horse animal companion work as intended, and having the soothe spell target “1 willing creature,” as suggested by Book of the Dead and the Blood Lords AP. We do, however, have one significant downgrade to talk about. The gnome flickmace was a bit overpowered. A one-handed reach weapon was stronger than we expected it to be, and it’s having more of an outsized reputation than a single weapon should usually have in the game. We’ve reduced its damage and added the sweep trait to bring it more in line with other flails. Its new stat line is Price 3 gp; Damage 1d6 B; Bulk 1; Hands 1; Group Flail; Weapon Traits Gnome, reach, sweep.

We look forward to seeing what new characters you make with these changes to the Core Rulebook!

Jason Bulmahn
Director of Game Design

Logan Bonner
Pathfinder Lead Designer

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Errata Pathfinder Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Pathfinder Second Edition
351 to 400 of 637 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

They replaced the term "race" with something other than "Ancestry." I talk of the brand, not Pathfinder here.


I wonder if 2e Samsarans will be printed as +Wisdom +Free.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I didn't expect such a huge amount of change can be possible with an errata. Can I look forward to an even more radical change in the next errata? Like, allowing all PCs to learn a class feat every level, doubling all classes' spell repertoire and spell slots, allowing all PCs start with two ancestry feats and gains another at every odd level thereafter (in other words, treating all PCs as ancestry paragons), fundamentally redesigning focus spell system... I really wish to see this level of radical change!

Dark Archive

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I kinda feel like that EVERY ancestry should have default of "three bonuses, one flaw" if this alternate statline option is a thing. Like, whats point of "single stat bonus, one free" if you can just pick "two free" after all


8 people marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:
I kinda feel like that EVERY ancestry should have default of "three bonuses, one flaw" if this alternate statline option is a thing. Like, whats point of "single stat bonus, one free" if you can just pick "two free" after all

There is no point.

More I've been thinking about this change. The less I like it. It homogenizes too much. Taking a page from wotc is also a misstep for me personally as I see them as a immoral vacuum conglomerate only interested in taking advantage of their built up community.

What's really sad is I would have been all for the boost change if they would have kept voluntary flaws as it was.

Further I really think every race should have a default +2+2+2-2 array or the 2 free option. Not this+2+2 with one fixed vs 2 free because 2 free invalidates the others existence.

I don't like this change, not because of the existence of 2 free option, but because of what they are taking away

I see no reason to take it away.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
H2Osw wrote:
If I'm understanding the optional ability boosts, the dwarf in the example would be (free, free, free, no flaw?)

I’m reading it as free, free, no flaw OR con, wis, free, with flaw.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
breithauptclan wrote:
Xethik wrote:
Well, humans have no other benefits (like the extra language gnomes get, darkvision or low-light vision, keen senses, etc). This used to be made up for potentially by their flexible boosts, but now it's really just their feats and heritages.

...

Gnomes get two specific languages and low-light vision, but are size small
...

Small is in no way a drawback by itself.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The issue that is largely being ignored in these discussions is that having an attribute flaw is largely being treated by players as something to make as meaningless as possible to the character narrative, or else represent at the table in often cringy ways. Deciding to play a character who has a low value attribute that changes the way the character is played should not be a part of the mechanical power building character fantasy.

Most players do not want to think deeply about what it means for their character to have an 8 in an attribute. They are fine with it literally meaning that their character takes a -1 to certain checks that that character largely tries to avoid making, or have one less skill or can cary a little less, but thoughtfully playing out a character who has a meaningful attribute limit is not what you see in any online discussion about what ancestry to select for your character.

Attribute Flaws are a bad way for players to get more specialized characters. If three boosts feel essential to having the spread of character builds you want in your game, this is a very different issue than what build diversity is possible in the game now. Every character can still have any attribute at 8 for the narrative character reasons that make “build diversity” a thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I am looking forward to these more frequent errata updates.

It is my hope the electronic release will actually help them reduce the amount of errata in the printed release as this community will have a chance to give feedback on the errata.

I do wish that the errata on Secrets of Magic had been released now, but at least I know that we will get it relatively soon. Likely much sooner than a new printing.

It is my hope that these changes work and the process then gets moved over to the Starfinder products as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Kobold Catgirl wrote:

Okay, so, I am personally unhappy with the change to Voluntary Flaws. I'm not saying it's the reason behind the change, but I really don't get the weird stigma some people have against "dump stat" mechanics. As another poster pointed out, it's a real gut punch to ancestries that don't get a Boost-Boost-Boost-Flaw option, and in general, I do not understand why, in an update aimed at improving diversity of choice, we would remove a choice--one that was already a variant rule to begin with!--for basically no reason other than, from what I can tell, "tidiness". I'm disappointed by this.

My girlfriend suggested, "Make every ancestry a voluntary +2/+2 ancestry with the option to take a flaw for a boost." That just seems to make the most sense to me. Blegh. It's a real shame. 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.

Anyways, back to positive stuff. The alchemist changes are excellent--my friends who play alchemist builds are so thrilled. I don't so much, but, like, great job! They're so happy.

I'm happy with the tools clarification. I had to have that one explained to me a while back, so I'm glad it's now easier to work out on one's own!

As a girl who loves tormenting her girlfriend by slipping third edition lingo into PF2 design documents, the "bull rush" error makes me giggle.

Overall, an excellent errata! I'm happy with this.

Yeah, seems to me the ability boost thing just makes non-humans more generic and more human. Seems weird to me. Granted, I always kind of figured you could take a flaw to bump another stat anyhow, so there wasn't an issue with making all of one ancestry the same.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:
Xethik wrote:
Well, humans have no other benefits (like the extra language gnomes get, darkvision or low-light vision, keen senses, etc). This used to be made up for potentially by their flexible boosts, but now it's really just their feats and heritages.

...

Gnomes get two specific languages and low-light vision, but are size small
...
Small is in no way a drawback by itself.

It's arguably a very small one due to how maneuvers are limited by size. On the other hand, it's easier for allies to carry you to safety when you get knocked out!


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:

The issue that is largely being ignored in these discussions is that having an attribute flaw is largely being treated by players as something to make as meaningless as possible to the character narrative, or else represent at the table in often cringy ways. Deciding to play a character who has a low value attribute that changes the way the character is played should not be a part of the mechanical power building character fantasy.

Most players do not want to think deeply about what it means for their character to have an 8 in an attribute. They are fine with it literally meaning that their character takes a -1 to certain checks that that character largely tries to avoid making, or have one less skill or can cary a little less, but thoughtfully playing out a character who has a meaningful attribute limit is not what you see in any online discussion about what ancestry to select for your character.

Attribute Flaws are a bad way for players to get more specialized characters. If three boosts feel essential to having the spread of character builds you want in your game, this is a very different issue than what build diversity is possible in the game now. Every character can still have any attribute at 8 for the narrative character reasons that make “build diversity” a thing.

I vastly disagree. The fact that "some players" don't care about their stats in the way they roleplay their character doesn't mean that stats mean nothing to a lot of other players.

Removing the ability flaws has a very direct effect on available stat spreads and as a result will affect the type of characters you can play from a roleplay point of view.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
SuperBidi wrote:
Unicore wrote:

The issue that is largely being ignored in these discussions is that having an attribute flaw is largely being treated by players as something to make as meaningless as possible to the character narrative, or else represent at the table in often cringy ways. Deciding to play a character who has a low value attribute that changes the way the character is played should not be a part of the mechanical power building character fantasy.

Most players do not want to think deeply about what it means for their character to have an 8 in an attribute. They are fine with it literally meaning that their character takes a -1 to certain checks that that character largely tries to avoid making, or have one less skill or can cary a little less, but thoughtfully playing out a character who has a meaningful attribute limit is not what you see in any online discussion about what ancestry to select for your character.

Attribute Flaws are a bad way for players to get more specialized characters. If three boosts feel essential to having the spread of character builds you want in your game, this is a very different issue than what build diversity is possible in the game now. Every character can still have any attribute at 8 for the narrative character reasons that make “build diversity” a thing.

I vastly disagree. The fact that "some players" don't care about their stats in the way they roleplay their character doesn't mean that stats mean nothing to a lot of other players.

Removing the ability flaws has a very direct effect on available stat spreads and as a result will affect the type of characters you can play from a roleplay point of view.

No it doesn't. You can still take an 8 or even 2 in any attribute that you want for roleplaying reasons. The only real difference is that there is no way to get that extra boost. That is the only change in these rules. If players suddenly stop taking any flaws in their characters because their is no mechanical benefit for doing so, that is better for the role playing experience of everyone, because taking a flaw to minimize it or make fun of it is very problematic.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I think that Kalindlara and others have given pretty good explanations earlier in the thread for why giving a benefit in exchange for roleplaying-driven flaws makes it easier to justify taking those flaws, and generally makes it feel like a better experience.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber
Kobold Catgirl wrote:
I think that Kalindlara and others have given pretty good explanations earlier in the thread for why giving a benefit in exchange for roleplaying-driven flaws makes it easier to justify taking those flaws, and generally makes it feel like a better experience.

How is this controversial? That was the whole premise of the edges/flaws system in Shadowrun. People who are blind tend to have better senses of hearing/smell/taste/touch. Organisms have shown a remarkable ability to adapt to setbacks by specializing with what's available to them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Catgirl wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:
Xethik wrote:
Well, humans have no other benefits (like the extra language gnomes get, darkvision or low-light vision, keen senses, etc). This used to be made up for potentially by their flexible boosts, but now it's really just their feats and heritages.

...

Gnomes get two specific languages and low-light vision, but are size small
...
Small is in no way a drawback by itself.
It's arguably a very small one due to how maneuvers are limited by size. On the other hand, it's easier for allies to carry you to safety when you get knocked out!

Also determines what can swallow you whole and other monster abilities that are size based. I'd list small solidly as a drawback.


14 people marked this as a favorite.

It's not even about realism in this case, but play experience. Allowing you to get a small benefit in exchange for taking drawbacks encourages you to take drawbacks, and thus gets you to flesh out your character more. Pathfinder encourages players to specialize and accept weaknesses so that other characters can excel in the fields you're weak in, thus allowing everyone to feel like their choices matter and like their characters are distinct from one another. Also, taking flaws for your character is fun! It's fun to play a wizard who's unfocused and dreamy, or a fighter who's blunt and defensive and bad at getting her points across. Making your cleric squishy means that the big strong paladin will feel even cooler for being able to protect you. The only problem is, if there's no benefit at all to doing so, then all you're really getting is a punishment, which is a game's way of telling you, "you're doing it wrong".

It might seem silly, but as much as I love taking flaws, I really hate taking them in systems where I don't get anything from it. I just feel like I'm weakening my character and letting the party down by working against the rules instead of with them. It feels like I'm not playing in the spirit of the rules.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The idea that blind characters inherently have a/many improved other senses is far too complicated to represent well in a game. The same is really true for the many ways that flaws get played as stereotypes of disability, and it happens a lot at tables. Not noticing it as a problem might be a result of who is welcome and who is not at the table, which is why it is better for it not to be a mechanically encouraged game element.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
No it doesn't. You can still take an 8 or even 2 in any attribute that you want for roleplaying reasons.

The old flaws system has an actual use. Without it, Humans tend to have all the same builds, if you want an 18 in your main stat you roughly have the choice between 18, 16, 12, 12, 10, 10 and 18, 14, 14, 12, 10, 10. That's 2 stat arrays for an Ancestry. With the old flaws system, you also had 18, 16, 14, 12, 8, 8, and 18, 14, 14, 14, 8, 8 and 18, 16, 14, 10, 10, 8, that's 150% more stat arrays.

It actually has an impact on what you can play.

Unicore wrote:
If players suddenly stop taking any flaws in their characters because their is no mechanical benefit for doing so, that is better for the role playing experience of everyone, because taking a flaw to minimize it or make fun of it is very problematic.

Looks like the Stormwind fallacy. Yes, I do care of both the mechanical part and roleplay part of my characters. And I don't take flaws to minimize them or make fun of it. You may have missed this moment, but Nalah's encounter with the Ekujaes was an excellent roleplay opportunity for me to illustrate her low Charisma.


SuperBidi wrote:
Looks like the Stormwind fallacy. Yes, I do care of both the mechanical part and roleplay part of my characters. And I don't take flaws to minimize them or make fun of it. You may have missed this moment, but Nalah's encounter with the Ekujaes was an excellent roleplay opportunity for me to illustrate her low Charisma.

You can just lower any ability you want, meaning the net/net is -1 in a secondary or tertiary ability.

I used optional flaws frequently but this change makes means it's easier to build characters with any class & ancestry.

______

Edit: By the way few are talking about the needless complexity of the old optional flaw rule. I like this change because it's simpler for new players to leverage.

I mean, just look at this convoluted wall of text; I get a headache just reading it:
Sometimes, it’s fun to play a character with a major flaw even if you’re not playing an ancestry that imposes one. You can elect to take two additional ability flaws when applying the ability boosts and ability flaws from your ancestry. If you do, you can also apply one additional free ability boost. These ability flaws can be assigned to any ability score you like, but you can’t apply more than one ability flaw to the same ability score during this step unless you apply both of the additional ability flaws to a score that is already receiving an ability boost during this step. In this case, the first ability flaw cancels the ability boost, and the second ability flaw decreases the score by 2. Likewise, as an exception to the normal rules for ability boosts, you can apply two free ability boosts to an ability score receiving an ability flaw during this step; the first ability boost cancels the ability flaw, and the second ability boost increases the score by 2. For example, a dwarf normally gets an ability boost to Constitution and Wisdom, along with an ability flaw to Charisma. You could apply one ability flaw each to Intelligence and Strength, or you could apply both ability flaws to Wisdom. You could not apply either additional ability flaw to Charisma, though, because it is already receiving dwarves’ ability flaw during this step.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

whynotboth.gif
e_dorado_both.gif


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm quite pleased with most of the new changes, as well as many of the reasons given for them. However, I don't get the "biological essentialism" reasoning behind the ability score changes, nor do I believe that change to be a particularly good one. It makes the player options far too homogeneous, and appears to actively punish certain player choices.

Logon Bonner wrote:
There have been many ongoing conversations in the gaming community and within Paizo about biological essentialism in RPGs.

Really? That's the first I've heard of it. Would you please link a few sources to said conversations (as well as a clear definition of "biological essentialism") for those of us curious to learn more?

I'm more than a little surprised to hear that it's an issue at all. I mean, it's all fiction anyways, right?

keftiu wrote:
LordeAlvenaharr wrote:
Natural Ambition in all ancestries already!
I would give just about anything for this, especially with how underwhelming some Ancestry Feats can be at level 1.

And I would give just about anything for that to NOT happen.

Last thing we need is for even more things to be stripped away from humanity.

The Raven Black wrote:

I like all the changes except the rewriting of the optional flaw rules. It was a fun rule to use and one I think I used on all my characters (PFS-only, I hope I will not have to rebuild them), and likely on all my theorycrafted characters too.

TBH, keeping it as is would have been simpler and better. PF2's balance was definitely not broken by this rule being there.

I am amazed that almost nobody mentioned how Adopted (Human) is an even more awesome choice now. Almost all of their feats are available since they have no physical requirements AND you get your non-poachable non-Human Heritage abilities and feats AND you get the same stat boosts.

I guess we will see even less Human PCs (already a minority in my PFS experience).

So, one net loss for the game mixed with a lot of nice things IMO.

Exactly. There's little to no point in playing humans anymore.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While I'm not a fan of balancing a weak chassis with strong secondary features, humans have strong secondary features. They'll be fine.

Director of Marketing

5 people marked this as a favorite.

The Pathfinder Core Rulebook PDF has been updated with the new errata. Emails were sent last night.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Thank you! Rest in pieces to voluntary flaws being a canonical variant rule, but I'll still be using them and there's more good to this update than "bad". Thanks to the game devs and designers for working so hard to make this game even better! <3

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Catgirl wrote:
While I'm not a fan of balancing a weak chassis with strong secondary features, humans have strong secondary features. They'll be fine.

Almost all the good ones are poachable though. The same is not true for the other ancestries.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kobold Catgirl wrote:
I think it's important not to conflate the Voluntary Flaw change with the +2/+2 change. The +2/+2 change is entirely optional for players--it's meant to reflect members of a given species that break the norm. It opens up options and hurts no one.

Unless you play a human, or one of the Boost/Free ancestries. Then you might be feeling a bit hurt.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
Kobold Catgirl wrote:
While I'm not a fan of balancing a weak chassis with strong secondary features, humans have strong secondary features. They'll be fine.
Almost all the good ones are poachable though. The same is not true for the other ancestries.

They're poachable at a cost. And only later in the game for non humans.

The human really benefits in the early game. Getting an extra couple of general feats or an additional first level class feat together with a general feat can REALLY REALLY matter at low levels.

If you start play at level 11 (for an AP, for example) the cost benefit analysis is VERY different than if you start at level 1 and plan to slowly advance in level.

But the wizard being able to wear medium armor at level 1 can (quite literally) be a life saver,


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Yeah, the voluntary flaws sidebar might as well not exist, it's Rule 0 fluff GM/Group level stuff as now published. They should've just added "Alternate Ancestry Boosts" and left the optional flaws how they were instead of taking while giving.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
SuperBidi wrote:
Unicore wrote:
No it doesn't. You can still take an 8 or even 2 in any attribute that you want for roleplaying reasons.

The old flaws system has an actual use. Without it, Humans tend to have all the same builds, if you want an 18 in your main stat you roughly have the choice between 18, 16, 12, 12, 10, 10 and 18, 14, 14, 12, 10, 10. That's 2 stat arrays for an Ancestry. With the old flaws system, you also had 18, 16, 14, 12, 8, 8, and 18, 14, 14, 14, 8, 8 and 18, 16, 14, 10, 10, 8, that's 150% more stat arrays.

It actually has an impact on what you can play.

Unicore wrote:
If players suddenly stop taking any flaws in their characters because their is no mechanical benefit for doing so, that is better for the role playing experience of everyone, because taking a flaw to minimize it or make fun of it is very problematic.
Looks like the Stormwind fallacy. Yes, I do care of both the mechanical part and roleplay part of my characters. And I don't take flaws to minimize them or make fun of it. You may have missed this moment, but Nalah's encounter with the Ekujaes was an excellent roleplay opportunity for me to illustrate her low Charisma.

What really is the difference between an 8 in charisma vs a 10 in charisma for any character that doesn't use it for a casting stat? If you are not going to train social skills, even starting with a 12 or 14 in CHA becomes useless to your character by level 4 or 5. Is an 8 in charisma really more than just your character being slightly unlikable? I think people tend to over exaggerate flaws very often, often to the point of making choices that could make a lot of other players uncomfortable.

The "Big Dumb Fighter" for example. Is an 8 instead of a 10 really a meaningful difference in how the character should be played? And is it fair for a player to make that narrative decision without talking to the rest of the table about it before hand? Having a character who decides they have to "do the dumb" thing, because their character has an 8 in INT instead of a 10 is not good for the game.

The mechanical issue is that there are stats where the malus of a flaw is really fairly meaningless outside of how the character might get role played, and this encourages those stats to get "dumped" which in turn facilitates problematic stereotypes about disability being forced on the table, because the player really just wanted to have an extra +1 somewhere in their character build. The fact that mature players can play a character with an attribute flaw well does not make it good for the larger gaming community for that to be a default mechanical advantage. Stuttering, antisocial behavior, social anxiety, paranoia, learning disabilities, dyslexia, difficulties learning the nuances of language are all traits that I often see used as a gimmick for covering for an 8 intelligence or charisma, that don't need to be encouraged to handled recklessly. Especially with something like charisma that is particularly meaningless as a stat if not intentionally invested in. Getting a mechanical bonus out of flawing something that is mechanically meaningless to your character is not making a meaningful choice. Choosing to make an attribute flaw a narratively meaningful choice can be a fun and rewarding experience for the table, but it is something that should be done with awareness of what the traits being used to represent it mean, and for very many players, voluntary flaws meant ignoring those flaws (minimalizing them) or making them into a joke. Whereas it is not uncommon for players at the table to get frustrated if a player is choosing to start with a 14 in a key attribute that will be heavily used, because the mechanics of that flaw are felt by the whole party in encounters.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
and this encourages those stats to get "dumped" which in turn facilitates problematic stereotypes about disability being forced on the table

I'm a little confused about this point. Putting aside that it's actually pretty rare that I see a -1 to an ability modifier get played as a disability, and that the few times I've seen it it's been respectful (and often it's being roleplayed by people with disabilities, who also like getting some benefit for their voluntary flaws!)... like, as I've said, I personally do not think we should be balancing the game based on the kinds of players we don't want playing the game at all. If a player's ready to be ableist at the first opportunity, honestly, I'd rather know that sooner than later so I can avoid them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
SuperBidi wrote:
Unicore wrote:
No it doesn't. You can still take an 8 or even 2 in any attribute that you want for roleplaying reasons.

The old flaws system has an actual use. Without it, Humans tend to have all the same builds, if you want an 18 in your main stat you roughly have the choice between 18, 16, 12, 12, 10, 10 and 18, 14, 14, 12, 10, 10. That's 2 stat arrays for an Ancestry. With the old flaws system, you also had 18, 16, 14, 12, 8, 8, and 18, 14, 14, 14, 8, 8 and 18, 16, 14, 10, 10, 8, that's 150% more stat arrays.

It actually has an impact on what you can play.

Unicore wrote:
If players suddenly stop taking any flaws in their characters because their is no mechanical benefit for doing so, that is better for the role playing experience of everyone, because taking a flaw to minimize it or make fun of it is very problematic.
Looks like the Stormwind fallacy. Yes, I do care of both the mechanical part and roleplay part of my characters. And I don't take flaws to minimize them or make fun of it. You may have missed this moment, but Nalah's encounter with the Ekujaes was an excellent roleplay opportunity for me to illustrate her low Charisma.

But like not to put too fine a point on it, her low charisma was an 8, but her low charisma is now a 10 sans flaw for flaw's sake, in a game system where middling charisma is like a 14 and high charisma is 18, I think the granularity that suggests having a 10 instead of an 8 is capable of disqualifying any kind of roleplay portrayal can't really be taken in good faith, at least on meaningful inspection.

If you played the character differently having a 10 instead of an 8, we have bigger fish to fry that has to do with arbitrary conceptions of what the numbers mean and the limits we're imposing on ourselves in a roleplaying context.

In other words, what value is derived by keeping the resolution of our roleplaying so high that a 10 and an 8 are apparently different, in fact, I'd question if the resolution is that high on anyone's roleplaying differentiation in the first place, it seems entirely hypothetical.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

There seems to be little recognition that, while all ancestries now benefit from being able to ignore their regular boosts for a +2/+2 many ALSO can choose to keep their boosts for a +2/+2/+2/-2 which can be more impactful than 2 +2's. Not human though. Everyone gets what you have, and you don't get anything they have.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Wizard Level 1 wrote:
There seems to be little recognition that, while all ancestries now benefit from being able to ignore their regular boosts for a +2/+2 many ALSO can choose to keep their boosts for a +2/+2/+2/-2 which can be more impactful than 2 +2's. Not human though. Everyone gets what you have, and you don't get anything they have.

They still retain the best 1st level Ancestry Feat (hands down) in the whole system though, Natural Ambition so I don't see it as THAT crippling of a blow to them.

Though... I do wonder if it would be TOO radical to allow Humans to choose up to TWO Versatile Heritages in exchange for this "loss"... probably too radical but it would go a long way toward fairness for the Half-Elf/Orcs who can't exist as, say, Aasimar or Suli right now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, I'd love for humans to get some heritage flexibility. I don't know how it would play in practice, but I would support, like, a base human/half-human heritage coupled with a Versatile Heritage. They can't stack aasimar and tiefling, but they can be a Skilled half-orc, or a Versatile beastkin.

Wayfinders Contributor

4 people marked this as a favorite.

For those of you worried about OPF characters being invalidated by the change, they were not. Organized Play will be keeping the Voluntary Flaw rule for that campaign, along with the option for the 2 free boosts for any ancestry.

January 2023 Organized Play Blog wrote:

• The Core Rulebook now allows all characters to take two free ability boosts instead of the printed options for their ancestry. Newly created characters in Pathfinder Society may use this rule; previously built characters may not unless they rebuild the character from scratch with a boon.

• However, to retain the legality of numerous existing characters, the Pathfinder Society campaign will continue to offer the Voluntary Flaws optional ruleset and retain the text within the Guide to Organized Play.

As for other campaigns, talk with your GMs. I am certain that a reasonable GM will not invalidate a character already in play.

Hmm


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Themetricsystem wrote:
They still retain the best 1st level Ancestry Feat (hands down) in the whole system though, Natural Ambition so I don't see it as THAT crippling of a blow to them.

Ah, but ancient elf gets a free multiclass dedication. If you were going to use one of those, you basically get a bonus 2nd level class feat for free. Better than a 1st level feat and then you then get an elf ancestry feat on top and a base speed increase and base LLV vs a human.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I really am not a fan of the new changes to ancestry ability scores for multiple reasons, both mechanical and otherwise.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
Kobold Catgirl wrote:
I think it's important not to conflate the Voluntary Flaw change with the +2/+2 change. The +2/+2 change is entirely optional for players--it's meant to reflect members of a given species that break the norm. It opens up options and hurts no one.
Unless you play a human, or one of the Boost/Free ancestries. Then you might be feeling a bit hurt.

Why would I be feeling hurt? Nothing about this hurts me.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm gonna Hide these threads, because we're all starting to get repetitive and I think all the important points have been made. I'm not expecting anything new to surface, and I don't want to fall into the trap of debating for its own sake. <3

Someone DM me if a dev/designer explains rationale behind the Voluntary Flaw decision or officially confirms the new Fixed/Free standard, though, because I am genuinely curious.

Closing remarks:

I think the Voluntary Flaw change is a little uncalled for, and I hope they either revert it or find an alternative. I like some light minmaxing to get my character just how I envision them, I like the game encouraging giving your PC weak points, and I always like having more options. That being said, it was always a variant rule, so it's not the end of the world to no longer have it in the official text.

I think the +2/+2 change is excellent. It has some minor and major balance quibbles, but nothing we can't handle, and it improves the fun of things a lot. It makes ancestries less monolithic, and that's a huge improvement for many reasons. Perhaps humans should get access to something like VFs to balance things out, though. They are looking a little boring right now, balance aside.

I think that the shift to Fixed/Free for all new ancestries, if implemented, is a well-intentioned misstep. +2/+2/Free/Flaw is a flavorful option that helps players understand the Vibe of an ancestry without forcing them to vibe with that Vibe. It hasn't been confirmed yet, and it's not a big deal. I won't use it when designing my ancestries, except for those for whom it fits as a minor weakness. Overall, it's NBD. We'll live either way!

I will also continue to generally balance my ancestries as if the +2/+2 option didn't exist, purely since that's how all existing ancestries are balanced and my brain demands order. X3

I like the rest of the errata a lot! Glad the alchemist gets some new toys. Keep up the great work, Paizo! This was a nice net gain for the hobby.

Take care, all!


3 people marked this as a favorite.

anyways these debates about optional rules are silly, we should be focusing on the real issue: the proper jump distance of a five-foot pit

bye, all. :P


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
What really is the difference between an 8 in charisma vs a 10 in charisma for any character that doesn't use it for a casting stat?
Unicore wrote:
If you played the character differently having a 10 instead of an 8, we have bigger fish to fry that has to do with arbitrary conceptions of what the numbers mean and the limits we're imposing on ourselves in a roleplaying context.

I really don't know what to answer, I find that these sentences just make no sense. Yes, I like my character sheet to be as close as possible to the character I play. So I make a difference between 10 and 8 Charisma, between +0 (average) and -1 (bad).


Aaron Shanks wrote:
The Pathfinder Core Rulebook PDF has been updated with the new errata. Emails were sent last night.

Thankyou. It took me 3 attempts, but I now have my updated rulebook.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kobold Catgirl wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:
Xethik wrote:
Well, humans have no other benefits (like the extra language gnomes get, darkvision or low-light vision, keen senses, etc). This used to be made up for potentially by their flexible boosts, but now it's really just their feats and heritages.

...

Gnomes get two specific languages and low-light vision, but are size small
...
Small is in no way a drawback by itself.
It's arguably a very small one due to how maneuvers are limited by size. On the other hand, it's easier for allies to carry you to safety when you get knocked out!

Sounds like it balances out to me. ;P


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Unicore wrote:

What really is the difference between an 8 in charisma vs a 10 in charisma for any character that doesn't use it for a casting stat? If you are not going to train social skills, even starting with a 12 or 14 in CHA becomes useless to your character by level 4 or 5. Is an 8 in charisma really more than just your character being slightly unlikable? I think people tend to over exaggerate flaws very often, often to the point of making choices that could make a lot of other players uncomfortable.

The "Big Dumb Fighter" for example. Is an 8 instead of a 10 really a meaningful difference in how the character should be played? And is it fair for a player to make that narrative decision without talking to the rest of the table about it before hand? Having a character who decides they have to "do the dumb" thing, because their character has an 8 in INT instead of a 10 is not good for the game.

I'm getting really tired of walking on egg shells all the time for fear of other players and GMs wanting to tell me how to play my character.

Unless it's disruptive, people can bugger off with that form of gatekeeping mentality.

I'm here to have fun and to promote fun by playing a game. Not to stress out or stress others out over the mere possibility of stepping on a social stigma landmine.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I would just like to add my voice to the others here in that while almost all of these changes are good, the change to voluntary flaws seems pointless and a bit disappointing. Ultimately it won't make much of a difference, but other than maybe word count I don't see any reason for it to have been changed. It allowed more character customization for people that wanted it and gave a bit of incentive make a flawed character. With the new rules being a complete negative there doesn't really seem to be any reason to even have them in the core book at all as Rule 0 already existed to allow for this.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:
Unicore wrote:
What really is the difference between an 8 in charisma vs a 10 in charisma for any character that doesn't use it for a casting stat?
Unicore wrote:
If you played the character differently having a 10 instead of an 8, we have bigger fish to fry that has to do with arbitrary conceptions of what the numbers mean and the limits we're imposing on ourselves in a roleplaying context.
I really don't know what to answer, I find that these sentences just make no sense. Yes, I like my character sheet to be as close as possible to the character I play. So I make a difference between 10 and 8 Charisma, between +0 (average) and -1 (bad).

To add to this, modifiers matter. I've played D&D for over 20 years and seeing that -1 on a character means something. Maybe intellectually we know it's not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, but emotionally every time our 8 str character fails by 1 a swim check, or a climb check, we see that -1 and feel it emotionally. 'Failing with a +0 is just due to bad luck', our brains will justify', but a -1 'that's a flaw and we clearly failed because of it'.

The most interesting heroes are those that overcome their flaws and weaknesses like Rastlin, Dresden, and Geralt, to name a few. Every time we overcome a flaw by holding the door open so the party can escape despite having a -1 to the check or succeeding on a reflex save against a powerful AOE despite having an 8 dex, Or succeeding on a recall knowledge check despite a 8 in the relevant state and we are granted just the insight we need to defeat a powerful foe, that success feels even better than if it was just a 10 because we are emotional and we see an 8 as a weakness where as a 10 is inconsequential.

So why does any of this matter in the context of this game? There is an interesting dynamic in games that encourage players to take weakness when building their characters. It sets them up for heroic acts, it can heighten the excitement of normal acts because it feels like overcoming a clear weakness. Some systems understand this aspect of play and even create rules around it like the DM can offer some kind of reward to a player if they take a voluntary penalty on a dice roll.

Pathfinder's form of encouraging flaws in characters was that if you liked all the feats and abilities and stats of some certain ancestries, you would have to accept a flaw for that, or you could use voluntary flaws to get a few penalties to something in exchange for a smaller bonus. Both of these options encourage players to accept a weakness and it sets them up for unexpected heroics as they overcome those weaknesses in the future. And yes, you can choose to take penalties all day now when making characters. Only a few of us will do that and even then, it will dimmish any unexpected heroics from those flaws because we choose to have them simply for the sake of having them. It will make it feel artificial in other words. It's not the same as the game subtly encouraging it.

Many new players will never have the experience of saving their party by making a roll with something that has a penalty in it because they won't ever choose to take a flaw with no benefit. And many parties will never experience rooting for the 8-charisma character who found themselves in the unlikely situation where they are speaking for the party. There's still 10's, I get it, but it won't have the same emotional impact, and that's unfortunate.

Maybe I'm just an aging man pining for all the things younger folks won't get to experience. Maybe I'm just guilty of thinking if folks don't experience the things that I have, in the way I have, it can't possibly be as good. But you know, maybe there is some value in what I'm trying to say.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

1. The voluntary flaws rule should be reverted in some way. Leave the original as a variant rule, or just block people opting for 2 free boosts from using them. But this rule was great and should be in the game for people who enjoy it.

2. Please do not change ancestry design moving forward. For my games/characters I plan to use the old rules in the future. I know a fair number of others do, as well. While Ancestries as they have been designed thus far would work for both legacy rule players and people who prefer this errata, changing how you design Ancestries to cater to people who use the errata could substantially reduce character diversity at tables.

I obviously don't prefer the Ancestry errata, but ultimately I just want everyone to be able to enjoy the same game. I don't see why that shouldn't happen. But it's concerning to see old rules that some people still prefer flat-out removed, and it concerns me to think that Paizo may just ignore the crowd who stick with the old style.

351 to 400 of 637 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Paizo Blog: Changes to the Way We Make Changes All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.