The Start of Something Good: Announcing Errata Cycles

So, does this rules change mean that Tiny Sprites with Evanescent Wings must spend two actions to Interact with any item not on their person?

As written, yes and no. They have to spend two actions to Interact with any item that's not on their person AND in reach of a standable surface. They are completely unable to Interact with any item that's not on their person and isn't in reach of a standable surface, unless they gain the ability to hover from a source outside their ancestry. (On the grounds that they fall to the ground if they end the new flight action in midair, and thus don't have time to Interact after flying to the object.) This appears to be unintentional, since it's due to Strix and Sprite flight feats using shared wording; I think the writer just forgot that Tiny creatures have 0-foot reach, and that as a result, the original Evanescent Wings was a "you have Medium reach within your square for Interact purposes" feat, not a "you can fly" feat.

It's easy enough to fix, at least, and I do expect they'll release a little mini-errata to address it as soon as they notice. Probably Tuesday or Wednesday, considering the long weekend (assuming you have it in the U.S. too, and it's not just a Canadian holiday). But if you're playing a Sprite before then, it might be better for your group to either hold off on the Sprite feat errata for a little bit, or combine the original and errata versions of Evanescent Wings.

----

Edit: Fixed a mistake on my part; new text bolded here.

> "you have Medium reach within your square for Interact purposes"

Also added a "combine original & errata Evanescent Wings" suggestion, which I kinda forgot earlier because I was just typing it up quickly before supper. My bad. 😅

My question is about something that may not get resolved, but I want to ask it anyways.

Is there any forthcoming errata for the PF1 Oozemorph archtype?

Specifically, the scale up of damage/Magic and material equivalents that scales in the same manner as other classes.

My question is about something that may not get resolved, but I want to ask it anyways.

Is there any forthcoming errata for the PF1 Oozemorph archtype?

Specifically, the scale up of damage/Magic and material equivalents that scales in the same manner as other classes.

If you mean the PF2 Oozemorph archetype from The Slithering, then that's probably covered under the " We do not currently have any plans at this time to include adventure content in a scheduled errata cycle. We may still do errata around particular reprints, such as when compiling an adventure for a hardcover release."

So if they reprinted the Oozemorph archetype, it would probably get adjusted, but otherwise they're probably not going to.

This is great, happy I'm over my fear of writing in my books!!

Still no scaling for the moldersoul's decompose ability. That's disappointing.

While it's nice that fly speeds will be available to flying ancestries earlier I really hope that there will be ways to increase it beyond 25 like you could before.

That's great news <3 are there any plans for doing the errata for digital products like card decks? Like the weapons, adventure gear, potions and armaments decks with remaster changes?

So I am curious if a developer or experienced player can explain how the new errata was meant to bring combination weapons in line with the Swap function of Interact? I was somewhat excited about the prospect that combination weapns were going to get a bit of a buff to swapping between modes, and while I think the buffs they have are a step in the right direction, depending on how your wealth by level goes or if you're using ABP it would be better to just use two seperate weapons and swap between them, as it still takes an action from what I can see to do so with combination weapons, which before the remaster was meant to be their niche, as before it was two to three actions to draw a whole new weapon.

Was that meant to stay as is? There doesn't seem to be much benefit to having one compared to two weapons unless you're hurting for bulk, but surely it wouldn't hurt too much to make it a free action to swap between modes, as right now it's still overshadowed by Swap

Combination weapons save a significant amount of gold on runes.

firelark01 wrote:

ElementalofCuteness wrote:

Tell me I am missing Rogue Resilient errata please someone...

They've simply not added new errata for Player Core, we'll have to see if by the end of the year it will have been changed or not.

Rogue Resilience is definitely on the "Too Good to Be True" in my games. It baffles me that people even have doubts about that. Literally no other feature in the games do that, all the features that do that are with Master Proficiency. This is beyond obvious, right?

The animist had a similar feature, and that was confirmed intentional. So while the rouge is the first class to officially have such an ability, it is not the first time we have seen this design. I'm pretty sure its a mistake because if it wasn't, they likely would have told us their intentions for it by now like they did with the animist.

Also, when we actually get a Secrets of Magic errata, can something be done about Eidolon's Wrath? A 20' emanation is really hard to not explode your friends with.

So I am curious if a developer or experienced player can explain how the new errata was meant to bring combination weapons in line with the Swap function of Interact? I was somewhat excited about the prospect that combination weapns were going to get a bit of a buff to swapping between modes, and while I think the buffs they have are a step in the right direction, depending on how your wealth by level goes or if you're using ABP it would be better to just use two seperate weapons and swap between them, as it still takes an action from what I can see to do so with combination weapons, which before the remaster was meant to be their niche, as before it was two to three actions to draw a whole new weapon.

Was that meant to stay as is? There doesn't seem to be much benefit to having one compared to two weapons unless you're hurting for bulk, but surely it wouldn't hurt too much to make it a free action to swap between modes, as right now it's still overshadowed by Swap

Its actually surprising how much WBL it takes to keep two weapons maxed in rune space. Here is the math. There are many levels where you literally can't have 2 items maxed out for two separate weapons. Blazon's of shared power can help somewhat, but it limits you to 2x1 handed weapons or melee weapons that have the two-handed trait.

So its nice that they've given some extra love to these. The one that interests me the most is the hammer gun. Its at least a 1D10 'non-fancy' weapon so its going to be relatively decent. The 1D6/fatal d10 isn't too bad either as a back-up ranged case. With the mauler archetype you can be shooting at +2 (with a 0 to -2 lag behind since your KAS is STR and dex will be delayed). At that point you're a fighter with a 1D10 hammer and non-fighter martial with a gun and no reload support on a STR character (not too bad IMO).

The rest are harder to justify. It'd be interesting to see some archetype that has that same proficiency bump for swords so you could use a explosive dog slicer or trigger brand (maybe I missed it?). But effectively there is only the bow staff and archer as a combo (but those are pretty mediocre).

Of course, if your playing with ABP then you don't really care lol. Have your golf bag of weapons without too much suffering.

I just think Combination weapons & Gunslinger would be nice if they kept the same proficiency with combination weapons as if they were firearm through and through instead of firearm in one form and a melee weapon in the other.

I just think Combination weapons & Gunslinger would be nice if they kept the same proficiency with combination weapons as if they were firearm through and through instead of firearm in one form and a melee weapon in the other.

Agreed! Singular Expertise was a wholly unnecessary class feature and kills a lot of fun switch hitter gun based builds (i.e., drifter and trigger brand) before they even get going.

I actually don't mind it too much. Otherwise archetypes like Mauler become feat taxes. What would have been more interesting is if the damage bonus scaled to really emphasize the importance of firearms and crossbows. As is, it's almost entirely a nerf which just feels bad even if I get the purpose.

I just think Combination weapons & Gunslinger would be nice if they kept the same proficiency with combination weapons as if they were firearm through and through instead of firearm in one form and a melee weapon in the other.

Honestly, an interesting fix for that might've been if the dagger pistol kept its component parts' categories, making it simple in dagger mode & martial in pistol mode. (Possibly dropping from [Fatal d8] to [Fatal d6] if necessary.) Would've opened up one option that doesn't need martial melee weapon progression, at the cost of it also being the weakest combo weapon option, which sounds like a good compromise.

thaX wrote:

My question is about something that may not get resolved, but I want to ask it anyways.

Is there any forthcoming errata for the PF1 Oozemorph archtype?

Specifically, the scale up of damage/Magic and material equivalents that scales in the same manner as other classes.

If you mean the PF2 Oozemorph archetype from The Slithering, then that's probably covered under the " We do not currently have any plans at this time to include adventure content in a scheduled errata cycle. We may still do errata around particular reprints, such as when compiling an adventure for a hardcover release."

So if they reprinted the Oozemorph archetype, it would probably get adjusted, but otherwise they're probably not going to.

I haven't gotten access to the PF2 version and was surprised to see it regulated to an adventure that players wouldn't have access to rather than being in a rules book or Lost Omens player content.

My question, broadly, is about any errata for PF1, or perhaps clarifications at this point, about the PF1 scaling of weapon buffs for some archtypes like the Oozemorph or the Living Grimoire's having more ability to change judgement after encounters.

Something of a vain hope, I guess. The whole issue with Main Hand/Off Hand weapon use was never clearly defined to put the whole double wielding of Two Handed weapons to rest once and for all.

Just wanted to have my PFS1 character be effective at later levels instead of doing little to no damage on each hit because of various DRs. As written, Oozemorphs would need to start using actual weapons to keep up instead of the morphed weapons that are woefully lagging in later levels.

PF1 is legacy at this point because of the OGL...

I'm pretty sure the ship has sailed as to whether Paizo will ever release errata on a Pathfinder 1st edition product ever again. You'd think if something were so pressing that it needed errata, they would have found a time to do that in like 2019.

So no 1e product is going to receive errata going forward, but godspeed to whatever fixes to problems people want to implement in their own games. There's a specific culture of "by RAW" in PF1 rules issues that Paizo has worked hard to eliminate in PF2, instead fomenting a culture of "the GM makes a call so that it works how they want it to work" so that's probably the solution to problems in books that are out of print.

I am glad to hear everything in this post. It is well needed. But with the loosening on the restrictions for gaining a flight speed, could we possibly see the same for ancestries with climb speeds? I mean many of them (like the Vanara) can't even get a general climb speed. I have never understood why a flight speed seems to be easier to gain than a climb speed.

I suppose your right, PossibleCabbage. My own fix is to have the particulars follow the Shifter's progression, likely at a level higher like the Sorcerer vs Wizard has with spells.

But that gets into homebrew and likely would not fly in PFS PF1 play.

I actually don't mind it too much. Otherwise archetypes like Mauler become feat taxes.

I mean that's pretty much where it came from. Singular Expertise didn't exist in the playtest so people complained that drifters were almost compelled to pick up a proficiency advancing archetype and they asked Paizo to fix it with a class feature.

Then you had a second group complaining that firearms and the Gunslinger's core features felt weak (with one example being that mathematically a Gunslinger taking archer dedication for proficiency and just using a shortbow was just as good or better than someone trying to play the class corectly) and asking for Paizo to address the shortcomings.

Then the monkey's paw curled and we got Singular Expertise.

I am interested in the fact that we still have a large discrepancy between the Player Core 1 and the Gamemaster Core 1 about how splash works.

On page 292 of the player core, under the heading "Alchemical Bombs" we get an explanation that bombs deal splash damage on a failure, success or critical success to the target, and to other creatures within 5 feet only on a success or critical success.

On page 244 of the GM core, under "splash trait," it say that all creatures within 5 feet of the target take splash damage on a failure, success or critical success.

So it looks like either Bombs are a special exception that don't work like other items with the splash trait (although Bombs are the only items with the splash trait, and the example given in the splash trait is an acid flask and breaks the rule presented in the Player Core), or one of the explanations needs to change.

I would have thought this would be a round one Errata fix, but am wondering if it is tied up in reveals that will come with Player Core 2 announcements during Paizo Con?

It seems like resolving this will be pretty important before people start playing the remastered Alchemist.

Lightning Raven wrote:

firelark01 wrote:

ElementalofCuteness wrote:

Tell me I am missing Rogue Resilient errata please someone...

They've simply not added new errata for Player Core, we'll have to see if by the end of the year it will have been changed or not.

Rogue Resilience is definitely on the "Too Good to Be True" in my games. It baffles me that people even have doubts about that. Literally no other feature in the games do that, all the features that do that are with Master Proficiency. This is beyond obvious, right?

The animist had a similar feature, and that was confirmed intentional. So while the rouge is the first class to officially have such an ability, it is not the first time we have seen this design. I'm pretty sure its a mistake because if it wasn't, they likely would have told us their intentions for it by now like they did with the animist.

I read it the other way. If it was a mistake, they had ample opportunity to tell us. And they said nothing.

So, working as intended IMO.

ElementalofCuteness wrote:

Kineticist is just a class which supports itself?

A completely "self-supporting" class is something that sounds nice on paper but in practice isn't actually a good thing. By another name it is a "siloed/orphaned class" that doesn't interact/interface well with significant rules/portions of the game.

For example:
- a commander can't use "Strike Hard" or "Ready Aim Fire" with an kineticist's elemental blast, even though the blast is weaker than a martial's strike? You have the same problem with the Silent Whisper Amped Message spell from a psychic that calls for strikes.
- I cast haste on a kineticist and they can only benefit from stride not strike
- A kineticist has damage scaling built into the elemental blast, so they don't need a 'striking' fundamental property rune. BUT they don't get a choice to put property runes on their gate attenuator that could increase the use case for the blast without bumping damage (even if it was only 1 or 2 rune slots). How cool would it be to have a crushing or fearsome rune on your EBs?
- I want to MC into thaumaturge for the mirror implement, but opps, the dedication ability that applies weaknesses only applies to unarmed and weapon strikes (Which of course EB is neither weather or not I take the 'weapon infusion' feat which could easily allow the strike to count as a melee or ranged weapon strike for the purpose of interacting with other feats).

The list goes on an on of things that the kineticist is excluded from like spell hearts on 'weapons that it doesn't have', mutagens that require melee weapon strikes (despite melee frontliner weapon infusion builds being popular), thematic feats that boost spells or weapons (e.g., the goblin burn-it feat), various consumables like spell catalysts/oils/talismans, etc.

That critique should be taken in context. The kineticist class is very big/expansive/cool despite being cut off from many rules elements of the game. But the less integrated a class is with the base rule...

The Kineticist could be designed the way it was only because it was very deliberately set apart from the rest of the system so that the designers did not have to worry about unexpected interactions.

For this very same reason, I highly doubt this separation will ever be torn down.

And I say this as a keen player of my PFS Wood/Fire Taralu Kineticist.

I think we will see new elements before we see anything new mixing the mechanics of Impulses and Strikes or Spells.

And I kind of doubt we will ever see new elements from Paizo TBT.

Errenor wrote:

Ectar wrote:

RIP the Elemental Instinct barbarian granting kineticist impulses the rage trait....

I wish the last line of Elemental Rage were changed to "If you have any kineticist impulses with the same element type as the one you chose for your instinct, such as ones gained by taking the Kineticist Dedication multiclass feat, they gain the rage trait while your are raging."

Where? I don't see any changes in Elemental Instinct at all and Elemental Rage already has this text, but without "while your are raging". Why is it worse?

The rage trait prevents it from being used outside of rage.

There was a discussion about that a few months back. I think it's meant to enable impulses while raging, not make them unusable when not raging

I am interested in the fact that we still have a large discrepancy between the Player Core 1 and the Gamemaster Core 1 about how splash works.

On page 292 of the player core, under the heading "Alchemical Bombs" we get an explanation that bombs deal splash damage on a failure, success or critical success to the target, and to other creatures within 5 feet only on a success or critical success.

On page 244 of the GM core, under "splash trait," it say that all creatures within 5 feet of the target take splash damage on a failure, success or critical success.

So it looks like either Bombs are a special exception that don't work like other items with the splash trait (although Bombs are the only items with the splash trait, and the example given in the splash trait is an acid flask and breaks the rule presented in the Player Core), or one of the explanations needs to change.

I would have thought this would be a round one Errata fix, but am wondering if it is tied up in reveals that will come with Player Core 2 announcements during Paizo Con?

It seems like resolving this will be pretty important before people start playing the remastered Alchemist.

The first round of CRB errata didn't fix everything, and it feels like this is similar. They'll do the ones they can in the time they have, and then other stuff will just have to wait until the next time they are working on errata. (It's probably not a task anyone has a lot of time for vs their normal workflow so I think they just can't get to every item at once).

IIRC bomb splash worked on a failure in legacy, and since GM Core still does, I'm going to run with that wording until I get told otherwise. RAW? I dunno. But its fun for Alchemist players and they're not exactly in need of nerfs, so it works for me until its cleared up. :)

Powers128 wrote:

I actually don't mind it too much. Otherwise archetypes like Mauler become feat taxes.

I mean that's pretty much where it came from. Singular Expertise didn't exist in the playtest so people complained that drifters were almost compelled to pick up a proficiency advancing archetype and they asked Paizo to fix it with a class feature.

Then you had a second group complaining that firearms and the Gunslinger's core features felt weak (with one example being that mathematically a Gunslinger taking archer dedication for proficiency and just using a shortbow was just as good or better than someone trying to play the class corectly) and asking for Paizo to address the shortcomings.

Then the monkey's paw curled and we got Singular Expertise.

The old Drifter wasn't getting a free strike when it reloaded its gun so its not like they didn't give any compensation. Still can't help but feel that the Gunslinger was a waste of valuable page space that could have been used to give the gun feats to other classes. Imagine how much better Stab and Blast would be on a Ranger...

And I kind of doubt we will ever see new elements from Paizo TBT.

It's likely that one of the reason we haven't seen the huge explosion of different class options in PF2 is that Paizo is deliberately leaving space for 3rd parties to fill in those gaps. Since, as I understand it the basic reason you print an archetype to do something instead of "more class feats" is that the former is applicable to more characters.

But PF1 had 50 sorcerer bloodlines before you get into wild-blood or mutations, and there's no reason that PF2 couldn't do something similar, it's just that Paizo would prefer to let some of the talented 3rd party developers handle the rest. Like there was a lot of 3rd party kineticist stuff for 1e.

stuff

I mean, kinda, sorta, ish.

No rule actually exists that requires tiny races to spend extra actions to do things, the only reference to this "tiny penalty" is in the old sprite feat that removes said penalty. The rules for tiny PCs in howl of the wild makes no mention of this action tax for example.

It kind of reminds me of the pf1 feat "prone sniper" which removes the circumstance penalty to using ranged weapons while prone. A penalty that just does not exist.

By which I mean to say, that if evanescent wings has been Erratad to remove reference to this penalty, than it has basically ceased existing

Omega Metroid wrote:

stuff

I mean, kinda, sorta, ish.

No rule actually exists that requires tiny races to spend extra actions to do things, the only reference to this "tiny penalty" is in the old sprite feat that removes said penalty. The rules for tiny PCs in howl of the wild makes no mention of this action tax for example.

It kind of reminds me of the pf1 feat "prone sniper" which removes the circumstance penalty to using ranged weapons while prone. A penalty that just does not exist.

By which I mean to say, that if evanescent wings has been Erratad to remove reference to this penalty, than it has basically ceased existing

...Huh. I never thought about it in that way.

The Raven Black wrote:

And I kind of doubt we will ever see new elements from Paizo TBT.

It's likely that one of the reason we haven't seen the huge explosion of different class options in PF2 is that Paizo is deliberately leaving space for 3rd parties to fill in those gaps. Since, as I understand it the basic reason you print an archetype to do something instead of "more class feats" is that the former is applicable to more characters.

But PF1 had 50 sorcerer bloodlines before you get into wild-blood or mutations, and there's no reason that PF2 couldn't do something similar, it's just that Paizo would prefer to let some of the talented 3rd party developers handle the rest. Like there was a lot of 3rd party kineticist stuff for 1e.

I feel its more likely they just want to avoid the bloat that made PF1 so unwieldly, with so many options that were underwhelming, uninteresting, or in some cases just broken. 50 bloodlines is nice and all unless you're trying to build a Sorcerer for the first time, and then it's a huge number of things you have wade through to figure out what to take. Especially if half of them don't really get used because no one finds them that interesting.

I know some people think more is always better, but it's not really true. At some point more is just more.

Omega Metroid wrote:

stuff

I mean, kinda, sorta, ish.

No rule actually exists that requires tiny races to spend extra actions to do things, the only reference to this "tiny penalty" is in the old sprite feat that removes said penalty. The rules for tiny PCs in howl of the wild makes no mention of this action tax for example.

It kind of reminds me of the pf1 feat "prone sniper" which removes the circumstance penalty to using ranged weapons while prone. A penalty that just does not exist.

By which I mean to say, that if evanescent wings has been Erratad to remove reference to this penalty, than it has basically ceased existing

Hmm... possibly. It looks like the penalty was extrapolated from the rules for Tiny PCs, and Tiny PC reach in particular. Let's see... The Sprite statblock includes this reference for Tiny PCs:

PCs are typically Small or Medium size, but most sprite PCs are Tiny instead! Being Tiny comes with its own set of rules about space and reach. Your Tiny sprite can enter another creature's space, which is important because your melee Strikes typically have no reach, meaning you must enter their space to attack them. Like other Tiny creatures, you don't automatically receive lesser cover from being in a larger creature's space, but circumstances might allow you to Take Cover. You can purchase weapons, armor, and other items for your size with the same statistics as normal gear, except that melee weapons have a reach of 0 for you (or a reach 5 feet shorter than normal if they have the reach trait). Remember to adjust the Bulk of items and your Bulk limit for Tiny size (see Items and Sizes).

It brings attention to their reach, connecting it to Strikes. Not much, but it gives us somewhere to start; the pre-errata Evanescent Wings corroborates this, by specifically calling attention to Sprites having trouble reaching objects 4 feet above them. We know that Tiny creatures have 0 reach in general, not just melee weapons, but that doesn't mean anything in and of itself... right? Not quite, actually!

The section on Range and Reach is the missing piece here: It clarifies that reach is "how far you can physically reach with your body or a weapon", and notes that "you" (i.e., Small/Medium PCs) typically have 5-foot reach. And while we mainly use reach for Strikes and other combat options, the implication here is that reach is what you use to interact with anything, and that having 0 reach means you need to be right beside something to interact with it. This is easy if it's horizontal distance, since you're considered to be at an unspecified location in your space (and thus can just say you're beside another object in your space, if necessary)... but vertical distance is a problem, since most Sprites explicitly aren't tall enough to reach objects 4 feet above them.

And that goes back to Evanescent Wings' example: Small/Medium creatures have 5 vertical reach, and thus can intrinsically reach an object that's four feet off the ground even if they're prone. But Sprites have 0 reach, and thus can't interact with an object if it's one or more feet above them, going by the Range/Reach rules. The extra action tax is still odd, and doesn't line up with any known use of Interact... but judging by how old Evanescent Wings adds a [Move] trait whenever you interact with an object that's in your space but outside of your reach, the implication seems to be that you had to either Climb, Leap, or waste a Step or a Stride getting high enough to interact with objects that were outside of your reach. (Which is mostly consistent with normal rules, where a typical Medium PC would have to use a Step or a Stride to get close enough to interact with an object that's 6 feet away, and would have to Climb or Leap to reach something that's outside their own vertical reach. It does falter a bit if Leap is the intended second action here, though, since that might also require using Grab an Edge or taking Rapid Mantel to interact with objects slightly above you.)

.
.
.

So, my conclusion is that it isn't a special rule, as much as the logical conclusion of how standard reach rules interact with Tiny PCs and their 0-foot reach. It could be clearer, yes, but it's the same as if a Medium race had a feat that said something like this: "You can interact with an object nine feet off the ground with a single Interact action, but that action gains the [Move] trait."

----

CRB links, for comparison:

• Size, Space, and Reach
• Range and Reach

PossibleCabbage wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

And I kind of doubt we will ever see new elements from Paizo TBT.

It's likely that one of the reason we haven't seen the huge explosion of different class options in PF2 is that Paizo is deliberately leaving space for 3rd parties to fill in those gaps. Since, as I understand it the basic reason you print an archetype to do something instead of "more class feats" is that the former is applicable to more characters.

But PF1 had 50 sorcerer bloodlines before you get into wild-blood or mutations, and there's no reason that PF2 couldn't do something similar, it's just that Paizo would prefer to let some of the talented 3rd party developers handle the rest. Like there was a lot of 3rd party kineticist stuff for 1e.

I feel its more likely they just want to avoid the bloat that made PF1 so unwieldly, with so many options that were underwhelming, uninteresting, or in some cases just broken. 50 bloodlines is nice and all unless you're trying to build a Sorcerer for the first time, and then it's a huge number of things you have wade through to figure out what to take. Especially if half of them don't really get used because no one finds them that interesting.

I know some people think more is always better, but it's not really true. At some point more is just more.

Paizo loves to print bad archetypes that no one will use in PF2. They're just "generic" so that they could potentially be bad for an infinite number of characters, rather than be limited to one class's worth.

I would absolutely love it if no combination of later published archetypes ever let you build a more powerful character than what you could build with 0 archetype feats, just selecting your own class feats from the classes in the Player Core books.

I would absolutely love it if no combination of later published archetypes ever let you build a more powerful character than what you could build with 0 archetype feats, just selecting your own class feats from the classes in the Player Core books.

I'm pretty sure that horse already bolted as archetypes like Sentinel and Mauler tend to be pure upside for the classes that use them.

Neither of those are better than fighters or champions though

Paizo loves to print bad archetypes that no one will use in PF2. They're just "generic" so that they could potentially be bad for an infinite number of characters, rather than be limited to one class's worth.

Trust me...there is no archetype so bad I won't design a character around it. :)

Neither of those are better than fighters or champions though

I'm pretty sure the optimal Fighter build will take an archetype at some point in their career, but I'm not up on my PF2 Char-Op enough to know what that specific build would look like.

...as if a Medium race had a feat that said something like this: "You can interact with an object nine feet off the ground with a single Interact action, but that action gains the [Move] trait."

Do you mean "up to 15 ft off the ground" here? Because 9 ft off the ground is in reach already. Even 10 is.

Lord Viator wrote:

The only thing that kinda annoys me is that it's difficult to read these as a changelog with the new and old errata being smashed into one entry since we've moved away from printing-based errata for the newer rounds. I think it'd be helpful if maybe there was some dating or something so that a person only interesting in seeing the most recent changes from last time could distinguish them easily.

This is high on our list of desired functionality improvements but will likely need to wait until after the website updates are complete before we can start moving forward with implementation.

One thing that could be done without a new website would be changing the color of the text for the most recent errata to be different than the standard. I play a lot of warhammer and that's how the most recent vs older errata's are differentiated. It's not as nice and detailed as one might like but it gets the job done.

Omega Metroid wrote:

...as if a Medium race had a feat that said something like this: "You can interact with an object nine feet off the ground with a single Interact action, but that action gains the [Move] trait."

Do you mean "up to 15 ft off the ground" here? Because 9 ft off the ground is in reach already. Even 10 is.

I did, yes. Nice catch, thank you.

(Was meant to parallel the original Evanescent Wings, which gives the example of Sprites (Tiny creatures with 0 reach) fluttering up to reach a cookie jar 4 feet off the ground by adding a [Move] trait to their Interact action. "Up to 15 feet", with a 14-foot example, would've definitely worked better for a Medium race, thanks for pointing it out. My bad. -_-' )

I'm hoping skeletons get a way of gaining the advanced undead benefits come the next errata cycle.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

And I kind of doubt we will ever see new elements from Paizo TBT.

It's likely that one of the reason we haven't seen the huge explosion of different class options in PF2 is that Paizo is deliberately leaving space for 3rd parties to fill in those gaps. Since, as I understand it the basic reason you print an archetype to do something instead of "more class feats" is that the former is applicable to more characters.

But PF1 had 50 sorcerer bloodlines before you get into wild-blood or mutations, and there's no reason that PF2 couldn't do something similar, it's just that Paizo would prefer to let some of the talented 3rd party developers handle the rest. Like there was a lot of 3rd party kineticist stuff for 1e.

I feel its more likely they just want to avoid the bloat that made PF1 so unwieldly, with so many options that were underwhelming, uninteresting, or in some cases just broken. 50 bloodlines is nice and all unless you're trying to build a Sorcerer for the first time, and then it's a huge number of things you have wade through to figure out what to take. Especially if half of them don't really get used because no one finds them that interesting.

I know some people think more is always better, but it's not really true. At some point more is just more.

TBT I feel we're already past that point as far as archetypes are concerned.

I think the bloat problem PF2 is going to experience doesn’t have as much to do with Paizo as it does the third party tools that people rely on to run it.

Paizo could publish 2x as many items, spells and archetypes as it does and it wouldn’t lead to any bloat at all if they were understood to be options for specific campaigns/adventures and are not generally available for players without talking to their GMs about narratively fitting those options into campaigns.

But many players are building characters on digital tools where they might barely be paying attention to rarity at all and almost certainly are not tracking sources or considering how those sources fit into the campaign they will be playing. Many of the tools default into showing everything, and when trying to filter AP content, you might be looking at 50+ sources to filter. Pay to play GMs have little incentive to limit player options because they want players to be excited to play with them, and newer GMs might not even realize what tools their players are consulting to make characters.

That is a big part of why I think it is important for the core books to contain the most straight forward, easy to make powerful options and for expansion options to always aim under that bar, not at it. I am curious to see what happens with the player core 2 for sure.

Page 151: Long air repeater table entry updated to clarify that it is two-handed. It now has the kickback trait.

Was this an intended nerf to the long air repeater? Weapons with air cartridge firing systems get all of the drawbacks but none of the perks of the kickback trait. The one-handed air repeater already felt like a much better weapon because it does the same damage, only requires a single hand, and has the agile trait.

That's... a good question, actually. There are a lot of nice changes here, for sure, but a few of them do seem to have taken a bit less care & consideration than the others; I think a few items were examined in bulk or as a group, and the outliers suffered a bit as a result.

It would be nice to have official Paizo feedback to clarify intent here, to let us know whether the changes are exactly as intended, whether they missed an interaction or quirk and didn't errata accordingly, or whether we don't have the full picture about how the pre-errata versions worked and aren't evaluating things the same way they themselves do.

Was this an intended nerf to the long air repeater? Weapons with air cartridge firing systems get all of the drawbacks but none of the perks of the kickback trait

I feel like the solution there is to not buy an air cartridge firing system for your long air repeater then.

Cyrad wrote:

Was this an intended nerf to the long air repeater? Weapons with air cartridge firing systems get all of the drawbacks but none of the perks of the kickback trait

I feel like the solution there is to not buy an air cartridge firing system for your long air repeater then.

I think the issue is that the air firing system is described as default on air repeaters so it's weird to have kickback on one

barely be paying attention to rarity at all

Ignoring rarity is the best approach for GMs that are experienced enough to handle it. Maybe it has a place for new tables.