Fall Errata Updates 2024

the errata finally loaded for me and I think the live wire nerf is actually more impactful than the sure strike nerf

Oh, bloody hell, they did not clarify the Grandeur cause reaction duration.

Now waiting for next year Magus final remaster pass *huffs copium*

For real tho the added flexibility to base spellstrike is a godsend, it'd be dope to have a small penalty on hit/crit to the save (even if that'd mean nixing the "goes on on a miss" part) but I'll take it !
What needs work now is just the options for its action juggling.

Interesting...so the Rogue still has ridiculously good saves?

I guess so.

Alas, no Darting Stab change. RIP Wasp friends.

There's the stray magus/caster nerf with sure strike. Not that non-magi should have been using attack spells anyway, but it isn't a pf2e patch without a random caster nerf.

A bit sad that Swashbuckler archetype did not get any panache benefits, but at least Champion got its aura.
Rogue resilience seems to stay, wow.

Changes to anathemas are disapointing, even if minor. Make the game easier, sure, but also *make the game easier*, as in: waters down dogma, makes it less interesting, dieties more forgiving and plain. Neutering seems to be in line with this edition in general, though.

I appreciate the commitment and enormous amount of work of making this happen.

Oh, bloody hell, they did not clarify the Grandeur cause reaction duration.

Or the Bones Curse. The blog said that PC1 got more attention as it's been out longer, so the spring errata will hopefully have more for PC2.

There's the stray magus/caster nerf with sure strike. Not that non-magi should have been using attack spells anyway, but it isn't a pf2e patch without a random caster nerf.

That one doesn't bother me a ton. It becomes extremely strong for a first level spell as the game goes on. It still is, but now you won't be taking 8 of them a day.

Magus got significant updates here, including Spellstrike now being able to use save spells out of the box.

the errata finally loaded for me and I think the live wire nerf is actually more impactful than the sure strike nerf

We all knew that was coming, right? It was clearly way out of line. That one was a "enjoy the party while it lasts" situation.

magnuskn wrote:

Oh, bloody hell, they did not clarify the Grandeur cause reaction duration.

Or the Bones Curse. The blog said that PC1 got more attention as it's been out longer, so the spring errata will hopefully have more for PC2.

Yeah, same hope here. Oh, well, I'm playing a Redeemer, anyway, in PFS. But Grandeur sounds, ahem, grand. ^^

Can we assume that Rogue's Resilience which only gives them EXPERT in Fortitude allows them to Turn Success into Critical Success, like the features that only grant that on Master, is how is intended?

Because, come on, this is obviously a mistake that has been discussed here over and over and should've been addressed on the errata. That's far bigger than adding trait to stuff, if that is indeed an oversight (I hope).

I have to say Rogues still turning every single save type into a crit and Champions’ Blade Ally still being changed from Premaster to taking up a Rune Slot is super disappointing to me after the long wait.

Love and appreciate the errata that we got, but those two being effectively confirmed as WAI is a huge misstep to me.

Sure strike gets used a decent amount in the tables I'm at and I'm struggling to think of a case where the cooldown would make a difference at any of them.

Happy to see a lot of small annoyances get addressed like the typo in Dubious Knowledge.

I have to say Rogues still turning every single save type into a crit and Champions’ Blade Ally still being changed from Premaster to taking up a Rune Slot is super disappointing to me after the long wait.

Love and appreciate the errata that we got, but those two being effectively confirmed as WAI is a huge misstep to me.

Yeah, I need a clarification on that, because Bladed Ally eating a Rune slot is really "Too Bad To be True" territory. Basically making the level 10 and 20 feats less attractive than they already are.

Nice to see this!

However, I have to point out that the advanced maneuver of the giant wasp animal companion from Howl of the Wild is still broken, in that it offer no benefit over simply using one action to fly then one action to attack (or the reverse).

For those unaware, the Giant wasp have a fly speed of 40 feet, and it's advanced manoeuver take two action to either fly for 15 feet then strike, or strike then fly for 15 feet. It doesn't have any other effect, and doesn't offer any action compression or any kind of upside over simply flying then striking in any order, in fact, it's strictly worse since the fly speed in this action is less than half of the wasp base fly speed.

I'm pointing this one out specifically because unlike a lot of obvious mistake, this one is actually a bit difficult to homebrew, as it doesn't gives off a clear idea of what the manoeuver was supposed to be. Maybe it was supposed to take one action to do this, and thus be simple action compression, or it was supposed to be a "skirmish" ability that allow the wasp to strike at any point during it's movement (and thus allow them to do a "get close, strike, get away" in only two action, even if the move speed was reduced). Or it could even be supposed to be a movement that doesn't trigger reaction. But as it stand, it's difficult to make a call, as it's difficult to decide which one is the intended ability.

Can we assume that Rogue's Resilience which only gives them EXPERT in Fortitude allows them to Turn Success into Critical Success, like the features that only grant that on Master?

Because, come on, this is obviously a mistake that has been discussed here over and over and should've been addressed on the errata. That's far bigger than adding trait to stuff, if that is indeed an oversight (I hope).

There's been two rounds of significant PC1 errata now, over the course of a year. At this point, I find it hard to conclude that it's a mistake. If it was really an obvious mistake, with how many times it's been pointed out, would they have skipped it again here?

At some point we have to accept that it's deliberate and Rogues are just good at everything for some reason.

I have to say Rogues still turning every single save type into a crit and Champions’ Blade Ally still being changed from Premaster to taking up a Rune Slot is super disappointing to me after the long wait.

Love and appreciate the errata that we got, but those two being effectively confirmed as WAI is a huge misstep to me.

I'm not sure I feel that way about Blade Ally yet, as PC2 didn't get a lot of attention in this round of errata. The blog post calls out PC1 as having been out for long enough to really find a lot of the issues. Comparatively PC2 didn't get touched much outside of the most obvious things (Live Wire, Oracle spells per day, Champion Archetype aura).

While it might end up being the intent, it also may just be a case of "more attention was put on PC1 and they didn't get to it yet".

Ah good to see Rogues still haven't been nerfed yet, so can we get a Dev/Staff to mention/comment that Rogues are meant to critical succeed on all three saves by level 17?

Speaking of Blade Ally must not work like that as Battle Harbinger as a feat that is just better Blade Ally, and I refuse to let it work like that at any table, it feels like you are being ripped off is you go Blade Ally.

I'm not sure if it'll be covered in the errata, but one thing I noticed in War of Immortals.

Page 61 of War of Immortals, or more specifically the Bloodrager archetype. The feats Surging Blood Magic & Exultant Blood Magic have a prerequisite of "Master/Legendary in Religion or Occultism, depending on your chosen tradition." Shouldn't it be Arcana instead of Occultism as the traditions you can choose between are Arcane & Divine?

Inner radiance torrent also got nerfed into the ground. What was once the second best blast at each rank due to its scaling is now just another worthless spell in a sea of worthless spells.

Rogues are darling and refuse to be killed.

Ah good to see Rogues still haven't been nerfed yet, so can we get a Dev/Staff to mention/comment that Rogues are meant to critical succeed on all three saves by level 17?

I feel them not saying otherwise was already a big clue when PC1 came out.

By now, it feels pretty blatant.

But then I have sometimes misread Paizo's intent in the past, so who knows ?

The sure strike change is probably going to be best evaluated in hindsight. If Paizo can make use of the extra design space it being nerfed gives them, I'm all for it. If not, eh...

Inner Radiance Torrent was originally Limited, now that it's been nerfed, does it change from Limited to Standard?

Surprised about the sure strike change. I'm more concerned about psychics than magi though with all their attack spells.

Kitsune still lack Additional Lore for Kitsune lore like all other post remaster ancestries get.

Inner Radiance Torrent was originally Limited, now that it's been nerfed, does it change from Limited to Standard?

Potentially, though that's a separate team making a pass now that the errata is live I think?

Hey Paizo, if Sure Strike is going to become an encounter power, you do now recognise that material changes to the quality of Spell Attacks is required, yes?

Perhaps a web supplement for an emergency errata to the upcoming magic themed Lost Omens book for an item that was “mistakenly omitted”.

Well I see Arcane cascade still is not worth entering over rechargign your Spell-Strike Class Feature. Can we just have it be a Free-Action to enter at this point? 1-3 damage isn't that special nor does it make it interesting over Spell-Striking. Make it a passive class feature, boom, problem solved.

Hey Paizo, if Sure Strike is going to become an encounter power, you do now recognise that material changes to the quality of Spell Attacks is required, yes?

Perhaps a web supplement for an emergency errata to the upcoming magic themed Lost Omens book for an item that was “mistakenly omitted”.

You're thinking too small. Build a time machine back and send someone back in time several months to add it to the book.

The sure strike change is probably going to be best evaluated in hindsight. If Paizo can make use of the extra design space it being nerfed gives them, I'm all for it. If not, eh...

Honestly i'd be down to spellstrike having a penalty to the save on a successful strike (like -1 or 2 and a bit bigger on a crit)

Or heck give it more recharge skill actions like Magus Analysis with skills relative to subclasses (Like recharge on a successful feint for laughing shadow) with the same target immunity afterward.

Making a design to fail more is a good design or bad design? Is awesome or frustrating failing more? Compare the % rates of successs...now add elite. Sad.

As somebody who has theorycrafted a few builds based on exploiting Sure Strike, I understand and defer to Paizo's wisdom. The spell remains strong for that 1/combat w/o becoming core (which arguably no 1st level should be into later levels). Also I'm glad I hadn't launched any such PCs in PFS yet.

My PFS Starlit Span Magus playstyle will need to change. I guess I do not need to invest in a Familiar to give me scrolls of Sure Strike now.

Hazah, the Minion trait now says how many minions you're supposed to have.

So what do you think the biggest errata was so far?

Both my PCs carry 5ish Sure Strike scrolls on their person, and I'm happy for that nerf. It is just as potent, but is now a more precious resource that's no longer spammable.
Sure Strike + Gouging Claw, etc was often the best of my Chirurgeon's bad options, and I'm glad to see the temptation reduced.

It is pretty frustrating to see how much this errata was "the squeaky wheel gets the grease" though.

Something like the bomb splash contradiction was fixed, as all the "look how they massacred the Alchemist" talk used that detail as an easy to compress/explain error.

Meanwhile, all the substantive problems that take a bit more explanation have been neglected.

Poor inhaled poisons have never had a functional ruleset since the original launch, and every GM I've played with has ran them differently.
Can each cloud only ever make 1 exposure event per creature at most? Save again if the foe ends their turn inside? Does exiting & reentering trigger another save?

The trait doesn't even explicitly say that the cloud's creation triggers an exposure, GMs just have to presume it does because the alternative makes no sense and is tBtbT.

Looks like the exploits with multiple retrieval belts was closed, too; it's now an actual belt.

It is pretty frustrating to see how much this errata was "the squeaky wheel gets the grease" though.

And where is he confirmation or denial that Rogue don't get crit success on all 3 saves at level 17? That been a very "The sequaky wheel gets the grease."

But there are a few issues still there like why Blade Ally works the way it does?

So what do you think the biggest errata was so far?

While Sure Strike was a super common spell, I'm going to give that to a sleeper change I've not yet seen talked about.

Staves becoming Invested items will change every single user of that item group that's already at max investiture.

This change actually hurts, as my PCs take archetype casting and use low level staves for utility. One little Alchemist is super fond of her Librarian's staff, and twice during APs the ability to take 10 min to use it's ability to quickly store a mini-library in the thing to read later has been super useful.

After this change, the decision to use/invest in a staff is as big a cost as for any of the evergreen passive items, like boots for +5 move spd.

I cannot afford to sacrifice some meaningful combat potential for the sake of a flavor item like the Librarian Staff. Sucks, but it is what it is.

Trip.H wrote:

It is pretty frustrating to see how much this errata was "the squeaky wheel gets the grease" though.

And where is he confirmation or denial that Rogue don't get crit success on all 3 saves at level 17? That been a very "The sequaky wheel gets the grease."

But there are a few issues still there like why Blade Ally works the way it does?

That phrase doesn't mean that devs capitulate to community complaints and reward whiners with buffs.

The devs can genuinely look at such clamor and think "Nope, that one's fine/working as intended/good enough/ etc."

That's why my example was inhaled, something that's literally got an incomplete ruleset, and not something that just presently sucks too bad to be an appealing option, like Blade Ally.

I'm not sure if it'll be covered in the errata, but one thing I noticed in War of Immortals.

Page 61 of War of Immortals, or more specifically the Bloodrager archetype. The feats Surging Blood Magic & Exultant Blood Magic have a prerequisite of "Master/Legendary in Religion or Occultism, depending on your chosen tradition." Shouldn't it be Arcana instead of Occultism as the traditions you can choose between are Arcane & Divine?

It was. :)

Page 61: There are several updates to feats for the bloodrager.

Replace the Special text in Spelldrinker with the following: “If you have Surging Blood Magic, you can add the spell at 4th rank. If you have Exultant Blood Magic, you can add the spell at 7th rank.”
The Surging Blood Magic prerequisites should be: “Prerequisites Rising Blood Magic; master in Arcana or Religion, depending on your chosen tradition.”
For Exultant Blood Magic, the prerequisites should be: “Prerequisites Surging Blood Magic; legendary in Arcana or Religion, depending on your chosen tradition”
Change the second sentence of the Exultant Blood Magic feat to “You gain the master spellcasting benefits (Player Core 215).”

Inner radiance torrent also got nerfed into the ground. What was once the second best blast at each rank due to its scaling is now just another worthless spell in a sea of worthless spells.

We knew this one was coming. Paizo said shortly after SoM's release that it was scaling too fast and would be reined in. PFS made the spell limited until that happened. That was 3 years ago, but today's the day.

Hopefully that means PFS will change it to standard in their next update.

Staves are invested now, eh, that's kinda silly and many of them are now on the shelf collecting dust for all of eternity because there was better stuff to spend money on and invest slots on...

ElementalofCuteness wrote:

Trip.H wrote:

It is pretty frustrating to see how much this errata was "the squeaky wheel gets the grease" though.

And where is he confirmation or denial that Rogue don't get crit success on all 3 saves at level 17? That been a very "The sequaky wheel gets the grease."

But there are a few issues still there like why Blade Ally works the way it does?

That phrase doesn't mean that devs capitulate to community complaints and reward whiners with buffs.

The devs can genuinely look at such clamor and think "Nope, that one's fine/working as intended/good enough/ etc."

That's why my example was inhaled, something that's literally got an incomplete ruleset, and not something that just presently sucks too bad to be an appealing option, like Blade Ally.

I know you have lots of pain points, but as was said in this thread already, it may help to just lower expectations of them ever being fixed or being something Paizo thinks is an actual issue - because at a certain point, and after numerous errata, the latter may just be the case.

Staves becoming Invested items will change every single user of that item group that's already at max investiture.

This actually kinda sucks, as my PCs take archetype casting and use low level staves for utility. One little Alchemist is super fond of her Librarian's staff, and twice during APs the ability to take 10 min to use it's ability to quickly store a mini-library in the thing to read later has been super useful.

After this change, the decision to use/invest in a staff is as big a cost as for any of the evergreen passive items, like boots for +5 move spd.

I cannot afford to sacrifice some meaningful combat potential for the sake of a flavor item like the Librarian Staff. Sucks, but it is what it is.

Whoa I missed that! I don't think thats actually what it means though. The rule that was changed itself doesn't mention staves or give them the Invested trait.

The part that mentions staves is an explanation, which itself seems wrong because nothing in the rules after this change says that staves are invested that I can find. Is there some other part I'm missing?

Page 219: The text on investing items didn’t allow for items that are invested but not worn, such as staves. Change the first two sentences to “Certain magic items convey their magical benefits only when invested using the Invest an Item activity, tying them to the PC’s inner potential. These items have the invested trait, and most are worn items.”

Hey all I've been having fun reading through the changes. There's one thing that I've been curious about for a while now, and that's the class archetypes from Secrets of Magic. Are any of these ever going to get remastered? I'm specifically thinking of Runelord since it heavily relies on spell schools. Should updates to these be something I should be looking for in errata, or will they probably be re-printed in a new book down the road?

Trip.H wrote:

Staves becoming Invested items will change every single user of that item group that's already at max investiture.

This actually kinda sucks, as my PCs take archetype casting and use low level staves for utility. One little Alchemist is super fond of her Librarian's staff, and twice during APs the ability to take 10 min to use it's ability to quickly store a mini-library in the thing to read later has been super useful.

After this change, the decision to use/invest in a staff is as big a cost as for any of the evergreen passive items, like boots for +5 move spd.

I cannot afford to sacrifice some meaningful combat potential for the sake of a flavor item like the Librarian Staff. Sucks, but it is what it is.

Whoa I missed that! I don't think thats actually what it means though. The rule that was changed itself doesn't mention staves or give them the Invested trait.

The part that mentions staves is an explanation, which itself seems wrong because nothing in the rules after this change says that staves are invested that I can find. Is there some other part I'm missing?

Quote:

Page 219: The text on investing items didn’t allow for items that are invested but not worn, such as staves. Change the first two sentences to “Certain magic items convey their magical benefits only when invested using the Invest an Item activity, tying them to the PC’s inner potential. These items have the invested trait, and most are worn items.”

Hmm... Nothing in this says something like, "Staves gain the Invested trait" or "When you prepare a staff, you also invest..."

I think staves were used as an example because the writer misremembered and though they had the trait. I do not belive the intent was to add the invested trait to staves, or they would have been more explicit.

Hey all I've been having fun reading through the changes. There's one thing that I've been curious about for a while now, and that's the class archetypes from Secrets of Magic. Are any of these ever going to get remastered? I'm specifically thinking of Runelord since it heavily relies on spell schools. Should updates to these be something I should be looking for in errata, or will they probably be re-printed in a new book down the road?

Runelord will be remastered in Lost Omens: Rival Academies.