Fall Errata Updates 2024

GM Core 174: "In The Universe’s stat block—yes, Pathfinder truly does have a stat block for everything—change the second paragraph to..."

Nailed it! ROFL!

The Secrets of Magic "lost album" of 1st printing to 2nd printing - when will that be live in the pdf downloads?
The current download still seems to be 1st printing May 2021, despite 2nd printing having been out for a while (fall 2023 according to errata page)

I'm a bit surprised we didn't get errata for Summon Deific Herald especially since we have new deities that you never had an alignment for them.

Have to say I got some mixed feelings about magus, which is one of my favorite classes.

Really happy for the addition of spell usable with the basic spellstrike, maybe in the future expansive spellstrike will fully become part of the core feature.
A little bit sad for the laughing shadow losing mirror image, which was a really nice spell (I know it's for ogl reasons, but we already have an animist's focus spell that mimics mirror image, so i still hope to see it updated somehow).
What makes me a little bit disappointed is seeing there is no plan on giving the magus a class dc that goes up tu master, since in't the only class that has no dc that scale based on their key attribute. Plus in some cases Int (that's the stat for the only scaling dc) can be "dumped" if you focus more on spell with an attack roll. I think about this statistic magus should be treated more like a martial with some magic (like monk, champion, ranger or even battle harbinger) and not like a caster.

Despite all that I still love the class

So Arcade Cascade is still useless if you take Starlit Span? I was really hoping this would be just an oversight *sigh*

So I can use save spells on Spellstrikes now... but I still get nothing from getting a good roll? Really?

If I read it correctly, if I roll a Critical Success with a Spellstrike Ignition, both the Strike and the Spell will deal double damage, and Ignition will add persistant fire damage.

However, if I roll a Critical Success with a Spellstrike Frostbite, only the Strike will deal double damage, and Frostbite still uses the basic Fortitude save, with the target possibly negating the damage completely on a Critical Success. That's on top of wasting the spell if you roll a Critical Failure.

Man... can you guys slap a penalty to the saving throw if the Spellstrike using a save spell is a Critical Success, like "a penalty equal to the Magus's spell proficiency rank" and/or "treating the outcome one step worse for the target"?

Right now, I still see no reason to simply Cast Frostbite instead of Spellstriking with it, because the target still can resist it normally.

Right now, I still see no reason to simply Cast Frostbite instead of Spellstriking with it, because the target still can resist it normally.

The reason is that it takes two actions to spellstrike a save spell, compared to three to strike+cast. I agree that a save penalty on a successful strike would make sense.

JiCi wrote:

Right now, I still see no reason to simply Cast Frostbite instead of Spellstriking with it, because the target still can resist it normally.

The reason is that it takes two actions to spellstrike a save spell, compared to three to strike+cast. I agree that a save penalty on a successful strike would make sense.

Well, you can actually get a better result now on your save spells than your Strike since they aren't linked. For instance, you can hit with your Spellstrike and the target can critically fail the spell, especially if you successfully target it's weak save. So targets having a high AC but a save that can be exploited are a good reason to not Cast Frostbite/Caustic Blast/Daze and instead Spellstriking with it. This is especially true now that there isn't Sure Strike spam anymore.

The baked in save spells on spellstrike is a good start but it really needs a penalty on successful strikes to make it more reliably good. (-2 on a hit, -3 on a crit or -1 hit, -3 crit should work out about right, being on par or slightly above pure casters by 1 for some levels, but only single target and almost always in melee, so like...fair)

Same with Cascade, it needs some sort of buff. Make it worth the action spent not with damage but utility.
Again I advocate for skill actions to recharge spellstrike as a form of action compression while in Cascade (relevant to hybrid study like Feint/Tumble on Laughing Shadow, Trip/Shove on Inexorable Iron (with added benefit of the stance letting you do those actions with a two handed weapon) etc etc).

If on top we could actually have Spell Combat where you can cast any spell before the Strike (and if the spell has an attack roll or a strike (Warding Aggression for example )you don't increase the map until both attacks are resolved, something like that. Still need to recharge the spellstrike ability afterward ofc, but this would be so nice. Sometimes you'd need to use it that way, sometime spending 3 actions normally would be better, etc

Arachnofiend wrote:

JiCi wrote:

Right now, I still see no reason to simply Cast Frostbite instead of Spellstriking with it, because the target still can resist it normally.

The reason is that it takes two actions to spellstrike a save spell, compared to three to strike+cast. I agree that a save penalty on a successful strike would make sense.

Well, you can actually get a better result now on your save spells than your Strike since they aren't linked. For instance, you can hit with your Spellstrike and the target can critically fail the spell, especially if you successfully target it's weak save. So targets having a high AC but a save that can be exploited are a good reason to not Cast Frostbite/Caustic Blast/Daze and instead Spellstriking with it. This is especially true now that there isn't Sure Strike spam anymore.

I still stand that a Success on a Spellstrike using a save spell should treat the target's save "one step worse" and on a Critical Success "two steps worse".

Or make it "one step worse" on a Critical Success and "two steps worse" on a Natural 20, I dunno...

If the spell fizzles out on a Critical Failure, it should be MUCH harder to resist on a Critical Success.

What's the "opposite" of "your attack missed AND your spell is canceled on a Critical Failure" for a Critical Success?

I'd say the save gets more difficult to resist in addition of double your Strike's damage, as per the critical hit rules.

One step worse on a critical hit might work but damn that could be very, very strong.

Either that or -2 on hit -3 on crit for me.

One step worse on a critical hit might work but damn that could be very, very strong.

How strong are we talking?

It's like I'm missing something in P2E entirely...

Do critical successes happen like 9 times out of 10 or something now?

Back in P1E, you had to roll from 17 to 20 on the die to get a critical hit, as a reminder.

Right now, it's like almost all of your attacks, as a Magus at least, are critical successes.

Criticals can happen easily with setup.
Beating the AC by 10 makes it a crit.

Offguard: -2 AC
Frightened 1 or 2: -1AC or -2 AC
Heroism: +1 to +3 Attack (depending on level)
Sure Strike: mathematically +4 or +5 on average.

Those are the easiest and most common applicable debuffs, but you can also inflict Clumsy (-1 or -2 AC) and other stuff i likely forget. Like Knowledge is Power (+1 attack)

With the most common things you virtually get a +4 to your hit, up to a +7. Then add Sure Strike that's essentially +11.
The likely hood of critting a boss with this is very high. If you have a keen rune on your weapon, a 19 would be enough for it too.

So yes crits are very potent in 2e. It's not as often as you could in 1e with keen rapiers etc having 25% crit chance (though still had to roll to confirm afterward) and having like 6 or 12 attacks a round.

But they are common enough that reducing the result of a save by 1 degree on a crit would be very strong. Maybe not OP, but it would be strong.
Reducing it by 2 is overkill.

Disintegrate goes for jiCi's idea, at any rate. It's a spell with two failure points (the initial attack and the Fort save) but if you get a Critical hit on the attack, the enemy's Fort save is downgraded by 1 step.

Giving that blanket to Magus might be too strong, but I don't think so. With the Sure Strike changes they're not going to be Critting more than other martials and their Save DC will be lower than other casters' just because INT isn't their KAS + they need to priositise the physicals in order to not die. So the end result would be a lot of Success -> Failure.

The big problem with this one is it'd make Slow even more of a must have and we'd need a way to work out how it interacts with Incapacitation or other abilities that move a save's Degree of Success.

Yeah that may have too many wrinkles.
Unless you make it like "this only works for spells calling for a Basic save" so Slow would be exempt for example.

Yeah that may have too many wrinkles.

Unless you make it like "this only works for spells calling for a Basic save" so Slow would be exempt for example.

That would be fair, I'll give you this.

Kalaam wrote:

One step worse on a critical hit might work but damn that could be very, very strong.

How strong are we talking?

It's like I'm missing something in P2E entirely...

Do critical successes happen like 9 times out of 10 or something now?

Back in P1E, you had to roll from 17 to 20 on the die to get a critical hit, as a reminder.

Right now, it's like almost all of your attacks, as a Magus at least, are critical successes.

Crit-fishing builds were 15-20.

Kalaam wrote:

One step worse on a critical hit might work but damn that could be very, very strong.

How strong are we talking?

It's like I'm missing something in P2E entirely...

Do critical successes happen like 9 times out of 10 or something now?

Back in P1E, you had to roll from 17 to 20 on the die to get a critical hit, as a reminder.

Right now, it's like almost all of your attacks, as a Magus at least, are critical successes.

Lets go for level 5, you've just got Expert proficiency and have a +1 weapon, giving you a +14 (+5 level + 4 expert + 4 ability mod + 1 item) to-hit. A level 7 with a high AC has 25 at base. You can then flank them for off-guard, make them frightened 1, and you now need to roll a 8 to hit/18 to crit. If you combine that with spellstriking Slow at the same time, you've now got a 15% chance to almost guarantee the boss (again, they're 2 levels above you!) is Slowed 1 for the fight (they'd need to crit succeed to only be Slowed 1 for a round), and a meaningful chance of making them Slowed 2 for the fight. If you have a reroll (Sure Strike, a hero point, etc) that's a 27.75% chance of happening. I think it's pretty clear that a character shouldn't have a more than 1/4 chance of trivialising the boss on round 1 from full health.

If you optimise your to-hit further - lets say a status penalty of -2, and you're picking up Spellstrike from the magus archetype as a fighter to give yourself a +2 to hit - then you're going up to critting on a 14: a 35% chance, or a 57.75% chance with a reroll. The only way these odds can make sense is if the spell can't do anything approaching a save-or--suck, even on a crit fail.

Ok, my brain hurts due to all that math crunching, but... I now get your point.

In the end Magus needs more help and this is not the help that will help it, it is a bandaid after rip off a different bandaid to balance it. Look you can't take one bandaid off only to put a second one on the same wound it doesn't work...

JiCi wrote:

Right now, I still see no reason to simply Cast Frostbite instead of Spellstriking with it, because the target still can resist it normally.

The reason is that it takes two actions to spellstrike a save spell, compared to three to strike+cast. I agree that a save penalty on a successful strike would make sense.

Note that you will also need an action to recharge your Spellstrike.

Arachnofiend wrote:

JiCi wrote:

Right now, I still see no reason to simply Cast Frostbite instead of Spellstriking with it, because the target still can resist it normally.

The reason is that it takes two actions to spellstrike a save spell, compared to three to strike+cast. I agree that a save penalty on a successful strike would make sense.

Note that you will also need an action to recharge your Spellstrike.

Yeah, well, that can be fixed with new feats, such as "recharging Spellstrike with Stride, Step, Reload or even Strike". That would be broekn down, but still, I could see this as a solution.

Some of these recent changes I've really not cared for. I'll keep saying it but to me PF2E shouldn't be balanced like a mmo with nerfs to classes and it should be left to the GMs to ban/homebrew things they feel are too powerful like sure strike, electric arc, monk dedication flurry of blows etc at their tables and if Paizo feels it's an issue for society play have it adjusted for those in a separate rules page alongside the society restrictions they already have.

From another thread, mentionned the idea of having Arcane Cascade's base damage apply as a penalty to saves, maybe just during Spellstrike, or maybe any strike until the end of the character's turn.

At level 1 a Magus' DC is 1 lower than wizard (at max int)
The 1 damage and penalty from cascade would make them even.

At level 7 Cascade's damage increases to 2, and wizards become experts.
So with it Magus is behind by 1. But at level 5 they go to increase intelligence to +4 so they remain even !

At 15 Magus get greater weapon spec, so Cascade is at 3. Wizard become Master.
At level 10 wizard got +5 int while magus is catches up on it at level 15.
That's a 3 point difference, made up by Cascade again.

At 20 that difference remains, until the wizard get an apex item which makes them keep a lead by 1.

This actually maps out pretty well !
Heck if that penalty could apply to all spells until the start of Magus' next turn, this could be a great support for other casters. (maybe gated behind a feat like Riving Strike)

Some of these recent changes I've really not cared for. I'll keep saying it but to me PF2E shouldn't be balanced like a mmo with nerfs to classes and it should be left to the GMs to ban/homebrew things they feel are too powerful like sure strike, electric arc, monk dedication flurry of blows etc at their tables and if Paizo feels it's an issue for society play have it adjusted for those in a separate rules page alongside the society restrictions they already have.

I can see that. But the problem from Paizo's side comes when the power of these options prevents them from publishing new things (Sure Strike has constrained the design of spell attack rolls since day 1). And by your own reasoning, you're free to revert these changes in your home games.

I can see that. But the problem from Paizo's side comes when the power of these options prevents them from publishing new things (Sure Strike has constrained the design of spell attack rolls since day 1). And by your own reasoning, you're free to revert these changes in your home games.

This is a common rationalisation, but we have yet to see the removal of other such "constraints" resulting in meaningful change.

I would not count on getting spell runes even with the heavy nerf of Sure Strike.

Squark wrote:

I can see that. But the problem from Paizo's side comes when the power of these options prevents them from publishing new things (Sure Strike has constrained the design of spell attack rolls since day 1). And by your own reasoning, you're free to revert these changes in your home games.

This is a common rationalisation, but we have yet to see the removal of other such "constraints" resulting in meaningful change.

Actually, I think we have. The devs were fairly clear that they wanted all ancestories to be +stat +free instead of +stat +stat -stat +free, even publising whole books with +stat +free ancestries, but then they errataed the alternate ability boosts, and they started printing the old style again, likely because the errata made +stat +free not needed any more. Now they only do it when its thematic to not have a flaw. It's not like they're going to make a huge announcement about it.

Hm... love the update the Magus, definitely on board with the change to Sure Strike, totally see the logic behind most of the anathema/edict changes... good errata!

The one thing I'm still a bit on the fence about is the edict/anathema changes to Lamashtu, which rather than having gameplay implications like the others seems to kinda just... serve to make her less evil/objectionable?

I'm not entirely sure how to feel about that. I'll be curious to hear what my priest of Lamashtu PC feels about it.

Theaitetos wrote:

While being an attack spell often is a downside, it can also be an upside. There are times where AC is a foe's lowest save (oozes?). Off-Guard and status bonuses to attack are rather common, which do not work for save spells. (and hey, Sure Strike may be 1 p 10 min, but its effect is still the same)

Overall, I agree that this nerf has more or less killed Live Wire's usage.

Live Wire's main competition was never EA, but Telekinetic Projectile (& Needle Darts).

Heightening at +2 is just so bad, as it means it will only be on-level 1/4 as opposed to 1 every 2 levels.

And LW still does the electricity damage on a miss.

Hm... love the update the Magus, definitely on board with the change to Sure Strike, totally see the logic behind most of the anathema/edict changes... good errata!

The one thing I'm still a bit on the fence about is the edict/anathema changes to Lamashtu, which rather than having gameplay implications like the others seems to kinda just... serve to make her less evil/objectionable?

I'm not entirely sure how to feel about that. I'll be curious to hear what my priest of Lamashtu PC feels about it.

Just speculating:

Lamashtu: Replace the “indoctrinate children in Lamashtu’s teachings” edict with “indoctrinate others in Lamashtu’s teachings”

Answer here could be as simple as "why not adults as well?" Answer could also be that "indoctrinate children in X ideology" is a dog whistle in certain political groups right now and they'd rather avoid that. I don't think this really changes much of anything in game, since all that happened is additional targets for her teachings.

replace the “attempt to treat a mental illness or deformity” anathema with “attempt to change that which makes you different”.

Personally, I just like this one better. It's broader, and as a nonbinary person I can project onto this Lamashtu saying "you're weird and that's awesome, don't ever change". Even if that's not the writers intent, though this being Paizo, it may very well have been their intent. :)

Aside from that, telling people "don't get treatment for mental illness" is... icky. I know this is an evil deity and all, but I don't think that message is one they really want to be printing when players with real life mental illness may read that.

I also think the alignment removal has left room for more "well this deity is evil but has some respectable qualities" and these changes may reflect that. You only need so many cartoonish supervillain gods, after all.

Alright, while some of these changes to Magus are appreciated I must admit the nerf to Sure Strike just baffles me on a fundamental level. Especially since I can't think of a thing it was honestly doing outside of Magus that would be remotely troublesome.

I've been playing a Magus for some time, currently at level 12 in a ongoing campaign (having played other pre and post Remaster classes for perspective) and I have to tell you this nerf just hurts. Magus design is so action costly, and so focused on the damage from Spellstrike, NEEDING to hit Spellstrike, that this spell is a necessity.

My actions on any given turn basically become Move, Sure Strike, Spellstrike, Arcane Cascade, or Recharge/Conflux. While Hasted by another party member. Do this until I run out of gas and then feel bad as my damage and accuracy falls through the floor.

If I don't hit Spellstrike I have functionally nothing to fall back on. Being down 2 MAP stages any attack trait action or maneuver after the fact is just not under consideration.

I have such limited Spell Slots that if I don't dedicate some manner of my character to investing into scrolls or other such items I am done after a few rounds. Which feels awful. Especially since pulling a scroll out takes an action we simply don't have unless I dedicate even more of my character's build to specifically easing that pain point.

If I don't do that, I have to potentially ask one of my party members to be a character oriented around scrolls or a support caster when they might now want to. And now, what, I have to wait until they can constantly cast Haste AND True Target now that Sure Strike is nerfed?

We seriously fundamental overhaul of Magus if this is the kind of balancing you're going to do. It just doesn't feel like this class fits the current system and design philosophy compared to new classes and remastered classes.

Because the action economy is so tight and the need to hit Spellstrike so great, and our resources so limited that it's honestly just made for way too low of lows compared to the few highs I've gotten from hitting a crit once in a while. These moments on Magus honestly feel worse than any other class I've played in the system.

"No one at my table was overusing Sure Strike enough for it to be weird, say hundreds of people mad at not being able to use Sure Strike three consecutive times per fight."

"nerf into oblivion" is an odd way to describe a change that doesn't change the primary effect of the ability at all. For a character that only Sure Strikes occasionally (most likely a pure caster) it might not alter how they use the spell at all.

I've been playing many full casters, and I tell you this ruins a lot of spells for me that require Sure Strike. It's true that you only cast Sure Strike occasionally, heck, I'd even say that you only cast it rarely as a full caster, but when those rare occasions come up you are likely to cast it more than once during the encounter.

Sure Strike was the only way of making AC targeting spells worth taking. Now they're to avoid like the plague.

In order to avoid non-pure casters spamming that spell they ruined it for everyone, despite claiming they want abilities to work for the intended classes. So I still maintain that this change sucks hard and that my solution "Sure Strike works only for spell attack rolls" is much better, as it stops the spam without hurting full casters.

errata wrote:

Lamashtu: Replace the “indoctrinate children in Lamashtu’s teachings” edict with “indoctrinate others in Lamashtu’s teachings”

Answer here could be as simple as "why not adults as well?" Answer could also be that "indoctrinate children in X ideology" is a dog whistle in certain political groups right now and they'd rather avoid that. I don't think this really changes much of anything in game, since all that happened is additional targets for her teachings.

I see where you are coming from, I just feel like this change detracts from Lamashtu's focus on children specifically which has always been a big "thing" for her, Mother of Monsters and all.

errata wrote:

replace the “attempt to treat a mental illness or deformity” anathema with “attempt to change that which makes you different”.

Personally, I just like this one better. It's broader, and as a nonbinary person I can project onto this Lamashtu saying "you're weird and that's awesome, don't ever change". Even if that's not the writers intent, though this being Paizo, it may very well have been their intent. :)

Aside from that, telling people "don't get treatment for mental illness" is... icky. I know this is an evil deity and all, but I don't think that message is one they really want to be printing when players with real life mental illness may read that.

I also think the alignment removal has left room for more "well this deity is evil but has some respectable qualities" and these changes may reflect that. You only need so many cartoonish supervillain gods, after all.

My problem with this is that while Lamashtu has always had some respectable qualities, toning down parts of her evil nature to make her more aspirational badly ignores that she's still really freaking evil.

Like, there are lots of deities in Paizo's setting for people to look up to - I'm not sure the Goddess of Getting Raped and Eaten by Monsters needs to be one of them.

They didn't really ruin it for everyone, though. I've been playing PF2E since it came out and have had at least one or two casters in every game I've played in or GM'd and I've seen Sure Strike cast like maybe 10 times, if that.

Sometimes things get nerfed or changed because it counters what the original intention of the feature was - and that's just fine. Nerfs aren't malicious, they're just things that sometimes are needed, and players may not always know why its needed.

In order to avoid non-pure casters spamming that spell they ruined it for everyone, despite claiming they want abilities to work for the intended classes. So I still maintain that this change sucks hard and that my solution "Sure Strike works only for spell attack rolls" is much better, as it stops the spam without hurting full casters.

That's the problem though... The 'intended' classes include martials like Magus, Battle Harbinger, Bloodrager and any other Martial characters with casting. I find it a dubious claim to suggest that Sure Strike was meant for the exclusive use of 'pure' casters as a 1st level spell almost anyone can manage to take with 2 feats...

Some of these recent changes I've really not cared for. I'll keep saying it but to me PF2E shouldn't be balanced like a mmo with nerfs to classes and it should be left to the GMs to ban/homebrew things they feel are too powerful like sure strike, electric arc, monk dedication flurry of blows etc at their tables and if Paizo feels it's an issue for society play have it adjusted for those in a separate rules page alongside the society restrictions they already have.

We live in the age of the internet. TTRPGs can do very well in understanding that and taking advantage accordingly.

Balance is a selling point of PF2e. Not taking care of it would allow it to devolve into unwieldiness over time with rarely/unaddressed things.

I rather have devs making changes that they feel are needed, even if they don't please me, than to have them treat the game as if it's before the internet became prevalent and things remained in that murky state for a long time relying on house rules.

Having official changes happen is much more reliable and healthy for the game and I'm immensely glad Paizo takes the time to do it. Even if we PF2e players can get insufferably annoying (Guilty as charged).

I saw someone make a suggestion for Spellstrike saving throws a few months ago that I still think is an excellent idea.

For the saving throw of the Spellstrike target, instead of using the Magus's Spell DC, it can use Magus's Class DC.

I saw someone make a suggestion for Spellstrike saving throws a few months ago that I still think is an excellent idea.

For the saving throw of the Spellstrike target, instead of using the Magus's Spell DC, it can use Magus's Class DC.

The Magus has no class DC scaling.

Trip.H wrote:

Theaitetos wrote:

While being an attack spell often is a downside, it can also be an upside. There are times where AC is a foe's lowest save (oozes?). Off-Guard and status bonuses to attack are rather common, which do not work for save spells. (and hey, Sure Strike may be 1 p 10 min, but its effect is still the same)

Overall, I agree that this nerf has more or less killed Live Wire's usage.

Live Wire's main competition was never EA, but Telekinetic Projectile (& Needle Darts).

Heightening at +2 is just so bad, as it means it will only be on-level 1/4 as opposed to 1 every 2 levels.

And LW still does the electricity damage on a miss.

EA was never in danger of being dethroned as king of the cantrips.

It's the confident finisher of cantrips. That gives it a secure place in the toolbox.

I saw someone make a suggestion for Spellstrike saving throws a few months ago that I still think is an excellent idea.

For the saving throw of the Spellstrike target, instead of using the Magus's Spell DC, it can use Magus's Class DC.

That is getting into "all of the benefits with none of the costs" territory for the one true hybrid class in the system.

I have no idea why so many players cannot fathom that a spellcaster needs to invest in their spellcasting stat if they *want* to improve that DC.

All the "give SS a +X for save spells on hit/crit" also fall into this group. There is no way for balance to remain legit if the martial + hybrid class can match spellcasters (or possibly exceed) at using spells like that.

Wizard has *one* feat for an RK check to give them a +1 / impose a -1. That's the kind of level of additional power that's potentially on the table here guys. An entire feat for a contextual +1/-1 on a non-attack action is fine.

Witch needs 2 feats to impose a -1 for only hexes upon landing a caster's Strike.

(Something like going into Arcane Cascade empowers your next save spell to impose a -1 on their save is close enough, but already stronger due to no fail chance)

Anything more than that is going to take some hella serious justification.

There are so many classes that "need more help" than Magus, it's astounding how much this one class dominates the discussions here.

For starters, I've never spoken to a single player at a table that has ever played Inventor.

The thing is that Magus will only do that on single target, in melee (most of the time) with a risk of completely missing the spell before it goes off.

Also it's not because other classes need changes that this one doesn't.

Wizard and Witches also have a higher DC than Magus does by default, so the balance isn't the same here.
At most my suggestion makes Magus equal or 1 behind pure casters (once apex items are factored in).
Under the conditions of:

1- Hitting or Critting (could lock the penalty to behind a crit if its necessary, the balancing can be discussed)
2- Not get an opportunity attack
3- Have a very limited amount of spells available still.
4- Can't spam that every round since it needs to recharge, where a Wizard could cast Slow on the same target 3 turns in a row easily until they fail.

Heck, one of the suggestion I gave was to have that penalty last longer so it could support other casters too!

the true strike change affect mega hit class more than multi hit class

for magus it is the worst

since each of their spellstrike already cost 3 action in practice

now they are forced to chase fortune effect other than true strike

and wondering if paizo will put the same limitation on those too

or even put limitation into the fortune trait itself

Honestly I think it hit Warpriest the hardest.

Every Warpriest ice seen has been for a dirty that had access and used frequently with Channel Smite.

it is very charitable so many player still pretend warpriest could work after 5 year

this change may be enough for cleric to consider deity that doesn't give true strike

or be forced to pick boring human for adaptive adept

I'm honestly not sure why people feel like this change hits Magus so hard.

For one, my Magus player has not cast sure strike a single time in the course of an 11-level-so-far campaign and she does fine in combat. It is in no world required for the class to function.

For two, Magi only get like 4 good spells a day and how often are you casting all of them in a single combat? If you are spellstriking with a cantrip you really don't need sure strike, cantrips are an infinite resource anyway.

Won't it be fun when your Sure Strike gets you 4 and 5 and you cannot cast this uber-spell again for the rest of the encounter ?

Hello everyone, I'm new here. I have a question about errata. Are they incorporated into books purchased digitally (PDF)?