Fall Errata Updates 2024

This discussion reminds me of the Playtest Magus lol
True Strike was basically essential for it and people were joking about magus all getting a staff of divination with a shifting rune to ensure their Striking Spells would actually land. (this was before the clarification that shifting doesn't work on staves, except the spellstriker staff)

Going from 5/10 rounds to 1/10 rounds is a hit.

I have never ever seen a fight in PF2 that would last 10 rounds and be so undecided that a 5th Sure Strike would be the decisive factor.

IME, by the 4th round the fate of an encounter is already plain to see.

Which maps to my experience, and the one a poster mentioned above, of using a Sure Strike max twice per encounter. And that is as a Starlit Span Magus.

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.

Unless I've missed something in the errata, the Magus is still one of the classes that doesn't have a Class DC at all.

We already have some precedent for "attack roll vs save DC" in bola shot ammunition. If fighters are allowed to use their legendary proficiency to try and stun targets why not let magi do so in-class with spellstrike.

There was somewhere in the past that said that for casters "class DC" is just your spell DC.

Also, went and did some checks about the idea of applying Arcane Cascade's base damage as a penalty to the save of the target on a hit, and here are the results

This might too good. Most of the time the Magus' effective DC would be 1 above wizard, sometime 2 for a few odd levels, and otherwise equal. only behind by 1 at level 20.
On one hand, Magus has limited spell slots, and would *require* delivering this through a spellstrike in melee (since arcane cascade doesn't apply to ranged strikes) so significant risks for a bigger bang. And have to enter cascade beforehand
But then again: Focus Spells remove the scarcity aspect... So either we ignore them. Or we "nerf" that idea.

Maybe a -1 on hit and -3 on a crit would be enough then. This would be enough to make up the difference most of the time and have a slight lead on a crit.
I kind of liked the idea of it being exclusive to Magus since a fighter multiclassing into it couldn't make use of Arcane Cascade.

Though I'd like to point out that a Magus might not always max out their intelligence, so this could help the MAD aspect actually. If we consider the magus' spell modifier to start at +2 or +1 instead of +3 and being increased each time its possible, this seems more balanced !

There was somewhere in the past that said that for casters "class DC" is just your spell DC.

I don't remember that being the case. But history is hard to check.

IIRC, Champion always had a separate track for class DC proficiency and spellcasting proficiency for spell attack bonus and spell DC. Ranger didn't originally have a spellcasting proficiency track because they didn't cast spells. That was added later - both the focus spells and the proficiency track.

There were and are several feats and abilities that let you use the higher of either your spell DC or class DC.

But I don't ever remember any rule saying that if you didn't have one or the other that you could use the one you do have in its place. That was a common houserule though for the cases where it did come up.

There was somewhere in the past that said that for casters "class DC" is just your spell DC.

This has never been the case.

Looks like the Thlipit Contestant's Lunge feat still doesn't work with the lash attack.

Rogue still having weird saves post-errata reminded me:

Avoid Notice still isn't a secret check :')

Maybe one day...

Shoutout to the Demon Mother's Mask item in pf1e

That was an item I could point to when people asked about weird items.

I suppose it's just more of my general dissatisfaction with Paizo sanding the darker edges off their setting as time goes on - it's hard to imagine any reason other than that for Socothbenoth to not even have been name dropped in years for example - and that seems to clash with what most people here want from the setting, so I'll just keep yelling at the clouds in my corner over here. :)

My love for Golarion still vastly outweighs my annoyance with those few things anyway.

I guess I just wish Paizo wouldn't have put it under the heading of "these changes were specifically for smoother gameplay" but I get it, it's fine.

I suppose it's just more of my general dissatisfaction with Paizo sanding the darker edges off their setting as time goes on - it's hard to imagine any reason other than that for Socothbenoth to not even have been name dropped in years for example - and that seems to clash with what most people here want from the setting, so I'll just keep yelling at the clouds in my corner over here. :)

My love for Golarion still vastly outweighs my annoyance with those few things anyway.

I guess I just wish Paizo wouldn't have put it under the heading of "these changes were specifically for smoother gameplay" but I get it, it's fine.

Eh, you see, we say that all the time, but then I read a novel of theirs like Godsrain and we got cannibalism, despair and body horror. It's not that simple, the developers have reigned in some of the darkest stuff from the start of the setting, but plenty of really dark stuff is still happening. I just wish they would address their changes in-lore, instead of just quietly shuffling the stuff they are most embarassed about into the backyard and shooting it in the back of the head. The War of Immortals would have been a prime opportunity to get rid of a being which rhymes with polka, for example, just by adding the name to the list of gods and other immortals who got lost in the shuffle.

In universe explanations tend to suck, tbh. D&D's done more damage to its settings trying to explain their retcons than with the actual retcons.

In universe explanations tend to suck, tbh. D&D's done more damage to its settings trying to explain their retcons than with the actual retcons.

I disagree. I like internally consistent fantasy universes that stick heavily to their internal logic. If something major changes, we should eventually see why it changed.

MaxAstro wrote:

I suppose it's just more of my general dissatisfaction with Paizo sanding the darker edges off their setting as time goes on - it's hard to imagine any reason other than that for Socothbenoth to not even have been name dropped in years for example - and that seems to clash with what most people here want from the setting, so I'll just keep yelling at the clouds in my corner over here. :)

My love for Golarion still vastly outweighs my annoyance with those few things anyway.

I guess I just wish Paizo wouldn't have put it under the heading of "these changes were specifically for smoother gameplay" but I get it, it's fine.

Eh, you see, we say that all the time, but then I read a novel of theirs like Godsrain and we got cannibalism, despair and body horror. It's not that simple, the developers have reigned in some of the darkest stuff from the start of the setting, but plenty of really dark stuff is still happening. I just wish they would address their changes in-lore, instead of just quietly shuffling the stuff they are most embarassed about into the backyard and shooting it in the back of the head. The War of Immortals would have been a prime opportunity to get rid of a being which rhymes with polka, for example, just by adding the name to the list of gods and other immortals who got lost in the shuffle.

See that's the thing.

Adventure paths? Contain plenty of horrible murder, torture and body horror.

Setting books? Contain lot of societal issues and discrimination.

Pathfinder tales book? They get often into very personal street level view of bad stuff happening rather than macroscale "ah yes, bad stuff exists".

Thing that people don't get is that setting isn't "less dark", its "rulebooks don't present that side of setting". Like, horrible evil things probably exist in setting, but paizo doesn't feel need to focus on those since there isn't reason to, everyone can have those things in their games if they want to and party isn't uncomfortable with them. Heck even slavery basically exists in setting in spots, its just called something else.

Lamashtu hasn't gotten changed. The lore just focuses on talking about lamashtu worshipers who are part of some kind of twisted fertility cult. I'd say one of reasons why lot of orc gods died was that it would have been difficult to work around their past deeds in how setting's front facing side is presented.

(TLDR: when people are like "sexism and racism doesn't exist in Golarion", you can tell they haven't read setting books or tales books. There are probably thousand unnamed demon lords of "PG rating banned" that we will never learn about because why would we want to read about someone's magical realm of demonic NSFW torture.)

I mean, her anti-paladin code in 1e included:

** spoiler omitted **

Plus we have these passages from Inner Sea Gods

** spoiler omitted **

Her writeups in 2e have gotten rid of a lot of this, but not all of it, as we can see in Divine Mysteries:

** spoiler omitted **

Ah, thank you for your references. I'm not surprised there were some sources I missed, although not from as deep into the early 1e edginess as I might have expected. I suppose I missed that part of the Inner Sea Gods, but then I wasn't very fond of Lamatshu then.

In any case, I still wouldn't put it as a significant part of her faith, but then I suppose no one is surprised that the unholy side of her following is, well, unholy. That certain kinds of objectionable content is given less presence in the lore doesn't mean that Lamashtu is being presented as less evil. Groups unlike mine, for whom stories about sexual assault are less of a hard line, should have no problem reading into the modern Lamashtu.

If anything, I would think the fact that Lamashtu fosters a twisted ideal of family to those who have nowhere else to go only reinforces how evil she is, even if it means she also allows unsanctified clerics to be the friendly face of her universally condemned monster family.

--

As for the rest of this burgeoning subtopic... come on, folks. 1e lore obviously matters, but just as obviously some things have changed over time to reflect differing values both in-house among the writers and as popular awareness shines on certain aspects. This kind of edition warring is really low-hanging fruit.

Golarion is an expansive setting created by a host of writers. As folks like James Jacobs have said many times, not everything that has ever been published was correct, so there is no reason to expect every change to the lore to be reflected in-canon. It is a pity that we don't have a means of clearly communicating lore changes yet, but this is a pain shared by the people creating the lore. We don't know the reason we don't have this yet, but it's certainly not because the creative people in charge of the setting lore don't care.

What would yall think about gods / entities being cannon and very evil, but were intentionally not set up to be PC options, and lacked the stats for that? Would that lessen/remove the "yikes?"

How much do people here think that it is the explicit option for players to champion "problematic/yikes" gods is responsible for this issue?

IMO, a significant "problem" stems from how different people put different weight/value/intent/etc into the act of playing / RPing an evil PC. For some people, they can't really conceive of how another person could fully "disconnect" from the PC in a way that would be needed for the evil PC to be non-problematic.

.

But, that "PC option" alone only leads into the "but this other evil is worse" comparisons.

When trying to better understand "yikes," here's my take on what's left if you remove the "PC option" factor from the equation.

Even if we as an individual personally lack history with these crimes, we intuit that the specific on-paper harms of Lamashtu and Folca might be mapping onto real memories traumas for some people.

And, well, that's all there is to that other half of "yikes".

No one at the table has been slowly killed by a daemon so tortuously that their traumatized soul vibrated itself to eject from the river and washed ashore in Abbadon. But someone *might* remember something similar to Folca's crimes, therefore "yikes."

(Again, PCs can directly follow/ emulate arguably worse fiend groups & their leaders, but these 2 gods are "too evil yikes." Interesting how automatic/intuitive that ~hypocrisy(?) is even to a general audience.)

.

.

Restating:

I identify 2 "problems" as responsible for the "oh, that's yikes" --> god-sanding.

1. Player participation / emulation. Some people see RPing differently than other people see RPing. Some may say it can never be harmless to RP evil, others that it can. Therefore "Yikes, sand that out of our canon."

.

2. Trauma poking.

This one is / becomes a lot more nuanced once you frame it in those terms, because once you do so, there is no longer any solid line one can draw, and no way to "fairly" target something for "sanding." It's not possible to make any published AP "trauma safe."

Many people have been seriously traumatized by a mugging or murder, yet such a thing is common in APs. No "yikes" concerns there. Many parents have been traumatized by their child being endangered, yet there's Dorianna in Abm Vlts with no "yikes" issues there either.

Moreover, it's commonly said that so long as the participation is consensual, virtualized / safe interaction with personal trauma is one of the most helpful ways one can heal from it. Literal role play therapy is so normal & common, that scenario scripts are almost pop/junk articles now. https://positivepsychology.com/role-playing-scripts/

.

So, idk. I'm being even more wordy than usual because of how touchy this subject is. I really wonder how many people use #2 out of concern for others, even subconsciously, versus how many people are/could be genuinely harmed via unexpected re-trauma.

My honest guess is that the fear of Folca/Lamashtu hurting another completely eclipses the genuine "harm" done/could be done. Especially because, yes, a lot of people knowingly seek out RP scenarios adjacent to their traumas, if not directly writing them into their PC backstories.

And there's no possible way to design an AP that dodges all traumas. So long as the players guide includes a disclaimer so that players have informed consent, it's really hard for me to justify sanding away some specific evils because of our culture's particular paranoia/ social concern. As soon as I'm roped into a "this evil is X more heinous" measurement, I'm already wincing.

I find it hilarious that in D&D5e true strike is utterly useless, but in PF2e it had to be nerfed.

If I recall it got buffed in 5.24 so it makes you do an attack but use your spellcasting modifier for the roll and damage, and I think can change the damage type. A neat change I think

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.

yeah dude I'm a huge fan of trap options never getting fixed and OP options never getting nerfed it made pf1 really easy and fun to get into

That's true.

Essentially there's two options:

First: Leave things as is and never nerf nor buff anything. To compensate for OP stuff, write adventures balanced around people using the OP stuff.
That's 1e later half of adventures from what I understood.

Second: Nerf OP stuff, rework stuff that underperform, even if that upsets powergamers who had whole builds centered around one gimmick.
That's 2e. Though buffs get less attention than nerf and seem to be less common. (please when you reprint Secrets of Magic do look at magus but also a lot of magic item like the Thousand Blade Thesis, this s&!% is cool as all hell but its effects is pretty useless unless you use doubling rings and only 1handed weapons or play with automatic bonus progression as an optional rule)

magnuskn and TheFinish said it better than I could.

Gorgo Primus wrote:

Also if you can’t fathom examples of evil that aren’t SA, or can’t accept a literal demon god who births monsters to kill and desecrate all that’s ‘good’ in the world as evil because they don’t demand SA, that’s a you issue.

Also I see this kind of strawman thrown around a lot in these kinds of discussions and it's really not productive. It does not represent an attempt at honest discussion, but rather an attempt to cast the people you disagree with as objectionable individuals who can safely be ignored.

It seems to have been deleted, but I was responding to a post between my (now) two in a row posts where someone literally said none of the evil gods are allowed to be evil anymore and her not having SA in her 2e lore was an example of it, and then ranting about how anti-consumer Paizo was by not just using 1e’s old lore for all the gods as was.

Outside of that context, yeah it’d look like a strawman and I’d totally deserve your response.

Absolutely. Plus, from a purely 2e standpoint:

- She is Unholy.
- Her anathema does not prevent you from doing all the icky things she's called out as encouraging in 1e.
- She still wants to flood the world with monsters.

From a logical standpoint we can infer everything she did in 1e is still on the table for her worshippers, even if it's not mentioned.

Gorgo Primus wrote:

What 1e says is irrelevant - it’s a different game with wildly different ideas of what’s cool or acceptable in ttrpg lore (I mean it even printed Folca at one point) and afaik none of it is canon in 2e until it gets here.

Putting aside the idea of how relevant 1e lore is or not (I...

I mean, you could say nearly any evil god who wants to spread misery or harm wouldn’t be opposed to their followers doing that kind of vile stuff. My argument wasn’t that followers of Lamasthu couldn’t, but that in 2e it was not something special or significant to her as a god such that she should be heavily associated with it and get called the goddess of SA all the time. Paizo seems to have very consciously made an effort not to bring that in from 1e (or at least not into the Remaster of 2e), and given the reality of how SA often gets treated in a lot of the real world (in a way very different than murder and mugging), the high potential to seriously trigger a surviver, etc I think it’s a good change that we should respect. If you want to run a campaign where her followers do that enough to be a noteworthy feature and your players all consent though, go for it. I just agree with Paizo[‘s implied belief] that it shouldn’t be a standard component, let alone a central part, of her lore.

As for the monster spreading of it all, it should be noted her allowing someone to give birth to one of her children is literally her Major Boon and a thing many of her followers consider a high honour worth fighting to get from her; if it gets ‘given out’ randomly to nonbelievers it’d kinda cheapen all that. I don’t know of any other Major Boon people would argue should just randomly happen to people who don’t care about or even outright hate the deity in question on a frequent basis.

I find it hilarious that in D&D5e true strike is utterly useless, but in PF2e it had to be nerfed.

As Kalaam said, it's really good. It's a solid spell that uses your casting stat to hit/dam and you can deal Radiant damage too. It's a fine melee cantrip for those that use a staff focus [it's a 1d8 attack] and it gets extra damage as it levels. You'll want Shillelagh though if you get more than 1 attack/round.

To me, Lamashtu's faith is here to embrace monstrosity, reject beauty, corrupt purity, and to feast upon those who would oppress them (in their minds: everyone), which is a dark, twisted nightmare, but a fascinating one to play with at the more ambiguously evil aspects. Her ideal of family may be the most twisted and monstrous imaginable, but to her followers it's still family--with all the usual toxic justifications that can imply..

This is exceedingly well put. Thanks SEO. I’ve always been drawn to Lamashtu and her story (apart from her real world name, that is just…annoying) but this makes me love her and her followers all the more. Families are hard!

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

To me, Lamashtu's faith is here to embrace monstrosity, reject beauty, corrupt purity, and to feast upon those who would oppress them (in their minds: everyone), which is a dark, twisted nightmare, but a fascinating one to play with at the more ambiguously evil aspects. Her ideal of family may be the most twisted and monstrous imaginable, but to her followers it's still family--with all the usual toxic justifications that can imply..

This is exceedingly well put. Thanks SEO. I’ve always been drawn to Lamashtu and her story (apart from her real world name, that is just…annoying) but this makes me love her and her followers all the more. Families are hard!

I despise Lamashtu -- which is why my most recent character is an ardent worshipper.

It's as important to explore the visceral negative reactions as the positive ones. Something there is resonating, and if you don't understand why, there is self-knowledge there waiting for you.

SuperParkourio wrote:

I find it hilarious that in D&D5e true strike is utterly useless, but in PF2e it had to be nerfed.

As Kalaam said, it's really good. It's a solid spell that uses your casting stat to hit/dam and you can deal Radiant damage too. It's a fine melee cantrip for those that use a staff focus [it's a 1d8 attack] and it gets extra damage as it levels. You'll want Shillelagh though if you get more than 1 attack/round.

Most references to True Strike being weak in D&D 5E are likely referring to the 2014 version, wherein you had to spend an action to cast it in order to get advantage on your first attack roll on your next turn, and that was the only effect it had. Unless one were planning to use an attack with a precious resource, like... say, planning to slap an enemy with Plane Shift, most folks just preferred to attack twice.

The 2024 version is indeed more useful with the properties you mention.

OceanshieldwolPF 2.5 wrote:

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

To me, Lamashtu's faith is here to embrace monstrosity, reject beauty, corrupt purity, and to feast upon those who would oppress them (in their minds: everyone), which is a dark, twisted nightmare, but a fascinating one to play with at the more ambiguously evil aspects. Her ideal of family may be the most twisted and monstrous imaginable, but to her followers it's still family--with all the usual toxic justifications that can imply..

This is exceedingly well put. Thanks SEO. I’ve always been drawn to Lamashtu and her story (apart from her real world name, that is just…annoying) but this makes me love her and her followers all the more. Families are hard!

I despise Lamashtu -- which is why my most recent character is an ardent worshipper.

It's as important to explore the visceral negative reactions as the positive ones. Something there is resonating, and if you don't understand why, there is self-knowledge there waiting for you.

I love Lamashtu and the recognition that in a world of high magic and gods, birth working the same way it does in our world could only be the work of a monster or even the god of monsters. Lamashtu captures the absolute brutality and terror of child-birthing very well and I don't think any additional cruelty is necessary for her to be perfect.

Trip.H wrote:

Tridus wrote:

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.”

I sure hope you are correct.

Unfortunately, stating that staves are an example of something that uses Invest an Item has 0 ambiguity there. It means that staves are (now) invested, which is where the 10 max rule lives.

It doesn't mean that, though. That text is not a rule. It's an example.

The rule text itself wasn't changed in any way to state "staves now have Invested".

Indeed. If one were to buy a copy of the book with this errata printed, that example explaining intent wouldn't be there and there would be no rule change. Nor would the change exist on Archive of Nsthys or similar rules repositories. By RAW staves definitely don't have the invested trait. There's now a RAI case they should, but the "writer forgot staves weren't an applicable example" explanation seems more likely IMO. And if you've been playing with the unnerfed Inner Radiance Torrent the past 3 years despite Mark stating that should be nerfed, you certainly shouldn't need staves based on this.

Staves already took it in the teeth because their best use was spamming sure strike.

Indeed. If one were to buy a copy of the book with this errata printed, that example explaining intent wouldn't be there and there would be no rule change. Nor would the change exist on Archive of Nsthys or similar rules repositories. By RAW staves definitely don't have the invested trait. There's now a RAI case they should, but the "writer forgot staves weren't an applicable example" explanation seems more likely IMO. And if you've been playing with the unnerfed Inner Radiance Torrent the past 3 years despite Mark stating that should be nerfed, you certainly shouldn't need staves based on this.

Staves already took it in the teeth because their best use was spamming sure strike.

It was pointed out later in the thread that there is one staff that does have Invested (probably because it's also an apex item). So the errata is fixing edge cases like this (and potentially future ones). :)

Captain Morgan wrote:

Indeed. If one were to buy a copy of the book with this errata printed, that example explaining intent wouldn't be there and there would be no rule change. Nor would the change exist on Archive of Nsthys or similar rules repositories. By RAW staves definitely don't have the invested trait. There's now a RAI case they should, but the "writer forgot staves weren't an applicable example" explanation seems more likely IMO. And if you've been playing with the unnerfed Inner Radiance Torrent the past 3 years despite Mark stating that should be nerfed, you certainly shouldn't need staves based on this.

Staves already took it in the teeth because their best use was spamming sure strike.

It was pointed out later in the thread that there is one staff that does have Invested (probably because it's also an apex item). So the errata is fixing edge cases like this (and potentially future ones). :)

Womp. That's what I get for not reading the whole thread. That the problem with these sprawling ones-- eventually they shift to topics I don't care about and I skip to the end. Probably worth amending that example to say "certain staves" then.

graystone wrote:

SuperParkourio wrote:

I find it hilarious that in D&D5e true strike is utterly useless, but in PF2e it had to be nerfed.

As Kalaam said, it's really good. It's a solid spell that uses your casting stat to hit/dam and you can deal Radiant damage too. It's a fine melee cantrip for those that use a staff focus [it's a 1d8 attack] and it gets extra damage as it levels. You'll want Shillelagh though if you get more than 1 attack/round.

Most references to True Strike being weak in D&D 5E are likely referring to the 2014 version, wherein you had to spend an action to cast it in order to get advantage on your first attack roll on your next turn, and that was the only effect it had. Unless one were planning to use an attack with a precious resource, like... say, planning to slap an enemy with Plane Shift, most folks just preferred to attack twice.

The 2024 version is indeed more useful with the properties you mention.

I am indeed talking about the 2014 version, and it's even worse than that. The spell also requires concentration, which means any damage you take ends the spell unless you succeed a DC 10 (or half the damage, whichever is higher) Con save.

But I don't like the 2024 version either. Instead of actually fixing the spell, it feels like they just replaced it. The new Conjure Animals feels bad for the same reason. It did need fixing, but the identity of the spell is gone.

I've seen people say that Magi got buffed but from what I can tell, there were just some things fixed from being mechanically non-functional or changed to compensate for the remaster. Could someone summarize for me how the Magus was buffed, please? I'm not super knowledgeable on Magus so I might have missed something that's more obvious to others.

I've seen people say that Magi got buffed but from what I can tell, there were just some things fixed from being mechanically non-functional or changed to compensate for the remaster. Could someone summarize for me how the Magus was buffed, please? I'm not super knowledgeable on Magus so I might have missed something that's more obvious to others.

Before, save spells were outright not possible to Spellstrike with unless the Magus had a specific class feat, Expansive Spellstrike.

Now, any Magus can spellstrike with save spells, but if they want AoE to happen, they still need the feat.

This... makes the Magus + Psychic and other archetype poaching worse / more rewarding, because it both removes pressure to buy that Magus class feat, and opens up more options for powerful Spellstriking that's not "attack spell only."

There are even weird ancillary details around the spell shrinking down into a single square, because that basically means all "ally-unsafe" spells become safe when used in a S-Strike.

Do you find that Shockwave or other cone spell really appealing because it's an evergreen effect w/ 0 damage, but can never use it because you'll hit your allies?

Well, now Magus can use that spell out of the box, no worries. They can even walk into battle with a 4gp scroll in 1-H and pop off a Shockwave S-Strike as a cheap debuff opener if they want. Or Goblin Pox.

Or you can just Spellstrike with Fireball, and never worry about hurting allies.

Just noticed in the errata for spellstrike and expansive spellstrike a big change. It's kinda a little nerf, but I think it is more of an error (still believe that the magus errata are just a little step for the remaster update, but the biggest changes will be seen in an official update of all Secrets of Magic, just as G&G is getting updated).

So, spellstrike can be used for a spell that requires an attack roll or a saving throw, but even if it has an area, only the main target is affected. Expansive spellstrike now only expands spell that have an area (cone, line, burst), to affect their area as normal. Since there is no more mention of an harmful spell, right now magus cannot spellstrike with offensive spells that do not have a saving throw nor an attack roll, mainly force barrage.

VictorBarros wrote:

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

I believe they should be - I don't know if it's happened yet, but when it does you can download them in the same place as usual.

Errata gets incorporated when a book gets reprinted. At that time the PDF will be updated for no additional cost for those who own an earlier edition in that format.

Hey Victor!! Welcome! BotBrain and ottdmk are right here! Errata gets incorporated when the books in which those errata occur get reprinted, and that includes their digital versions! The PDFs get updated in your Paizo account, and you can download the new versions again at no additional cost. Thank you all for stepping in as well to help the new member of our community!

Tridus wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

Indeed. If one were to buy a copy of the book with this errata printed, that example explaining intent wouldn't be there and there would be no rule change. Nor would the change exist on Archive of Nsthys or similar rules repositories. By RAW staves definitely don't have the invested trait. There's now a RAI case they should, but the "writer forgot staves weren't an applicable example" explanation seems more likely IMO. And if you've been playing with the unnerfed Inner Radiance Torrent the past 3 years despite Mark stating that should be nerfed, you certainly shouldn't need staves based on this.

Staves already took it in the teeth because their best use was spamming sure strike.

It was pointed out later in the thread that there is one staff that does have Invested (probably because it's also an apex item). So the errata is fixing edge cases like this (and potentially future ones). :)

Womp. That's what I get for not reading the whole thread. That the problem with these sprawling ones-- eventually they shift to topics I don't care about and I skip to the end. Probably worth amending that example to say "certain staves" then.

I'll just note that using staves as an example of invested items that aren't worn was a mistake which has already been corrected in the errata.

The updated GM Core errata uses walking cauldrons as the example of an invested item which isn't worn.

• Page 219: The text on investing items didn’t allow for items that are invested but not worn, such as walking cauldrons. 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.”

So there is no longer any implication that staves in general are invested.

Spellstrike can also be used with acid grip. You can smack the enemy and move them elsewhere, allowing you to avoid ending your turn next to the enemy without having to spend your third action to Step.

Eh, you see, we say that all the time, but then I read a novel of theirs like Godsrain and we got cannibalism, despair and body horror. It's not that simple, the developers have reigned in some of the darkest stuff from the start of the setting, but plenty of really dark stuff is still happening.

Godsrain is going to be my exhibit A when someone asks where all the dark went in Pathfinder's setting. There were times I had to put the book down for a bit. I mean, the location for the climax alone is a good indicator that the grim isn't gone.

Does that mean we also get updated PDFs at some point?

Does that mean we also get updated PDFs at some point?

Yes, when each book has a new printing.

When will the books get another printing? I assume it's when the first printing stock completely runs out? Or am I wrong and there's a set date for each book?

It sort of creates this weird issue where I want to buy more books but I also want to hold off until the second printing and the errata is included. The problem with that is if everyone holds off, that wait time will be much, much longer before the second printing actually happens.

If I were just buying books for myself, all is well because I know what is what. But I run multiple PF2 campaigns a week (in person), mostly for new and younger players, and I like having multiple books I can pass around at the table. I'm at a point where I would love to pick up some new Player Core 1 &2 books, but I am interested in the second printing (w/errata) so as to keep confusion to a minimum.