Spring Errata Updates 2025

Monday, April 28, 2025

With this year’s spring showers comes a shower of errata. Well, more of a sprinkle, as the number of changes is pretty light—especially compared to last year’s fall errata. The new errata and clarifications are up now on the FAQ page, identified with “Spring 2025” and the printing of the book they apply to. For example, “Rival Academies (Spring 2025, 1st Printing).” We aren’t repeating the details of the errata process here, but you can find them in the Fall Errata Updates 2024 blog.

Pathfinder Player Core had small fixes to ensure Learn a Spell adds a spell to a wizard’s spellbook as intended and to clean up some jump-related feats.

Pathfinder Player Core 2 also had jump-related feats changes, plus some other minor changes.

Pathfinder Rage of Elements has updates to its troops to reflect the Pathfinder NPC Core troop rule changes, updates references to Pathfinder Lost Omens Gods & Magic to new references in Pathfinder Lost Omens Divine Mysteries.

Pathfinder War of Immortals mostly got some fixes to errant action symbols and prerequisites, but included more substantial changes to the exemplar’s victor’s wreath ikon and to actions Silence the Profane and Disrupt Opposed Magic in the avenger and vindicator archetypes.

Pathfinder Lost Omens Rival Academies had changes to the runelord archetype to fix a spell appearing at the wrong rank and to make it clear how their arcane bond and personal rune work.

Art by Mirco Paganessi, A gennayn dressed in purple robes holding a rolled up scroll as tall as they are

A gennayn brings you the Rage of Elements errata you wished for! Art by Mirco Paganessi.


We’ll see you again in the fall with another update, which we hope will be small as well!

The Pathfinder Designers

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Errata Pathfinder Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Pathfinder Second Edition
101 to 122 of 122 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Grand Archive

10 people marked this as a favorite.

Since they changed the wording, it's not unreasonable to assume they changed the effect along with it. It's a reasonable thing that paizo decided to clarify.

What's weird is assuming everyone who disagreed with you in the past was doing it in bad faith.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A change in wording doesn't necessitate a change in meaning.

It's not unreasonable to assume that a different wording can have a different meaning, but it absolutely can be (and is in the case of this wording) unreasonable to assume that a different wording must have a different meaning.

And this continued push-back as if what I've said is some kind of crazy outlandish thing kind of shows that it's not about whether the rule says what it says or works how people want it to work, it's about the argument itself because even after the errata clarifies it is just like many people already said it definitely was just on reading the text rather than assuming its meaning it just turns into "see, Paizo says I was right and it did need clarification." even though the clarification proves that their prior argument were incorrect.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
thenobledrake wrote:

Anybody asking in good faith would be satisfied just to find discussion where someone else explains a reading of the rules that produces an outcome that isn't the nonfunctional or problematic one they brought forward in their good faith questioning.

The only people that actually need errata to provide the clarification on something which is clear to others but not to them are the ones that whether they meant to or not have lost their good faith on the matter. The ones that, no matter who explains a different more favorable way to read the text or how they explain it, are going to argue against it - some even as they say things like "that's how it should work, for sure, but that's definitely not what the book says to do so I'm not going to do it like that until I see some errata" - because it's no longer about how the rule works to them, it's about the argument itself.

Anybody discussing this in good faith wouldn't assume that everyone who doesn't agree with you is acting in bad faith, especially when the reasons why people thought that have been laid out numerous times.

You've decided that no one could possibly reach a different conclusion than you without malicious intent and you're taking it out on everyone else. You are the one acting in bad faith, here.

Yet again: its entirely reasonable to think that there was a reason behind changing the wording. It's entirely reasonable to think it works the way other abilities in the that already exist work when thats what it says. It's entirely reasonable to believe that they made an ability worse in the update since they did that numerous other times. And it was entirely reasonable to ask for a clarifiation because the change made no sense, especially when they released an archetype shortly afterward that used the old wording.

It doesn't make sense to release two things in rapid succession with drastically different wording that are intended to work exactly the same way.

If you can't grasp that, then that's on you. But quit acting like there's any ill-intent here, because it's BS.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Tridus wrote:
It doesn't make sense to release two things in rapid succession with drastically different wording that are intended to work exactly the same way.

It is rather bad, but it makes perfect sense when you don't have enough coordination between designers.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Errenor wrote:
Tridus wrote:
It doesn't make sense to release two things in rapid succession with drastically different wording that are intended to work exactly the same way.
It is rather bad, but it makes perfect sense when you don't have enough coordination between designers.

It makes sense as to how it can happen, but at that point its a guessing game to what the intention is.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Errenor wrote:
Tridus wrote:
It doesn't make sense to release two things in rapid succession with drastically different wording that are intended to work exactly the same way.
It is rather bad, but it makes perfect sense when you don't have enough coordination between designers.

Yeah, that's a quality control issue, which Paizo had a lot of in 2024. It's gotten rather frustrating.

We know that now, but we had no way to know that at the time. So as NorrKnekten said, we're just guessing at intentions for months until they straighten it out.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

They gave us a clarification because we asked for one and Maya brought it to the design team.
No matter what your read was before the clarification I see that as a good thing.


It was awesome that Paizo officially noted it was a mistake! That's one small problem, well a massive class feature buffed but if only they would announce publicly the Rogue buff was intentional and nto doing it through emails and other such methods but I can see why they don't, it's "controversial" now...

On one hand people will call favoritism on rogues and want either other classes buffed or the rogue brought down. On another people won't care if they main rogue.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Extremely disappointed if that's the extent of what we can expect from "seasonal errata".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
ElementalofCuteness wrote:

It was awesome that Paizo officially noted it was a mistake! That's one small problem, well a massive class feature buffed but if only they would announce publicly the Rogue buff was intentional and nto doing it through emails and other such methods but I can see why they don't, it's "controversial" now...

On one hand people will call favoritism on rogues and want either other classes buffed or the rogue brought down. On another people won't care if they main rogue.

I may be confusing what your referring to but the champ blessed armament clarification is not saying they made a mistake. It was them saying what it means because we asked them to clarify. The only mistakes were the read of the new wording that presumed it didn't work as intended. If they made a mistake in the wording they would have errata’d the words themselves.

Grand Archive

That would mean similar things like kineticist abilities that add runes to strikes work similarly right?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I thought I was clear let me see if I can explain more so what I mean. It was pretty awesome to see Paizo explain what they intended with Blessed Armament. I love it, that's super nice! However not once in any announcement or errata did they make a note section which just read. "Yes, we intended Rogues to Crit Succeed when they succeed at all three saves at level 17." Instead they had to note it in a private Email to someone who was gracious enough to release the information. Sorry, I am just still and most likely will be confused by why Rogues got this uber, ultra, mega buff which seem to trump even the Monk's defensive capabilities. What I mean is I just want Paizo to explain their thought process on why Rogues got a big buff.

While stuff like MC Monk FoB got a 1d4 Cool-down but no other abilities similar like Spirit Warrior's Combination Strike or perhaps the Ranger's Hunted Shot/Twin Takedown. I am just puzzled a little bit at the choices made. Another point is why the Runelord exploit was allowed with double staff charges, was this not proof read before release? I shrug and regardless I will still support Paizo.

Also I would assume yes going forwards with any ability that add runes don't add to the rune limit. If so then that is once again in an earlier post. "Too bad to possibly be true." but since that isn't a real rule like "Too good to be true". I would like to say that it works both ways regardless though.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Powers128 wrote:
That would mean similar things like kineticist abilities that add runes to strikes work similarly right?

I wouldn't count the shock rune from conductive sphere against item rune limits for example.

But not because of the blessed armament clarification.
I just dont apply item limits to class abilities in general unless the ability says to.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
ElementalofCuteness wrote:

I thought I was clear let me see if I can explain more so what I mean. It was pretty awesome to see Paizo explain what they intended with Blessed Armament. I love it, that's super nice! However not once in any announcement or errata did they make a note section which just read. "Yes, we intended Rogues to Crit Succeed when they succeed at all three saves at level 17." Instead they had to note it in a private Email to someone who was gracious enough to release the information. Sorry, I am just still and most likely will be confused by why Rogues got this uber, ultra, mega buff which seem to trump even the Monk's defensive capabilities. What I mean is I just want Paizo to explain their thought process on why Rogues got a big buff.

While stuff like MC Monk FoB got a 1d4 Cool-down but no other abilities similar like Spirit Warrior's Combination Strike or perhaps the Ranger's Hunted Shot/Twin Takedown. I am just puzzled a little bit at the choices made. Another point is why the Runelord exploit was allowed with double staff charges, was this not proof read before release? I shrug and regardless I will still support Paizo.

Also I would assume yes going forwards with any ability that add runes don't add to the rune limit. If so then that is once again in an earlier post. "Too bad to possibly be true." but since that isn't a real rule like "Too good to be true". I would like to say that it works both ways regardless though.

I apologize ElementalofCuteness I misunderstood what you meant.

Grand Archive

Bluemagetim wrote:
Powers128 wrote:
That would mean similar things like kineticist abilities that add runes to strikes work similarly right?

I wouldn't count the shock rune from conductive sphere against item rune limits for example.

But not because of the blessed armament clarification.
I just dont apply item limits to class abilities in general unless the ability says to.

Well the unfortunate thing about that is that there's was a society ruling on conductive sphere some time ago and they had it count towards your max. The clarification in this errata could be the precedent needed to avoid that unfortunate ruling.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Powers128 wrote:
Bluemagetim wrote:
Powers128 wrote:
That would mean similar things like kineticist abilities that add runes to strikes work similarly right?

I wouldn't count the shock rune from conductive sphere against item rune limits for example.

But not because of the blessed armament clarification.
I just dont apply item limits to class abilities in general unless the ability says to.
Well the unfortunate thing about that is that there's was a society ruling on conductive sphere some time ago and they had it count towards your max. The clarification in this errata could be the precedent needed to avoid that unfortunate ruling.

Yeah that wouldn't have been how I would have ruled the ability.

When I GM and our table in general just wouldn’t think to limit the ability when it doesn’t say to.

Grand Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluemagetim wrote:
Powers128 wrote:
Bluemagetim wrote:
Powers128 wrote:
That would mean similar things like kineticist abilities that add runes to strikes work similarly right?

I wouldn't count the shock rune from conductive sphere against item rune limits for example.

But not because of the blessed armament clarification.
I just dont apply item limits to class abilities in general unless the ability says to.
Well the unfortunate thing about that is that there's was a society ruling on conductive sphere some time ago and they had it count towards your max. The clarification in this errata could be the precedent needed to avoid that unfortunate ruling.

Yeah that wouldn't have been how I would have ruled the ability.

When I GM and our table in general just wouldn’t think to limit the ability when it doesn’t say to.

Especially with Kindle inner flames, which would get worse when it scales with that kind of ruling


3 people marked this as a favorite.

With each errata I find more and more things to manually adjust (ie not implement) for my playgroup as the decision making at Paizo boogles the mind more and more. Rogues get effectively 3 masters (even if the more balanced would be to have the upgrade only against poisons which would make sense) in saves. Exemplar dedication is allowed to run because it's rare. Meanwhile the priority is taking away an extra spellslot from a rare wizard who slashed away good portion of spells they can choose from, while one of the curriculum is a sad nerfed version because Paizo couldn't figure out a way for martials to not abuse it for special strikes with a simple dedication pick.


Bluemagetim wrote:
I apologize ElementalofCuteness I misunderstood what you meant.

No problem~.

Eltheran wrote:
With each errata I find more and more things to manually adjust (ie not implement) for my playgroup as the decision making at Paizo boogles the mind more and more. Rogues get effectively 3 masters (even if the more balanced would be to have the upgrade only against poisons which would make sense) in saves. Exemplar dedication is allowed to run because it's rare. Meanwhile the priority is taking away an extra spellslot from a rare wizard who slashed away good portion of spells they can choose from, while one of the curriculum is a sad nerfed version because Paizo couldn't figure out a way for martials to not abuse it for special strikes with a simple dedication pick.

Welcome to my thought process too!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Powers128 wrote:
Bluemagetim wrote:
Powers128 wrote:
Bluemagetim wrote:
Powers128 wrote:
That would mean similar things like kineticist abilities that add runes to strikes work similarly right?

I wouldn't count the shock rune from conductive sphere against item rune limits for example.

But not because of the blessed armament clarification.
I just dont apply item limits to class abilities in general unless the ability says to.
Well the unfortunate thing about that is that there's was a society ruling on conductive sphere some time ago and they had it count towards your max. The clarification in this errata could be the precedent needed to avoid that unfortunate ruling.

Yeah that wouldn't have been how I would have ruled the ability.

When I GM and our table in general just wouldn’t think to limit the ability when it doesn’t say to.
Especially with Kindle inner flames, which would get worse when it scales with that kind of ruling

Yet to count these impulses in runes limit makes then bad. But the PC2 faq clarification makes clear that by default it is how it works unless stated the opposite:

Quote:
Page 89 (Clarification): The rune granted by a champion’s blessed armament doesn’t count toward the weapon’s number of property runes. Unlike many similar abilities, it can be used even if the weapon already has its maximum number of property runes.

The bold is mine.

Anyway IMO I think that this only limits these impulses unnecessarily. So in my home games I also allows these buff out of the property runes limit unless it is same damage type.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
YuriP wrote:
Powers128 wrote:
Bluemagetim wrote:
Powers128 wrote:
Bluemagetim wrote:
Powers128 wrote:
That would mean similar things like kineticist abilities that add runes to strikes work similarly right?

I wouldn't count the shock rune from conductive sphere against item rune limits for example.

But not because of the blessed armament clarification.
I just dont apply item limits to class abilities in general unless the ability says to.
Well the unfortunate thing about that is that there's was a society ruling on conductive sphere some time ago and they had it count towards your max. The clarification in this errata could be the precedent needed to avoid that unfortunate ruling.

Yeah that wouldn't have been how I would have ruled the ability.

When I GM and our table in general just wouldn’t think to limit the ability when it doesn’t say to.
Especially with Kindle inner flames, which would get worse when it scales with that kind of ruling

Yet to count these impulses in runes limit makes then bad. But the PC2 faq clarification makes clear that by default it is how it works unless stated the opposite:

Quote:
Page 89 (Clarification): The rune granted by a champion’s blessed armament doesn’t count toward the weapon’s number of property runes. Unlike many similar abilities, it can be used even if the weapon already has its maximum number of property runes.

The bold is mine.

Anyway IMO I think that this only limits these impulses unnecessarily. So in my home games I also allows these buff out of the property runes limit unless it is same damage type.

Yeah there are similar abilities that do actually tell you to count it against. I took it they would be referring to those.


All that does is make those abilities fairly weak in my opinion...But then again you don't general see runes, well at least in any game I am apart of and yet we can easily smash encounters...

101 to 122 of 122 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Paizo Blog: Spring Errata Updates 2025 All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.