Mavaro

Gisher's page

6,746 posts (6,998 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 74 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 6,746 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Squiggit wrote:

...

Is this from Alkenstar book 2? It feels like AP material doesn't get looked at quite as hard before it gets published...

It's from Lost Omens Knights of Last Wall.


Ravingdork wrote:
Gisher wrote:
I updated my Armor Tables by adding the new Armored Coat.
The armored coat was one of my favorites in past games, but now I can't imagine why anyone would even bother. It's strictly worse than all existing armors in 95% of situations.

It looks cool.


Ravingdork wrote:
Does the text offer any additional perks, such as being able to don and doff it quickly?

Nope. The idea that it takes a minute to put a coat (even a heavy one) on or take it off is weird, though.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I updated my Armor Tables by adding the new Armored Coat.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:

...

My second largest, after only Planar Adventures.
...

I loved your Chronicler of Worlds Bard soooooo much!


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Gisher wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:

Look at it from a different angle: what's stopping writers from adding new, interesting armors? It's pretty clear how the balance of existing armors is set up, so adding new ones that are in line with that should be straightforward.

You want to keep the AC value (Dex + Item) in line with the weight class, and the strength/speed in proportion too. But you can certainly come up with new good and bad traits, material options, and specializations.

I view the CRB armors as a basis to work from, not as a closed off set that can't be extended.

I think the Armored Skirt was an interesting addition. You can basically create new styles of armor by combining it with the allowed armors. I wouldn't be averse to more options like that. Sets of greaves, for example.

Just for fun, I made armor tables that include the armored skirt options.


Losonti wrote:
I think a swarm type creature, like Starfinder's Spathinae, would be pretty cool.

Million Ants?


For those unfamiliar with the item: Gunner's Bandolier


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:

Look at it from a different angle: what's stopping writers from adding new, interesting armors? It's pretty clear how the balance of existing armors is set up, so adding new ones that are in line with that should be straightforward.

You want to keep the AC value (Dex + Item) in line with the weight class, and the strength/speed in proportion too. But you can certainly come up with new good and bad traits, material options, and specializations.

I view the CRB armors as a basis to work from, not as a closed off set that can't be extended.

I think the Armored Skirt was an interesting addition. You can basically create new styles of armor by combining it with the allowed armors. I wouldn't be averse to more options like that. Sets of greaves, for example.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashanderai wrote:
James Case wrote:
All shall be revealed... next week!

He said "All"! You guys saw that too, right?!?!? Now, we get to know everything about the Dark Archive and "all" its mysteries in 10 days!!! Woohoo!

;) :P

Just kiddin', James! I would never hold you to that!

They will be revealing everything... psychically.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Since we are getting pretty far into the details on this topic, I thought it might be helpful to have a quick reference for the exact wording of the main elements we are relying on. I've included both the Bestiary and Book of the Dead versions of Negative Healing.
.

healing (trait)

A healing effect restores a creature's body, typically by restoring Hit Points, but sometimes by removing diseases or other debilitating effects.

.

negative (trait)

Effects with this trait heal undead creatures with negative energy, deal negative damage to living creatures, or manipulate negative energy.

.

positive (trait)

Effects with this trait heal living creatures with positive energy, deal positive energy damage to undead, or manipulate positive energy.


.

undead (trait)

Once living, these creatures were infused after death with negative energy and soul-corrupting evil magic. When reduced to 0 Hit Points, an undead creature is destroyed. Undead creatures are damaged by positive energy, are healed by negative energy, and don't benefit from healing effects.

.

Negative Healing

A creature with negative healing draws health from negative energy rather than positive energy. It is damaged by positive damage and is not healed by positive healing effects. It does not take negative damage, and it is healed by negative effects that heal undead.

.

Negative Healing:

You are damaged by positive damage and aren’t healed by positive healing effects. You don’t take negative damage and are healed by negative effects that heal undead.

.

Healing Undead

Because of negative healing many typical means of healing don’t work on undead. The heal spell can’t heal undead, but harm and soothe can. Healing potions and elixirs of life are no use, but an oil of unlife can heal undead. In addition, a character can take the Stitch Flesh skill feat to heal undead with Treat Wounds.

.

Negative Survival:

Unlike normal undead, you aren’t destroyed when reduced to 0 Hit Points. Instead, powerful negative energy attempts to keep you from being destroyed even in dire straits. You are knocked out and begin dying when reduced to 0 Hit Points (Core Rulebook 459). Because you’re undead, many methods of bringing someone back from dying, such as stabilize, don’t benefit you. When you would die, you’re destroyed rather than dead, just like other undead.


The Raven Black wrote:
Gisher wrote:

I came across another rules contradiction. The Undead Trait states that Undead "don't benefit from healing effects."

Yet Spirit Link, which has the Healing Trait, states...

CRB, p. 371 wrote:
Since this effect doesn't involve positive or negative energy, spirit link works even if you or the target is undead.

So here we have a Healing effect that explicitly can benefit an undead target because it doesn't have the Positive or Negative traits.

----

Also Soothing Spring, which has both the Healing and Positive Traits, includes this line...

Secrets of Magic, p. 129 wrote:
Any creature that spends the full hour soaking in the hot spring or basking in the mud from the bottom of the pit regains 10d8 Hit Points and feels refreshed, losing the fatigued condition.
Undead are certainly part of the class of "creatures." Would this specific rule would override any restrictions on undead benefitting from Healing and Positive effects?
Isn't specific trumps general one of the core design principles of PF2 ?

Yes. But...

1.) Spirit Link doesn't state that it is making a specific exception to the rules. Instead it states a general principle (not having the Positive or Negative traits) to justify why it works.

2.) For Soothing Spring, I'm not clear which is the more specific rule. Generally if a positive, healing spell said it acted on a creature I would take that as a general statement, and in the case of an undead creature I would consider the undead trait to be a more specific rule that prevents it from working. In this case I'm not clear whether [a]ny creature should be read as just an alternative way of saying a creature or if it is meant to be a specific override of any contradictory creature traits.


graystone wrote:

...

Undead Trait: "Undead creatures are damaged by positive energy, are healed by negative energy, and don't benefit from Healing* effects."

* [note the capital H in healing vs the lower case h]

I just checked both Archives of Nethys and my CRB pdf, and the 'H' is not capitalized in either.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I came across another rules contradiction. The Undead Trait states that Undead "don't benefit from healing effects."

Yet Spirit Link, which has the Healing Trait, states...

CRB, p. 371 wrote:
Since this effect doesn't involve positive or negative energy, spirit link works even if you or the target is undead.

So here we have a Healing effect that explicitly can benefit an undead target because it doesn't have the Positive or Negative traits.

----

Also Soothing Spring, which has both the Healing and Positive Traits, includes this line...

Secrets of Magic, p. 129 wrote:
Any creature that spends the full hour soaking in the hot spring or basking in the mud from the bottom of the pit regains 10d8 Hit Points and feels refreshed, losing the fatigued condition.

Undead are certainly part of the class of "creatures." Would this specific rule would override any restrictions on undead benefitting from Healing and Positive effects?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gortle wrote:

Sorry to bring this up again. But there are more complications.

The rules here state Soothe works on player undead options. But this is an explicit contradiction of the rules as Soothe requires a living target.

Because of negative healing many typical means of healing don’t work on undead. The heal spell can’t heal undead, but harm and soothe can. Healing potions and elixirs of life are no use, but an oil of unlife can heal undead. In addition, a character can take the Stitch Flesh skill feat to heal undead with Treat Wounds.
and Soothe
Targets 1 willing living creature

I'm deeply disapointed with the rules standards in the new book. This is a simple contradiction and they don't even note an errata at the same time.

Of course by the Negative Healing trait Elixirs of Life do work, it is Healing Potions that have the Positive trait which don't work.

Clearly Soothe needs errata now, as apparently it is supposed to work. But I am just going to be deleting this little rules section as it is just wrong. Traits have to mean something or the rules are just rubbish.

So Soothe, Elixir of Life, and Treat Wounds all lack the positive and negative traits, have the healing trait, and state that they only work on living creatures.

But the sidebar states that Soothe works on undead PCs while Elixir of Life doesn't. So there must be some hidden criteria that is being used to determine which effects heal undead PCs.

Without knowing what those criteria are, there isn't any way to determine whether Treat Wounds (sans Stitch Flesh) works on undead PCs.


BandobrasBrandytook wrote:
Gisher wrote:

Wouldn't being Wild Shaped make commanding an Animal Companion or Familiar impossible in most Battle Forms?

CRB, p. 635 wrote:
Unless otherwise noted, the battle form prevents you from casting spells, speaking, and using most manipulate actions that require hands.

“ During an encounter, even if you don’t use the Command an Animal action, your animal companion can still use 1 action on your turn that round to Stride or Strike.”

For the most part, I don’t plan to use my dudes in combat while I am wild-shaped, and they will still come with me/be around. Perhaps I am underutilizing them, but I won’t be constantly wild-shaped either.

Thanks for the answer. Animal Companions don't really interest me, so I'm not very familiar with their rules.


Wouldn't being Wild Shaped make commanding an Animal Companion or Familiar impossible in most Battle Forms?

CRB, p. 635 wrote:
Unless otherwise noted, the battle form prevents you from casting spells, speaking, and using most manipulate actions that require hands.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
BandobrasBrandytook wrote:

...

Another thought I had was at level 9 through adopted ancestry I could take multi-talented to “multi class” into the wild shape order, but I’m not sure if it’s legit to use an archetype for the class I already have.
...

Druids can't take Druid Multiclass.

CRB, p. 219 wrote:

Multiclass Archetypes

Archetypes with the multiclass trait represent diversifying your training into another class’s specialties. You can’t select a multiclass archetype’s dedication feat if you are a member of the class of the same name (for instance, a fighter can’t select the Fighter Dedication feat).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
Taking Witch Dedication at Level 9 would get you a Familiar, too, but not a Leshy.

But the Witch MC also gives access to Wortwitch which will replace the original familiar with a Leshy familiar.


Aaron Shanks wrote:
bsmith709 wrote:

"Preorder, expected approximately 27 Jul 2022"

Didn't the Product Availability say 04 August 2022 as of a couple days ago? Did a book get reverse delayed?

We are releasing July products on Wednesday, July 29 and not holding them for Gen Con, the first weekend of August.

Yahoo!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Heinrich Hearts wrote:
You don't really need to know what I think it does to answer my question; but to help with your confusion here is a link https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=753

I asked because your post suggests that you are trying to pour potions into the cauldron in order to make more potions. That isn't remotely how the cauldron or crafting works so you've obviously deeply misunderstood something. Having you explain your reasoning would have made it easier to address that specific misunderstanding.

But, in the absence of that, I'll answer your three questions.

No, no, and no.


Now that we have the Magus MC, there are a few feats that would be fun for a Staff Nexus Wizard to take if they want to occasionally use their staff as a weapon.


Heinrich Hearts wrote:
I'm looking at the walking cauldron and I'm wondering if I could just pour 2 potions of the same type into it and use that as my ingredients for crafting a batch of 4 potions. And would this fly in society play?

I am completely confused. What do you think the Walking Cauldron does?


Gortle wrote:
Gisher wrote:
You don't put your Nexus staff inside another staff. What you are doing is upgrading your Nexus staff so that it now has the powers of a magical staff (plus the spell and cantrip that it already had). It's still your self-made Nexus staff so it is charged solely by sacrificing spell slots as you've described.

That fails the Too Bad To Be True test for me. That the Specialist Staff Thesis has the worst possible staff.

I don't read it like that. I see the restrictive charge as only applying to the initial staff. When you modify another staff, you add the 2 spells from your original staff to it, and ignore the special charging rule that was only there for a temporary staff.

The special staff is being specifically referred to, as separate to a normal staff, in the Staff Nexus charging section.

That special charging rule is only there to stop staff wizards from being overpowerful at level 1-3 where an extra spell slot would be a big advantage and no one else has a staff. There being only one level 3 staff, and only a couple at level 4 so early most wizards wouldn't have them.

You've convinced me. (Rather happily, since I love the Staff Nexus concept but disliked that charging restriction.)


The Raven Black wrote:
Gisher wrote:
PlantThings wrote:
Gisher wrote:
1.) Elixir of Life has the Healing trait, but not the Positive trait. If undead were only immune to healing effects with the Positive trait then Elixir of Life should work. It doesn't.
To be fair, Elixir of Life specifies living creatures so even if Undead weren’t immune to Healing effects, it still would not work on them..

I had missed that. But now I see that Treat Wounds has the same restriction.

CRB, p. 249 wrote:

Treat Wounds

...
You spend 10 minutes treating one injured living creature (targeting yourself, if you so choose).

So if that, rather than the Healing trait, is the reason for disallowing Elixir of Life, then Treat Wounds (without Stitch Flesh) should also be disallowed.

-----

But I also now realize that Battle Medicine actually doesn't use Treat Wounds and also doesn't specify living creatures. So I'm reconsidering my objections. It seem weird that Battle Medicine would work on undead PCs while Treat Wounds wouldn't, but the wording of the rules might support that.

Note that Stitch Flesh does not interact with Battle Medicine for this very reason : it is not Treat Wounds.

Yeah. Somehow I had it stuck in my brain that Battle Medicine just let you use Treat Wounds faster.

It's probably because Battle Medicine says it uses the same DC as Treat Wounds, and I absorbed that fact when I was first trying to understand how the PF2 rules system worked.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PlantThings wrote:
Gisher wrote:
1.) Elixir of Life has the Healing trait, but not the Positive trait. If undead were only immune to healing effects with the Positive trait then Elixir of Life should work. It doesn't.
To be fair, Elixir of Life specifies living creatures so even if Undead weren’t immune to Healing effects, it still would not work on them..

I had missed that. But now I see that Treat Wounds has the same restriction.

CRB, p. 249 wrote:

Treat Wounds

...
You spend 10 minutes treating one injured living creature (targeting yourself, if you so choose).

So if that, rather than the Healing trait, is the reason for disallowing Elixir of Life, then Treat Wounds (without Stitch Flesh) should also be disallowed.

-----

But I also now realize that Battle Medicine actually doesn't use Treat Wounds and also doesn't specify living creatures. So I'm reconsidering my objections. It seem weird that Battle Medicine would work on undead PCs while Treat Wounds wouldn't, but the wording of the rules might support that.


Duiker wrote:
keftiu wrote:
Leng-sized.
Just the length though. It's wid-sized the other way.

Nicely done!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Perpdepog wrote:
I believe PC undead can benefit from Battle Medicine at least. The rules specifically call out a PC undead working differently from the standard, and only call out Positive Healing effects as no longer being applicable.

I see a couple of problems with this argument.

BotD, p. 45 wrote:

Healing Undead

Because of negative healing many typical means of healing don’t work on undead. The heal spell can’t heal undead, but harm and soothe can. Healing potions and elixirs of life are no use, but an oil of unlife can heal undead. In addition, a character can take the Stitch Flesh skill feat to heal undead with Treat Wounds

1.) Elixir of Life has the Healing trait, but not the Positive trait. If undead were only immune to healing effects with the Positive trait then Elixir of Life should work. It doesn't.

2.) If you don't need Stitch Flesh to use Treat Wounds on undead, then what do you need it for?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
I thought it was positive energy, and not the healing trait, that couldn't be used to heal undead.

Undead (trait)

Once living, these creatures were infused after death with negative energy and soul-corrupting evil magic. When reduced to 0 Hit Points, an undead creature is destroyed. Undead creatures are damaged by positive energy, are healed by negative energy, and don't benefit from healing effects.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Flagged to be moved to the PF1 forums.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
Yeah I started with 2nd Ed AD&D in the early '90s but between the Encyclopedia Magicas and all the magazines and third party content there's a lot to sift through.

I started in the late 70's before the Basic Set replaced Search for the Unknown with that newfangled Keep on the Borderlands. The Caverns of Quasqueton forever!

I feel old. :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm going to disagree with you on this point regarding Investigators.

Quote:
All three of these classes are MAD

INT not only benefits their main function as skill-monkeys, they can also use it for...

- Unarmed melee attacks
- Armed melee attacks
- Armed ranged attacks

And optionally for...

- Quick Tinctures (with Alchemical Studies)
- Athletics maneuvers (with Athletic Strategist)
- Spells (with Wizard, Magus, or Witch multiclass)

To me, that doesn't seem very MAD.

I love the fact that they can easily switch between ranged attacks, melee attacks, and spell attacks.

I tend to think of Investigators as martials with the Single Ability Dependency and action economy of a Wizard.


graystone wrote:
Gisher wrote:
AlastarOG wrote:
graystone wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
What are some emergency procedures that a vampire unexpectedly caught out in the open might be able to use to quickly protect themselves?
Get a burrow speed on your character: putting 5' of earth/sand/snow/ect between the vampire and the sun works well.

Do you want vampire shoonies?

Because THIS IS HOW YOU GET VAMPIRE SHOONIES!

Vampugs?
Stricorgi?

Nice one! :)


Urklore the Iron wrote:
These are from 1st or 2nd AD&D. We are talking old school folks. :)

Hmm. I never played 2nd edition, but I played 1st edition for a long time and I don't remember any type of instant armor from either the books or Dragon magazines.


AlastarOG wrote:
graystone wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
What are some emergency procedures that a vampire unexpectedly caught out in the open might be able to use to quickly protect themselves?
Get a burrow speed on your character: putting 5' of earth/sand/snow/ect between the vampire and the sun works well.

Do you want vampire shoonies?

Because THIS IS HOW YOU GET VAMPIRE SHOONIES!

Vampugs?


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

...

I'm asking because I had a Spell-storing weapon that I used one time, and made the assumption that it simply took the same result as your previous attack and applied it to the respective spell (meaning if you rolled a Natural 20 and Critically Hit the enemy, for example, it would take that same result and apply it to the Spell with this action as well), and it seems almost wrong, or Too Good to Be True for it to work that way, even if it's limited to 3rd level spells.
...

That is the way it works. It doesn't say you make a new attack roll. You take the result of the triggering attack (success or critical success) to be the result of casting the spell.

As for it being too good to be true, the Magus' Spellstrike and Eldritch Archer's Eldritch Shot work the same way but can be used multiple times per battle and are available at much lower levels.

The Spell-storing rune is roughly the equivalent of the Spellstriker feat from the Magus Multiclass Archetype.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

PF1 had Folding Plate which was a brooch that could unfold into plate mail.

It also had Djezet Skin which was a ball of metal that would melt over your body to serve as armor.

Perhaps you are thinking of one of those?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Blake's Tiger wrote:
PFS Aside: Save yourself the hassle and wear your free wayfinder, which your character must certainly have earned by now as it only requires 2 games to have been played to earn the boon.

That's an excellent idea!

-----

Other options to consider.

- Hooded Lanterns are one-handed, light items, and unlike torches they don't have any text about being used as improvised weapons. They also shed light farther then torches. Only 7 sp plus 1 cp per 6 hours of oil. Being able to shutter them is also a nice option.

- Sunrods are one-handed, light items, and unlike torches they don't have any text about being used as improvised weapons. At 3 gp each they are pretty costly compared to torches or a lantern, though.

- Pay someone to cast Continual Flame on your gauntlet, helm, dull gray Aeon Stone, buckler, etc. It's a one-time cost of 6 gp, but it completely frees up your buckler hand for other tasks like Battle Medicine.

- Acquire Darkvision. Not needing a light source is nice for sneaking, and it frees up your buckler hand for other tasks like Battle Medicine.

- Acquire the Light Cantrip through methods other than the Wayfinder. (The action cost of sustaining Dancing Lights makes it a poor choice for in-combat lighting.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The rules on this are a bit confusing. This passage seems to say that Raising the buckler with a light, non-weapon object in that hand is allowed by default.

CRB, p. 277 wrote:
Buckler: This very small shield is a favorite of duelists and quick, lightly armored warriors. It’s typically made of steel and strapped to your forearm. You can Raise a Shield with your buckler as long as you have that hand free or are holding a light object that’s not a weapon in that hand.

.

But this next passage from earlier on the same page makes it seem that Raising the buckler while holding a light, non-weapon in that hand requires special permission from the GM.

CRB, p. 277 wrote:
Raise a Shield is the action most commonly used with shields. Most shields must be held in one hand, so you can’t hold anything with that hand and Raise a Shield, and you lose its benefits if that hand is no longer free. A buckler, however, doesn’t take up your hand, so you can Raise a Shield with a buckler if the hand is free (or, at the GM’s discretion, if it’s holding a simple, lightweight object that’s not a weapon).

.

I suspect you are looking at the first passage and thinking the GMs are overriding the default rules by disallowing this action, while they are looking at the second passage and don't think they should be overriding the default rules by allowing the action.


keftiu wrote:
Gisher wrote:
keftiu wrote:
Do we think there'll be a fifth Conscious Mind for Psychic in the book? Distant Grasp (telekine), Infinite Eye (clairvoyance/perception), Silent Whisper (telepathy), and Tangible Dream (conjured objects) seem like pretty good coverage for the classic tropes, but I feel like there's still room for more.
I'd love to see one focused on self-transmutation. I loved that sort of thing with psionics back in 1st edition D&D: Body Weaponry, Shape Alteration, Expansion, and the like. I liked how Occultists could get a bit of that with the Transmutation Implement School.
I would be all over this, but does the Occult list have enough spells for it?

Sadly, I'd say no. I think that Conscious Mind would either have to get an expanded spell list or some self-transmuting focus spells.


Logan Bonner wrote:
Thanks for the note on the eldritch archer! The FAQ page was, in fact, missing the errata, and has now been updated.

Thank you!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Blake's Tiger wrote:
Gisher wrote:
GM OfAnything wrote:
Book of the Dead is a book to support certain kinds of campaigns. It is going to include tweaks to make those campaigns more enjoyable. Kind of like how the GMG includes the Free Archetype rules.
Where does Paizo say that the rules in this book are variant rules?
That’s not what he said.

How do you come to that conclusion? The game has standard rules and variant rules. They compared these rules to a variant set of rules. I don't see how that was meant to indicate that these rules are actually standard rules.

Blake's Tiger wrote:
The side bar, however it’s phrased, doesn’t mean PCs in my own campaign can suddenly start casting Soothe on their summoned undead minions.

No one can, or wants to, force you to let characters have 3 actions per round in your own campaign, either. That's beside the point. The Rules Forum isn't here to force people to follow the rules; it's here to help people understand the rules. However you want to run your game, here in the Rules Forum 3 actions per round is a standard rule.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
GM OfAnything wrote:
Book of the Dead is a book to support certain kinds of campaigns. It is going to include tweaks to make those campaigns more enjoyable. Kind of like how the GMG includes the Free Archetype rules.

Where does Paizo say that the rules in this book are variant rules?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just realized that the Ladder and Holly Bush are low enough levels that their ammunition forms would meet the requirements for the Eldritch Archer's Magic Arrow feat to create them for free.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

♥ Puppies and kitties! ♥


HammerJack wrote:

You'll note that the Stitch Flesh feat does at least give a way to address that for Treat Wounds (the most important of these by far). You may still not want to deal with that extra feat being needed, but the option existing is significant.

EDIT: this was responding to a post that must have been deleted while I was typing, about things that can't be used to heal undead, which included Treat Wounds.

Yeah, I deleted it when I finally found the sidebar that the OP quoted and saw the Stitch Flesh feat. But, thanks!

(The Side Bar is on page 45 of Book of the Dead, for anyone still looking.)


Gisher wrote:
Blave wrote:
Ed Reppert wrote:
Gisher wrote:
Aaron Shanks wrote:
The Advanced Player's Guide Errata is live.

Yay!

(The list is missing the changes to Eldritch Archer. The Dedication no longer grants an extra cantrip if you have pre-existing spell slots.)

Source?
Second printing PDF.

Yes. Specifically, Ed Reppert, they removed the paragraph that granted a second cantrip to those who already had spell slots.

APG, p. 172 wrote:

Eldritch Archer Dedication

You blend magic with your archery, leading to powerful results.
If you don’t already cast spells from spell slots, you learn to cast spontaneous spells and gain the Cast a Spell activity. You gain a spell repertoire with one cantrip of your choice, from a spell list of your choice. You choose this cantrip from the common spells on your chosen spell list or from other spells to which you have access on that list. This cantrip must require a spell attack roll. You’re trained in spell attack rolls and spell DCs for that tradition. Your key spellcasting ability for these spells is Charisma.

If you already cast spells from spell slots, you learn one additional cantrip from that tradition. If you’re a prepared caster, you can prepare this spell in addition to your usual cantrips per day; if you’re a spontaneous caster, you add this cantrip to your spell repertoire.
You also gain Eldritch Shot.

Given that the Beast Gunner and Cathartic Mage dedications copied that paragraph, I would expect them to get the same errata eventually.

This change still isn't included in the Official Errata, and immanuel_aj has noted that Archives of Nethys still has the original text.

I know that we usually don't get official responses on errata, but given that the actual book contradicts both of the official online sources, some clarification on which is wrong would be great.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sanityfaerie wrote:
I believe that there was a recent errata on that topic, though I'm not sure about the details.

This change was left out of the online errata.

-----

Blave wrote:
Ed Reppert wrote:
Gisher wrote:
Aaron Shanks wrote:
The Advanced Player's Guide Errata is live.

Yay!

(The list is missing the changes to Eldritch Archer. The Dedication no longer grants an extra cantrip if you have pre-existing spell slots.)

Source?
Second printing PDF.

Yes. Specifically, Ed Reppert, they removed the paragraph that granted a second cantrip to those who already had spell slots.

APG, p. 172 wrote:

Eldritch Archer Dedication

You blend magic with your archery, leading to powerful results.
If you don’t already cast spells from spell slots, you learn to cast spontaneous spells and gain the Cast a Spell activity. You gain a spell repertoire with one cantrip of your choice, from a spell list of your choice. You choose this cantrip from the common spells on your chosen spell list or from other spells to which you have access on that list. This cantrip must require a spell attack roll. You’re trained in spell attack rolls and spell DCs for that tradition. Your key spellcasting ability for these spells is Charisma.

If you already cast spells from spell slots, you learn one additional cantrip from that tradition. If you’re a prepared caster, you can prepare this spell in addition to your usual cantrips per day; if you’re a spontaneous caster, you add this cantrip to your spell repertoire.
You also gain Eldritch Shot.

Given that the Beast Gunner and Cathartic Mage dedications copied that paragraph, I would expect them to get the same errata eventually.

-----

It's interesting that Archives of Nethys still hasn't changed the text, though.


The Raven Black wrote:

Poor monks :-(

Just kidding, but I wonder what could be in there for them.

At least Monks got some new feats in the APG. Investigators haven't gotten any new feats since their introduction. :(


4 people marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:
Do we think there'll be a fifth Conscious Mind for Psychic in the book? Distant Grasp (telekine), Infinite Eye (clairvoyance/perception), Silent Whisper (telepathy), and Tangible Dream (conjured objects) seem like pretty good coverage for the classic tropes, but I feel like there's still room for more.

I'd love to see one focused on self-transmutation. I loved that sort of thing with psionics back in 1st edition D&D: Body Weaponry, Shape Alteration, Expansion, and the like. I liked how Occultists could get a bit of that with the Transmutation Implement School.

1 to 50 of 6,746 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>