| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does that mean we also get updated PDFs at some point?
Yes, when each book has a new printing.
That player is completely in the right. That's why no matter how many times the GM tells me that my opponent is dead or that the other players beg me to move on, my characters will never stop attacking their first opponent in every adventure. How is my character supposed to know what the dying 4 condition means? None of that metagaming nonsense for me.
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.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). :) 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.
I don't see how nimble shield hand helps with the Trace Rune action and a bow. The hand you use to wield a shield counts as a free hand for the purposes of the Interact action. So you don't meet all free hand requirements — just the ones applied due to any interact actions. That would help if the Trace Rune action only required a free hand because it incorporated an interact action, but that's not the case since it doesn't involve any interact actions and has its own free hand requirement anyway. And since bows are Dex-based while shield spikes are Str-based, that's not a great combo anyway. Nimble shield hand would work a little better with a gauntlet bow since you could trace runes with your gauntlet bow hand, fire a bolt (applying Remote Detonation if desired), and then use your shield hand for the interact action needed to reload. But even then shield spikes and the gauntlet's melee function would both be Str-based so they won't mesh well with the Dex-based crossbow.
Three classes — Magus, Summoner, and Psychic — do not have a Class DC. Given that other spellcasting classes (like Wizards) were given Class DC's in the remaster, a clarification on whether those three classes are also supposed to have them would be nice.
My personal favorite errata is Page 231: Change the Bulk of moonlit chain from 2 to 1. It was a really minor error where someone confused the chain shirt and chainmail bulks, but I've been mentioning it in errata threads since I noticed the error in the first printing of the CRB. It survived four printings of the CRB and the first printing of the GM Core, but now that bug has finally been squashed! For me it's symbolic of the thoroughness that the Paizo team applied to this first bi-annual errata. -----
I'm sure that it took a lot of work, but it is so much easier to find particular changes and to identify the timing of those changes than it was before. So thank you to the "errata team!"
It is entirely possible that Paizo intended for these specific Rituals to permit Mythic versions of themselves, but that is pure speculation and has no basis on anything other than wishful thinking. You seem to love attributing motives to me, and somehow in all of these years you've never been correct about any of them. I don't know whether to be amused by that or just feel sad for you. There's no wishful thinking in my part. I have zero interest in using rituals whether they are mythic or not, so I have no investment in whether the mythic rituals replace the old ones or not. I'm just trying to satisfy my intellectual curiosity. The problem is that the reprint turns what used to be a core rule/ability into an optional rule/ability by tying it to the variant rules, so this argument of "variant rules don't override core rules" makes no sense. My point is that isn't clear to me that variant rules can or should count as reprints of core rules. Variant rules are elements of variant systems, and if you reject a variant system then it doesn't make sense to me that you would have to accept elements which only exist within that system. That would mean that those elements of the variant rules are actually core rules and thus not actually variant rules. Imagine that Rule A is valid in a particular non-Euclidean geometry but not in Euclidean geometry. Rule B, on the other hand is true under Euclidean geometry but not under any non-Euclidean geometry. And Rule A and Rule B are incompatible. Given all of that, saying "I accept Euclidean geometry and reject non-Euclidean geometry, but Rule A can't be true under Euclidean geometry because Rule B contradicts it" won't ever make sense to me. Claiming to reject the entire system of non-Euclidean geometry while still applying rules derived from it to Euclidean geometry is clearly not consistent. I'm fine if Paizo intends for those rituals to be replaced. I don't care about the particular outcomes in this case. But it seems to me that your reasoning for why this should work can only be true if either the meaning of "variant rules" has changed or that the mythic rules aren't variant rules.
But if the rule changes are part of a variant rule set that you aren't using, then shouldn't you ignore that those variant rule descriptions exist? It seems to me that if you aren't using a variant system like Automatic Bonus Progression then you should just ignore any rules contained within that system. For example, the Armor Proficiency general feat printed in PC1 clearly replaces the version from the CRB because neither version is part of a variant system. They are both part of the core system and so the more recent one replaces the older version. But let's say that in the future Paizo prints a variant rule system in which that feat works differently — perhaps it lets your armor scale with your unarmored defense progression. Wouldn't the existence of that particular version of Armor Proficiency only replace the PC1 version if you were using that new variant system? Otherwise you end up in the odd position that the players can't use the variant version because those rules aren't part of the system you are using, but they also can't use the old version because you are accepting the new rule as part of your system. It just seems odd to me that someone would accept the variant version as part of the rules and simultaneously reject it as part of the rules. It's Schrödinger's rule.
Ok, then they are arguing for my second theory. But if the argument is that simply flavoring any item as shiny makes it qualify as a mirror for rules purposes then does that mean that a gauntlet, sword, chalice, bell, brass-covered tome, etc. can also qualify as mirror implements?"My club is shaped like a baton and is thus a wand implement, and also has a piece of regalia in the pommel so is also my reglia implement." You can get very silly with this very quickly. Exactly. It seems like this line of reasoning is a steep, slippery slope to chaos. That's why I'm unclear why people are making the argument that merely flavoring a shield as shiny eliminates the difference between item categories like 'shield' and 'mirror.' I'm not particularly familiar with the Thaumaturge, but it seems pretty obvious that such a principle would make the concept of separate implement categories basically meaningless.
By the way Paizo treats these things, this is a reprint. Thus they are errata and the old ones no longer exist.I don't see why that's a problem. CRB options that weren't errata'd are still PF2 rules.In which case it seems to me that a GM who isn't using that variant would ignore the reprinted versions of rituals that are a part of that variant system. So they would still be using the Core versions of those rituals.The problem is they aren't in PC. They were in CRB the last. Normally, that's the case, but does that apply if the rules in question are variant rules and you aren't using that variant system at all? It seems to me that not using a variant system means that you are treating all aspects of that system as if they don't exist as part of the rules. So if you aren't using mythic rules, you would ignore the printing of mythic rituals, and those non-existent rules wouldn't replace the already existing rituals. It seems weird to say that mythic rituals don't exist in your rule book because you aren't using that variant system, but at the same time they somehow do exist in your rule book and therefore they do replace the existing rules.
In which case it seems to me that a GM who isn't using that variant would ignore the reprinted versions of rituals that are a part of that variant system. So they would still be using the Core versions of those rituals.The problem is they aren't in PC. They were in CRB the last. I don't see why that's a problem. CRB options that weren't errata'd are still PF2 rules.
Adding mythic versions of existing rituals is fine, of course. I don't have WOI, so maybe I'm wrong, but I thought Mythic Rules were a variant ruleset. In which case it seems to me that a GM who isn't using that variant would ignore the reprinted versions of rituals that are a part of that variant system. So they would still be using the Core versions of those rituals.
Staff slings are real weapons and are indeed a staff with a sling on top, they actually work like a handheld trebuchet. Real staff slings don't ends in a Y-shaped split that cradles a sling, like the Halfling Sling Staff description says. so I think you are right that Halfling Sling Staff are just oversized slingshots in PF2e, or maybe a slingshot on top of a walking stick. For those who've never seen one, here's an interesting video on the history and mechanics of the real-world staff sling. The illustration of the halfling sling staff in PC1 (page 280) matches the historical staff sling rather than the book's written description, so I suspect that in the rush to do the remaster someone just forgot to update the text to match the design change. Combination weapons weren't a thing yet when the CRB came out, but I'd love it if the halfling sling staff eventually got updated to be one. That would also make its use with Staff Acrobat make sense. Alternatively, Paizo could introduce the historical staff sling as a combination weapon — perhaps dealing less ranged damage than the halfling sling staff so as not to make the halfling sling staff obsolete.
That's my list. What's yours? Everything on your list sounds fun, but I'll add Droon. Lizardfolk and dinosaurs takes me back to a childhood of Saturday mornings spent watching Land of the Lost. :)
There was something awful growing in that armor. Like a living Ginnungagap.
Potential Spoiler*stares in growing shock and horror at learning a parasite was living inside of Gorum and has a name I recognize*What's it called? Huh. So my speculation back in April didn't entirely miss the mark, after all. What if the hole in Gorum's armor wasn't caused by an attack from without but rather was caused by something hatching from inside him? ;) There was something awful growing in that armor.
Here is a description of Basrakal for those who, like myself, didn't remember much about it.
My guess is that they'll announce it in a blog post once they've posted their guidelines on War of Immortals. But that's just a guess.Where can I find that?I don’t know if it’s the whole pantheon. That’s also what I’m trying to figure out. I found the conversation that I was thinking of.
So at some point they'll be announcing which gods are no longer available, and then PFS players will have until the end of 2024 to rebuild characters that mechanically depend on those deities. I suspect we'll have a list of lost gods (at least the ones whose worship was allowed in PFS) shortly after the release of War of Immortals (October 30).
Where can I find that?I don’t know if it’s the whole pantheon. That’s also what I’m trying to figure out. My guess is that they'll announce it in a blog post once they've posted their guidelines on War of Immortals. But that's just a guess.
I don’t know if it’s the whole pantheon. That’s also what I’m trying to figure out. As I understand it, PFS will be posting guidelines for players whose deities are no longer available. I'd expect them to list the dead/missing deities as part of that. I think that's probably your earliest opportunity for getting clarification on which deities were involved here. (I assume that Divine Mysteries will also have that information, but it's not out until November.)
Spear Rogue you say, now that could be interesting.I saw some people talking about new Fighter feats. Did any other classes get additional feats, outside of class archetypes?Yes, the Avenger Class Archetype section has a little section stapled onto the end that provides two spear feats for the Rogue Ranger AND Fighter. Based on your description, I whipped up some tables showing which weapons would qualify for these feats. It's a Google doc so it's best viewed in an app designed for those. It occurs to me that the Fighter's Fork would also qualify when in its two-handed form.
It's a little off topic, but after reading through this thread and the other current magus thread I decided to update my list of • Spells for Eldritch Shot and Spellstrike It's all of the spells with the attack trait that can be cast in 1 or 2 actions. Just thought I'd share it. It's a Google doc.
It's a little off topic, but after reading through this thread and the one about expansive spellstrike I decided to update my list of • Spells for Eldritch Shot and Spellstrike It's all of the spells with the attack trait that can be cast in 1 or 2 actions. Just thought I'd share it. It's a Google doc.
♫ Speed of lightning, roar of thunder. Fighting all who rob or plunder. Underdog. Underdog! ♪
My point is that when printed as a core ancestry, the number of feats available to the Kholo increased drastically, indicating the disparity between some core and non-core ancestries. Oh, that makes sense. Thanks for the clarification! And I definitely hope that we'll get more ancestry feats for some of those feat-starved non-core ancestries.
Compare PC2 Kholo to the original print of Gnolls. I don't see why that's a problem for the Kholo since all of those pre-remaster ancestry feats (except the ones that have the same names as PC2 feats) are still valid options.
I'm not aware of a way to dismiss a stance. RAW, the only way to end a stance is to either enter another stance (ending the first one), or to violate the requirements of the stance. Nice catch! I hadn't noticed that they had added the text about Dismissing a stance. -----
It also added a 1/round limit on Stance actions. That wasn't there in pre-Remaster. That rule has actually been there from the beginning of PF2. stance (trait) A stance is a general combat strategy that you enter by using an action with the stance trait, and that you remain in for some time. A stance lasts until you get knocked out, until its requirements (if any) are violated, until the encounter ends, or until you enter a new stance, whichever comes first. After you use an action with the stance trait, you can’t use another one for 1 round. You can enter or be in a stance only in encounter mode.
It works the same way that it did before the remaster. Spell DC = 10 + spellcasting attribute modifier + proficiency bonus + other bonuses + penalties In this case we have... Spellcasting Attribute Modifier = Int = +1 and Proficiency Bonus = Level + 2 = 1 + 2 = +3. So Spell DC = 10 + 1 + 3 = 14. How were you getting 17 as a possibility?
Definitely favoriting this. I appreciate it. I'm glad you found it useful. :) Determining the current options is difficult because the availability rules listed for some of the older books (like The Lost Omens Ancestry Guide and The Grand Bazaar) haven't been updated to reflect the latest availability rules. Since there isn't a single location to see the entire list you have to read through the entries of all of the later resources to see if there were any later changes made. Plus, the Poppet option was only announced in a blog, so you won't find it anywhere on the Character Options page. Given all that, I realize that I should probably show how I constructed my list. -----
The Dwarf, Elf, Gnome, Goblin, Halfling, Human, Leshy, and Orc ancestries as well as the Aiuvarin and Dromaar mixed heritages are all Common and have Standard availability. The Changeling and Nephilim versatile heritages are both Uncommon, but in the Pathfinder Player Core entry we have the following text from the PFS Additional Resources: Character Options page.
----- Player Core 2 OptionsThe Catfolk, Hobgoblin, Kholo, Kobold, Lizardfolk, Ratfolk, Tengu, and Tripkee ancestries as well as the Dhampir, Dragonblood, and Duskwalker versatile heritages are all Uncommon, but in the [NEW 8/2024] Pathfinder Player Core 2 entry we have the following text from the PFS Additional Resources: Character Options page.
----- The Grand Bazaar OptionsThe Poppet ancestry is Rare, but we have the following text from a June 2024 Blog.
----- If anyone spots any errors or additional options that I've missed, I'd appreciate the corrections.
Being asked to curate a list of spooky products was the highlight of my week last week, as a known Halloween lover! This list was a good idea. Each year as we approach Halloween we always get posts asking about spooky options.
Here is the errata page, but PC2 hasn't gotten an entry yet. For remaster details on any deities beyond the big 20 you'll probably need to wait until Divine Mysteries comes out in November.
A bit confusing the two conflict with each other but it makes sense why the boon is gone. Yeah, there seem to be a few places where the restrictions for the pre-remaster books don't match those for their remastered versions. I believe that the current list of no-boon-required ancestry options is... Ancestries (17)
Versatile Heritages (5)
Mixed Heritages (2)
Given how prominently barghests figure into the history of the Kingdom of Zog, it seems plausible that they named the kingdom after the barghest deity Zogmugat. So maybe some variation of Zogmugat-land would make sense.
Yes, the AoN staff are awesome! And FWIW, I prefer getting the rules posted later but correctly to having them posted quickly but with lots of errors. So I'm glad they take their time to get it right.
And I'd say that allowing archetypes to grant higher proficiency level for spells than they do for weapons is mathematically balanced by the fact that there aren't potency runes available for spells.
"War gavel." Hmmm.
That makes sense. "Lutings" might well be the Golarion version of the Lo Tings.
Thanks for the update! I think I checked the tables a few hours before your announcement yesterday, it's been interesting to see how all these classes progress in their various proficiencies. Yeah. Seeing those patterns is why I made the charts. They let me see the basic categories that they created and also the special cases that they felt a new to create for certain classes.
Excellent timing! I just finished updating my Class Proficiency Tables. Community Use Policy statement added. :)
I just posted my first post-remaster update. My Proficiency Tables now include all 27 of the PF2 classes: Alchemist, Animist, Barbarian, Bard, Champion, Cleric, Commander, Druid, Exemplar, Fighter, Guardian, Gunslinger, Inventor, Investigator, Kineticist, Magus, Monk, Oracle, Psychic, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Summoner, Swashbuckler, Thaumaturge, Witch, and Wizard.
A readied strike doesn't disrupt anything, no. But having a bunch of crossbows, bows, guns, etc. loaded and aimed at them might dissuade a spellcaster from casting a spell in the first place. ;)
Daikyu has forceful. That is going to be a nice weapon for flurry archer rangers. It is still 80 feet. Forceful for a flurry archer ranger allows a lot of arrows.Biggest issue is making the case that it counts for Unconventional Weaponry, since the Daikyu is advanced. I don't see why the Daikyo being advanced is an issue for Rangers. Rangers are proficient in all martial weapons so Unconventional Weaponry gives them the option to select an uncommon advanced weapon — which the Daikyo is. What am I missing?
Somebody get Raven Black in here... I don't remember precisely but I have a feeling he called this one, as well! XD It looks like I called part of it, too. :)
My personal Pathfinder lore is that the gods create most intelligent species and they often copy existing species. The Well of Souls is a great series!
I'm pretty sure that having that prerequisite is an error. So if you don't have low-light vision then you can take this feat to get it. And if you do have low-light vision then you can take this feat to get darkvision.
I'm not sure what else "a sling can be used to fling smooth stones" means if it doesn't mean that it can be used with smooth stones. But given how cheap sling bullets are, you'd generally be better off spending your time earning income and just buying them rather than spending time collecting smooth stones or investing huge amounts of time grinding rough ones. But if you run out of ammo and happen to be near a river, smooth stones should be an option.
Are we really not getting any errata today? Kinda surprised. I suspect that GenCon is keeping everyone pretty busy right now. And if we are going to get an errata soon, I'd rather they took a few days to go over the feedback from customers so that the errata will be a bit more complete.
I've always assumed that these convention delays were more about the ceremonial aspects than practical issues. They can announce that the books are now available and start selling both the physical books and the PDFs at the same time. It builds anticipation as part of the show.
|