Gorgo Primus's page

In addition to the oft requested Dogfolk, I’d love to be able to play as a Boggard for some more variety in playable frogs.

Not an errata per say, but could we get an official clarification as to how a Guardian’s Group Taunt feat interacts with the various activities that specify you Taunt ‘a creature’ or ‘that creature’ since it seems unclear at times if it applies in cases that specifically call out a singular target.

The new ‘Shake Off the Gods’ feat for the Pure Legion Enforcer Dedication apparently lets you reroll a save but doesn’t have the Fortune trait. If so, I presume this is an error in need of errata.

Gorgo Primus wrote:

The Agile Maneuvers feat for Swashbuckler should really add Dirty Trick to its list of affected actions given you added an entire Swashbuckler Style built around that Attack action.

Agile Maneuvers (with requested addition in italics/brackets): "You easily maneuver against your foes. Your Disarm, Grapple, Reposition, Shove, [Dirty Trick,] and Trip actions have a lower multiple attack penalty. Even if your weapon or unarmed attack doesn't have the agile trait, the penalty is –4 if the action is your second attack on your turn, or –8 if it's your third or subsequent attack. If your weapon or unarmed attack is agile and you have panache, the penalty is reduced further, to –3 if it's the second attack on your turn or –6 if it's the third or subsequent."

Reasonable concept, but the prerequisite is Expert in Athletics, and Dirty Trick is keyed off of Thievery.

Maybe it would be ok to change the Prerequisite to Expert in Athletics or Thievery.

Then have the feat ability grant the given reduction to MAP on Disarm, Grapple, Reposition, Shove, and Trip maneuvers if you are an expert in Athletics.

To expand on it, you might add Force Open to the Athletics options.

It could then grant reduction in map to Dirty Trick if you have Expert in Thievery.

Makes sense to me, thanks.

The Agile Maneuvers feat for Swashbuckler should really add Dirty Trick to its list of affected actions given you added an entire Swashbuckler Style built around that Attack action.

Agile Maneuvers (with requested addition in italics/brackets): "You easily maneuver against your foes. Your Disarm, Grapple, Reposition, Shove, [Dirty Trick,] and Trip actions have a lower multiple attack penalty. Even if your weapon or unarmed attack doesn't have the agile trait, the penalty is –4 if the action is your second attack on your turn, or –8 if it's your third or subsequent attack. If your weapon or unarmed attack is agile and you have panache, the penalty is reduced further, to –3 if it's the second attack on your turn or –6 if it's the third or subsequent."

Oh, I also just noticed that [https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=3983]Trusty Helmet[/url]'s AC bonus has no duration and thus looks to last for life RAW. Might want to fix that too.

Gorgo Primus wrote:

My top 5 errata requests, in no particular order, are:

1: Explicitly state how Critical Hit Resistance works since it shows up a few places.

Are you talking about immunity to critical hits? That only applies to the double damage, all other effects on crit apply (PC 408 / https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2314). Not sure I've seen a resistance to crits, but I'd assume it's just resistance to the doubled half of the damage, since it doesn't make any sense for that to be any more when immunity is limited to it.

I’m very explicitly not talking about immunity. Check out Denizens of Leng as one of the handful of examples where it shows up. It used to be largely intuitive as a Resist All alike but only if they crit, but now that they changed how Resist All works and rewrote the basic resistance rules it’s now worth explicitly filling in the gap here; there’s no great reason to write out how how immunity to crits works as its own thing and a whole part on Resist All, but nothing for this.

So wait, who actually asked for this change to Resist All and complained about it? It looks like you’ve once again taken a non-issue people were happy with and done surgery with a chainsaw to it to solve a problem that didn’t exist. Now a ton of feats that give Resist All are extremely overleveled if not outright dead, Ghost Touch runes are way less valuable, etc, etc.

If you’re going to make huge errata changes to core parts of the rules, please at least put out a survey or *something* first instead of the current policy of “do whatever and then wait to see if the backlash makes us have to change it or if it’s quiet enough to ignore”.

The rest of the errata looks largely fine to great, so there’s really no reason you couldn’t have had an easy win there for most of us without this…

My top 5 errata requests, in no particular order, are:

1: Explicitly state how Critical Hit Resistance works since it shows up a few places.

2: Revert Rogues getting all 3 of their saves upgraded to Crit Successes so that effects and spells that target them late game have a chance of doing something to them and cause it’s crazy that they’re the only class with all 3.

3: Fix all the different Feats that give Resist All (like the Barbarian 20) to actually be useful if you’re going to keep the new errata/nerf to it so they aren’t dead/useless, or else revert Resist All to how it used to be.

4: Make Deafened explicitly apply a flat check to spell casting (because speech is all auditory according to earlier in the rulebook and all spells require speech), or else clarify that Deafened doesn’t [and thus basically never matters as a condition except in ultra niche situations].

5: Maybe try to buff Fascinated because the way it works now it’s really only worthwhile out of combat despite often showing up on combat spells and abilities.

Most of the errata changes are awesome and I’m grateful for them, but the changes to Resist All make zero sense.

Resist All was effectively a shorthand for not having to write out every single damage type before, but now it means the Barbarian Level 20 feat is pretty worthless, Ghost Touch is a waste of money if you have more than one damage type, and Champions got significantly nerfed… and sfaik nobody was asking for that!

This specific errata was asked for by nobody (people just wanted a explicit codification of what we already had and written rulings on how it worked with Mortal Weakness et al) and is arguably more game warping and awful/hated than the ‘mistaken’ change to Dying rules were.

My suggestion for dealing with this martial/caste disparity is to just revert the errata, which seems to also be the majority opinion in the community by a huge margin.

Was this the last major chunk of the crossbows that had to get moved out of the Bow group?

I’m very grateful we finally got the Champion errata, but I also don’t know why we wait to wait for this to get “Champions should work the same way they did before with this feature”. They could have told us that in the thread and still do the errata afterwards, especially since they didn’t actually revert the wording and just added an extra line that reverted it with extra steps.

For consistency’s sake I would have preferred that they just restore the Champion’s wording to how it was and how Battle Harbinger currently has it, but it’s functionally identical now so I’m happy and thankful.

Kinda surprised there weren’t more errata given how beefy the giant suggestion thread was/is, but I really like all the changes that got made this round. Thanks again Paizo!

I never specified a turn around time because it doesn’t super matter so long as there is communication. If it takes them 5 months to get back to us with an answer after publicly acknowledging receipt (which does seem somewhat wild to me for a mere RAI question, but whatever), so be it. I never said it’d take 5min and I doubt anyone here thinks it’s that easy unless the question was something like “is it intended to use standard D6s when it says to roll 1d6”. Nowhere in my radio silence comment do I mention anything remotely indicative of thinking they can all drop everything and instantly answer anything. You should also note I started this thread in December and didn’t even send a PM until late January because I didn’t even think it was reasonable to expect a “we’ve seen this” response within a month.

The idea that its better to never say anything than to communicate at all, or have a to do list that may take an unspecified time, because trying anything can never please everyone is a self defeating attitude that’s responsible for numerous controversies and disasters from Kickstarter to AAA publishers. From what I know it really doesn’t take that much effort for someone working for Paizo (note this doesn’t have to be a designer or even someone directly connected to them) to come into a popular thread laser focused on a single issue after a month or three and say “we’ve seen this and we’ll work on getting an answer for you all when we can prior to next errata” - and not much more than that to then shove it to a master list of questions somewhere so people know they can stop asking.

As has been demonstrated a billion times over across the internet, people are always way more welcoming and thankful for a “nothing to report, but we’re working on it/have seen it” report than silence.

Surprised they didn’t change Alchemical Shot to specify that the wielded firearm or crossbow must be loaded. It’s pretty clear that it works that way from a ton of context clues, but it’d be nice to add that one word in to clear up any misunderstandings - especially since other activities like it do go out of their way to say it needs to be loaded separately first.

There is a very clear and easy middle ground to me between “random designer tweets out what they personally think is the answer to RAI without checking with others and then people run with” and “radio silence until an errata comes up and then if it doesn’t get answered then you have to roll the dice again”.
It’s “have someone come and tell us all in a public space that they’ve seen this and will talk about it, and then come and tell us the RAI and if things might change once they’ve had a group discussion and come to a real decision”. Preferably they can then go as far as to post a “questions we’re looking into” master list everyone can see so we know that even if it takes a few months they’ve seen and will get to it one way or another.

I’m disappointed that they’ve basically gone with radio silence unless you win the private email lottery, and then you can either get an answer or a “wait until errata maybe deals with it”. To be clear, I’m not blaming Maya because they didn’t give the impression this was their preferred route either and at the end of the day they’re not the one who can generate the answers.

Well, still no response to my pm so I guess we’re just going to have to wait for next errata to see if this thread did anything.

I’m really hoping they nerf the hell out of Doorknobs and Cassian Helmets this round…

I guess one of us might have to look into sending an email. I'm gonna wait a bit longer for some kind of response here before I do so cause I don't want to overstep and Maya could be busy or unable to answer still, but it'd be nice to get some sort of "we see this and will get back to you all soon" from someone given they asked for us to make the thread and all.

Class: Barbarian
Issue: Animal Instinct Frog has a d4 secondary agile attack (Tongue) when all other animals like it get a d6. It should be corrected to match.

Background: The Frog Animal Instinct Barbarian needs their secondary agile attack (Tongue) to be a d6 like all the others like it such as Cat, Bear, and Tyrannosaurus. It was only a d4 before because it got Reach in the premaster, by with that gone it’s just randomly worse than every other attack like it among the Animal options.

Please make it explicitly clear that when you use a Polymorph Battle Form to become an animal or something you lose your original speeds for the duration.

Well correct me if I’m wrong but it looks like the next step is for Maya to confirm for us how this works and if it’s intentional.

I think it’s pretty clear cut that it takes a slot and is worthless, and that at least someone on the dev team (who worked on Battle Harbinger) doesn’t like it being worded/working this way, but it seems like until we get back word from the devs this is primarily going to be an echo chamber of people who want it reverted with a side a debate on if it somehow works the old way anyways but now has awful and incredibly misleading wording for seemingly no reason (and thus should be reverted).

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.

Yeah the reorganization is awesome.

If some groups legitimately think this doesn’t count against the Rune slot limit despite not indicating that anywhere, then maybe it needs an errata for clarity alone one way or the other. If it had a sentence that said “this does not take up a rune slot or count towards your limit” then it’d be effectively the same as premaster and be fine - though it’d also be longer than just revering it to the premaster text to match the Battle Harbinger.

Because it doesn't say otherwise and that's how Runes work?

Well, then that’d be the premaster wording. But based on what they’ve said about Rogue Resiliency, I’m even more pessimistic about that now.

Ok, so now I'm back to "this is an awful intended design decision and they should errata it".

The premaster Champion feature for years was (bolding mine):

Blade Ally: A spirit of battle dwells within your armaments. Select one weapon or handwraps of mighty blows when you make your daily preparations. In your hands, the item gains the effect of a property rune and you also gain the weapon's critical specialization effect. For a champion following the tenets of good, choose disrupting, ghost touch, returning, or shifting. For a champion following the tenets of evil, choose fearsome, returning, or shifting.

In the remaster it was replaced with (bolding mine):

Blessed Armament: Select one weapon or handwraps of mighty blows. You gain that armament's critical specialization effect, and you grant the armament a property rune of your choice from the following list: fearsome, ghost touch, returning, shifting, or vitalizing. During your daily preparations, you can change the spirit to inhabit a different armament, grant a different rune, or both.

This relatively minor wording change is an absolutely massive change in how these things work and makes the new version infinitely worse to the point of being nigh useless. Whereas before it was an extra benefit any Champion could add onto their weapon regardless of what kind, now it is just saving them a bit of gold and taking up an actual Rune slot - with all the restrictions and caveats that that implies. Everyone seemed pretty sure this was 'a change for seemingly no reason/too bad to be true' on release that would be dealt with via a Day 0 errata, but none came.

Then to make matters 'clearer' a few months later the Battle Harbinger Class Archetype for the Cleric came out, which has the Harbinger's Armament feat shown here (bolding still mine) at level 8:

Your deity grants you extra power that you have learned to channel into your weapons. Select one weapon or handwraps of mighty blows when you make your daily preparations. While in your hands it gains the effect of one property rune. Choose either fearsome, ghost touch, returning, shifting, or vitalizing. This rune does not count toward your maximum rune count, and this choice lasts 24 hours or until you make your next daily preparations, whichever comes first.

This is clearly a riff on the Champion feature and it uses the aforementioned original wording.

So to quote the Rogue Resiliency errata thread: "What is it? Bug or Feature?" And either way, do any players here think the way it works now is a good change?

That’s not how game balance works.

If it’s confirmed this is WAI then it’ll change from me calling it an obvious error in need of errata to calling it a really awful design decision that should be looked at for errata. Its just a weird and massive buff on a class that was already outperforming several others.

I'm sure Maya is busy as it is, and if they don't run this back to the devs for us amidst all this I can't really hold it against them, but it'd be really nice to get some definitive word one way or the other on the Rogue Crit Fortitude and Champion Blade Ally Rune issues so we can know whether to stop bringing it up every errata cycle cause it just isn't happening or not.

I have to say Rogues still turning every single save type into a crit and Champions’ Blade Ally still being changed from Premaster to taking up a Rune Slot is super disappointing to me after the long wait.

Love and appreciate the errata that we got, but those two being effectively confirmed as WAI is a huge misstep to me.

Wait, is Razmir listed with all the other gods in the Deity section? Cause if so, and his special only says you can’t be a Cleric without his archetype, then you CAN be a Champion of Razmir RAW, no?

Obedience Champion of Razmir, please be real… *crosses fingers*

Is there an option to be a ‘Champion’ of Razmir too, or just a ‘Cleric’?

It’a not the biggest, but Frog Barbarian’s Tongue strike should be a 1d6 like the other agile secondaries of its kind now that it can’t get reach.

I do think it’d be nice if they errated Animal Form and its peers to make it abundantly clear RAW that you lose all speeds not listed in your form while polymorphed. I’ve seen the Foundry team argue (and program in) that you don’t, so clearly spelling it out directly is needed.

The issue with Shoonys is that their feats are all trash. If the Shoonys got remastered with new stuff, 100%.

Still hoping for Boggarts, Bugbears, and Dogfolk.

Animist Feat (16) - Monstrous Inclinations has a One Action icon, but it just gives you a spell for your repertoire. Surely this is a typo and you don’t have to spend an action to do this every day, right?

Sarangay have a speed of 0ft because Paizo forgot to give them one.

Also the new Poppet Heritage should probably replace the Flammable feature with a Conductive feature with the chosen weakness or something rather than just changing the weakness type on Flammable - because now you technically have ‘Flammable’ Ceramic Poppets that are weak to Cold.

No, but it really should in my opinion. I was hoping this would be one of the things they’d have handled with the Remaster Errata, but they didn’t touch it.

So very glad this happened before things became a full blown crisis.

Thank you Paizo! <3

It’s been about a month since this was announced and it feels like the only things keeping this from becoming a full blown OGL Crisis level loss of community faith and reputation off forum is people here hoping that somehow your explanatory FAQ comes with massive revisions to the core of what you’ve done and said you’re doing, and that most people have no idea this happened because nobody on YouTube with a large following has made a video detailing this yet.

What are you guys doing Paizo? Cause I really doubt a FAQ explaining what you’ve done and that you’re not going to back down on any of this is going to help you at this point given everything we’ve read and had explained to us by you.

You do indeed need to protect your IP and company, but this certainly isn’t the only way to do it and clearly isn’t the best way given how badly this has gone over.

I’m not saying to just delete the level 1 feat and leave it at that. I’d suggest that it should just be part of the heritage. It’s not even a strong ability - it’s a very short jump because to even go up 5ft you’ve already used 10 of the 15.

Though I’m not opposed to your suggestion either.

Remember that unlike all those other ancestries you start with basically nothing that defines your ancestry outside of speed and size. A Crane would have low-light vision, but not yours because you don't get any ancestry feats for the first 2/3rds of the game outside of flight. Your bat? It also has no echolocation. Your moth? No Darkvision or Scent.

These are just the senses alone, and what it'd take to match its animal counterpart in the bestiary. Aside from those there are lots of interesting animal feats that every other Awakened Animal would have a shot at and likely take besides a sense or two, but yours can't take any until you'd be at a high level in a 1-20/11-20 game.

Saying 'you must really want flight if you pick a flying animal!' is missing the point of the OP. Yes, I do in fact miss not having more than [effectively] 3 ancestry feats by the time I'm level 20 - 1(!) for most players who end at level 10 - when they are what mechanically defines my animal on top of giving it the goodies ancestry feats typically get.

All I'm asking for is Flying Animals to actually get a choice of feat at level 1 instead of being obligated to always get a feat tax on top of the feat tax others like them have to pay for Flight - two feats.

But is very much the case for Flying Animals.

It’s not ‘functionally identical to automatic’ because you still need to actively do it - which is the opposite of automatic. If you somehow spent 10min in an encounter because you hate yourself, I don’t think any gm would go “oh, right, I guess you have all your focus points back now!” because you still need to use Refocus and that is its own (contextually exploration) activity you have to explicitly say you’re doing on top of whatever else.

So claiming you literally don’t have to say or do anything to refocus, which is what it being ‘automatic’ would entail, is wrong.

That'd be disappointing given that HOTW managed to get day 0 errata and some things are so broken in PC2 that GMs are having to rely on PFS rulings as holdovers to make them work.

So what are the odds we get errata for this next week or so now that Gencon is over?

I can’t find a single Creature that has “Land: 0” written for a speed. Which to me is confirmation that not listing a speed is absolutely to be taken as if it said 0, which means Sharks’ unwritten 0 speeds should overwrite your normal land speed - if the contention is that if it’s written it overwrites and otherwise lets you keep it.

Someone else I spoke to also mentioned you have the same issues with senses. It never explicitly says you lose Darkvision and Lifesense or what have you, it just says you gain Low-Light and Sense. The whole spell really just starts to leak holes everywhere if you insist this is how RAW works in my opinion.