Gorgo Primus's page

Can we get an errata or clarification in the FAQ as to what exactly we’re to do with Persistent Damage on Eidolons now that the ‘Unmanifested Eidolon’ section exists and tells us it remains on them and has its durations continue when unmanifested?

A surprising number of players and GMs have taken this to mean the Eidolon keeps taking bleeding or fire or whatever damage that harms/kills the Summoner after they’re unmanifested with no recourse, or that the Eidolon somehow has to keep making checks while gone, or other various awful bookkeepings and ramifications. If the intent is that all such conditions sit on the Eidolon and progress their durations but don’t do anything until manifested, that could really use spelling out. Or whatever it is your intentions are for things like this, if different.

I’m gonna add a post to the errata suggestion thread asking for a clarification to this for the next round of additions to the FAQ. This thread if nothing else has proven we could really use it.

I don’t think anyone is arguing that the persistent damage tick and do damage to them while they’re unmanifested. It’d be really pointless since their health is your health once they manifest, and otherwise they’d always die forever once bleeding et al because they’d start at 0 on the other side with nobody to heal them. It’s just that they keep the persistent damage on them, if it had a duration that keeps counting, and when they manifest they come back with that persistent damage on them if it hasn’t expired. The rules don’t say to do anything with their conditions when unmanifested other than keep them and progress their duration as normal, so it isn’t asking for you to do complex bookkeeping or rolls while they’re away.

And yeah, you’ve been playing it wrong if you have them share all conditions and effects outside of grappled. The “Lost And Altered Actions“ section of the Summoner rules covers most what they share and how, and even explains what happens when only one of you is Confused or Controlled.

If you both had persistent damage applied to you I’m fairly sure those would be different identical effects and you’d take both. Just cause you’d both have persistent fire on you doesn’t mean you’re both in/on the same fire. That’s compared with you both being hit by a single fireball spell which would be the same effect doing the damage to both at once, in which case you’d take the highest only.

Finoan wrote:

What that means is that they removed the last vestiges of anything in the rules even hinting at the idea that an unmanifested Eidolon doesn't have a physical form somewhere. ...

But I am seeing no rules wording at all that supports the idea that an unmanifested Eidolon has no physical form. What are you seeing that supports that?

Really-really? Not at all? Nothing? O_o

Eidolon. --- Do you know what the word means? Basically, a spirit or ghost.
MANIFEST --- Not Teleport. Not even Summon. Manifest.
otherworldly entity --- while detached from other things, in a multiworld universe not a complete argument, but colloquially means basically non-existent and ephemeral
manifest this...

I don’t disagree with your other stuff, but here I think you’re the one being disingenuous when you say things like “Manifest - not teleport!” when talking about an ability that literally has the teleportation trait on it. Plus a ton of your later arguments hinge on stuff like a very specific inference of the word essence that isn’t always the case in fiction. It’s perfectly plausible that a living real dragon can also be made of arcane essence, lots of animals are real despite resembling other kinds of also real animals, when several Eidolon explicitly come from other worlds flavour text calling them otherworldly is not much of an argument at all, etc.

Plus there’s the whole “This is the eidolon's home plane, where they go when unmanifested” explanation on page 96 that explicitly says they have a place they go to and wouldn’t make sense if they had nothing at all like a physical form. Their physical form might not be the same as when they’re with you, but they certainly must have something of some kind when they’re not with you.

Regardless, for gameplay reasons it really doesn’t matter what goes on when unmanifested beyond that they aren’t with you and keep their statuses and conditions which still progress as normal. The rest is just fluff at the end of the day.

Isn't Manifest Eidolon just teleporting the eidolon from their home plane to your plane or vice versa? Why would that prevent the eidolon from experiencing the same dying, wounded, and dead states as the summoner? And why would it cause persistent damage and other effects on the eidolon to just not function while they're on their home plane? Manifest Eidolon no longer says that the eidolon's physical form dissolves, just that it unmanifests.

Plus, if the eidolon automatically unmanifesting if they "were to die" is really enough to actually prevent them from dying, couldn't you completely trivialize every hazard in the game by having your eidolon march ahead of you? For instance, if a spinning blade pillar deals 34 damage to an eidolon with max HP 18, then that eidolon unmanifests and the summoner starts dying. But if that same pillar instead deals 36 damage, enough to kill the summoner and eidolon outright, then the eidolon just blinks back to their home plane and the summoner is unscathed?

Nothing says your hp pool suddenly untethers from theirs if they were to die. In your last example you’d take 36 damage and die while your Eidolon unmanifested upon 0, never to be seen again because now no one can summon it. They‘re never on the field at 0 so they never make or need recovery rolls. They can’t show up again until you succeed at all those rolls in fact, and that’s presumably to avoid the exact confusing mess you’re trying to argue for and then hope to solve.

Errenor wrote:

It's 'I want it' 'question'. It was never clarified because the answer is no, they do not disbelieve automatically. Exactly because there was nothing written about it.

Or: it was never written because they figured it would be obvious to anyone that you can't "fail to disbelieve" something you know with absolute certainty is an illusion because you're the one creating it.

There's two possible answers here:
1. The rules don't say there is an exception, so there isn't one and you believe your own illusions.
2. Common sense says you don't need to try to disbelieve something that you already know with absolute certainty is fake.

Claiming that the lack of a clarifying rule is deliberately in favour of your preferred answer is itself an assumption, since we have absolutely no idea why it wasn't stated and there's a pretty straightforward alternative answer.

Definitely worth the errata thread, people have been discussing this for years.

I don’t know. My common sense says that even if I know it isn’t real in my head cause I made it, I’d be extremely hesitant to walk through a giant wall of fire with lots of heat radiating off it I can feel, or whatever the illusion is. Or for a real life example, even if someone knows a walk-on glass floor like some tourist attractions have is a solid floor you won’t fall through, there are tons of people who just can’t stomach stepping on it because it looks and feels like there’s nothing there or it isn’t safe even if in their head they know it wouldn’t be there with people on it if it wasn’t.

Disbelieving a thing isn’t just thinking “oh, that’s not real!”, it’s actively being able to treat is as if it isn’t real because your mind and body have fully acknowledged and accepted it’s fake on every level. The rules even kinda spell that out in their example text:

“If the illusion is visual, and a creature interacts with the illusion in a way that would prove it is not what it seems, the creature might know that an illusion is present, but it still can’t ignore the illusion without successfully disbelieving it. For instance, if a character is pushed through the illusion of a door, they will know that the door is an illusion, but they still can’t see through it.”

I agree this needs explicit clarification in the FAQ since it keeps being asked though.

Ok. And since ‘Critical’ is not a damage type if you’re critically hit by slashing and cold damage that gets doubled, you’d have to pick between Cold or Slashing to apply it to and then no other resistance could then also apply to said damage, correct? If so you’re agreeing with my guess for how things work.

But my point was that even if it seems simple, it should get called out in the rules so nobody has to guess. It’d also be about as easy to guess as to how Resistance All is applied based on its name, but it still gets explicitly called out and explained because it isn’t dealing with a named trait or damage type like every other resistance has (save criticals). Likewise Critical Hit Immunity is explicitly called out and explained to make sure everyone is on the same page for how that works and there’s no room for error or misunderstanding even if the majority of people would correctly guess it blocks the doubled damage and not all damage coming from a critical hit or something anyways.

Now that we have a very assessable Common player option with Critical Hit Resistance in the Ooze Eidolon, the fact that this is the only kind of Resistance not really explained in either the old or the new resistance rules is an issue.

In the past despite never once being mentioned in the rules for resistances it could be reasonably inferred it worked identically to Resist All and it basically overwrote any other resistance you had lower than it and applied to every instance of damage if a crit occurred. But now Resistances no longer blanket apply to all instances of a type (or every type at once with All/Resist). That’s how Foundry handled it too.

Now it’s not at all clear to me if it’s to work like a weird form of Resist All that works the same as that, but only if the damage comes from a critical hit; or if it’s supposed to apply to the doubled damage before anything else as if that was one block of damage; or to any one chunk of that doubled damage as if it were its own thing before anything else; or something else I’ve just not thought of. My guess would be the first of those, but even that’s correct and confirmed Paizo really really needs to explicitly include the rules for how it’s handled in the now very detailed errata for Resistances that covers every single permutation save for Critical Hit Resistance.

Impossible Magic had changed the Energy Heart Summoner feat to no longer allow for sonic damage. Was this intentional, or did they intend to explicitly write out the list of ‘standard’ energy damage types for clarity and missed it? If it’s the latter, it’s an error worth errating since I can’t think of any balance reasons for it.

Psychic could be saved with some errata. You don’t need drastic changes worth a whole new book to make it start with 3 focus points, remove stupefied from Unleash, etc.

Not ideal, but I'm good with this. Hopefully this has been a useful learning experience for AON's team and Paizo doesn't go out of their way to step it a 3rd time this half-decade. Thanks Maya!

Gorgo Primus wrote:

Also not sure why a video from two people in the industry is held up as more valid than his just because they're in the industry when it's also mostly an opinion piece based on commonly known/available facts as well. I watched both videos in full and most of the details of Owen's great "here's what I can tell you of the industry" stuff was posted to the forum and absent from the video (though he has valuable insights in the video beyond that), and Alex was seemingly mainly there to give a largely uninformed rant about the secret motives of AON and the larger fan base that felt like it demonstrated he's never spoken to anyone from AON before and hasn't paid attention to what's been going on with the fan community in a long time.

Respectfully, I think people that actually understand how Paizo and the industry in general works due to working in said industry have a better understanding of the general situation than a Youtuber who has not done so.

As a similar example, even if they're not privy to the exact details, I would trust a doctor to understand the details of a medical situation more than I would trust a random person on the street.

Respectfully, I don't think this is a remotely similar kind of issue nor a good analogy. TRL isn't a random person off the street - he's been involved in the TRRPG/Paizo scene as a respected streamer for years, this isn't a super technical and scientific issue with a bunch of vital facts that the average person couldn't know, etc. Both groups are only really working with publicly known facts and a well known sequence of events, both laid out those facts and events, both came to largely similar final conclusions, both aren't directly privy to the full details of the inner workings of Paizo or AON at this time. TRL claims he doesn't know of any way this could possibly save Paizo significant amounts of money/asks for Paizo to give clearer reasons, and Owen makes some educated guesses on how/why they thought this could save money but doesn't know for sure; both still think this was a terrible way to try to save money. Both are giving opinions on the ethics of how things went down and its impact on fans, and neither of the given rationales for those opinions involved or required any insider industry knowledge.

My claim wasn't that knowing the industry from the inside was worthless or meaningless, it was that neither seemed instrumental in coming to the conclusions Owen did and on these specific matters one is not more valid than the other solely because of their occupations. Because these weren't technical questions about the business - they were mostly moral judgements and 'was doing this in this way a good idea, and where does the most of the blame lie for this being a mess?'. And while TRL was very pro-AON, Owen was relatively neutral but seemed to lean more towards AON's side. Alex... well, I'll just say that's a good example of the limits of having insider industry information while seemingly not knowing anything about what fans have been thinking/up to over the past several months re:Paizo nor knowing much at all about the attitudes or feelings on AON's (very accessible on Discord, fwiw) team despite them making multiple public statements on just that.

Not sure why The Rules Lawyer is being held to task for not making his opinion video a majority "what does the law say" video when he never claimed nor indicated that that was what his opinion/news video would be and has basically never done a legal examination video save for during the OGL crisis. This isn't even his area of legal expertise - he does civil rights cases iirc.

Also not sure why a video from two people in the industry is held up as more valid than his just because they're in the industry when it's also mostly an opinion piece based on commonly known/available facts as well. I watched both videos in full and most of the details of Owen's great "here's what I can tell you of the industry" stuff was posted to the forum and absent from the video (though he has valuable insights in the video beyond that), and Alex was seemingly mainly there to give a largely uninformed rant about the secret motives of AON and the larger fan base that felt like it demonstrated he's never spoken to anyone from AON before and hasn't paid attention to what's been going on with the fan community in a long time.

To be clear, I think both/either videos are worth watching if you want detailed breakdowns of what happened and what the issues are - aside from the aforementioned caveat.

As an aside: Claiming an announcement that says "if you don't like this change as customers please email their customer service to let them know, but be polite" was a vengeful plot to 'sic' fans on Paizo to cause a riot when there would otherwise be none is dishonest at best.

I'm certainly not going to eat you alive for your opinion but... The PDF on Demiplane costs significantly more than the PDF on Paizo, so the 'free' PDF isn't saving you any money, it's just protecting you from being fully DRMed into their system as your sole means of accessing books you've paid for. Doubly so for the 'free' added copy of the PDF locked on Roll20 which the majority of people won't ever need to use. And the discount for rebuying a book you've already bought from Paizo is relatively tiny and costs add up real fast.

I don't think the staff on Demiplane are bad people, but I hate their business model and think the site is very poorly made. I mean I just went to the site to try to double check if it forbade you from using character options from books you didn't buy with them, but I can't even get the character builder to load for me at all.

If you did get Tandem actions, wouldn't you just be a better Summoner than the Summoner if you were already a strong Spellcaster like a Sorc? Even though the Archetype is lackluster, I'd rather that than what Oracle has to deal with where the best Oracle isn't a real Oracle because the Archetype can get access to its best strengths without any of its downsides.

But yeah, Meld into Eidolon is bad if you aren't a Summoner and mediocre if you are.

Demiplane is really bad and its platform-locked PDFs* are ludicrously overpriced compared to buying them direct from Paizo. I imagine it does as well as it does on the basis that most of the games it supports don't have anything like AON or Pathbuilder and players feel stuck with it regardless of how poorly designed and maintained it is.

We're lucky enough not to be, and hopefully we stay that way.

Don't really disagree. I'd suggest putting a shorter version of this in the Fall 2026 errata suggestion thread too.

Not gonna disagree on 2, but on 1... you do know that they sent multiple emails asking for clarifications and questions for weeks which were all ignored by Paizo right? You know they sent advance notice that they were going to make a statement after those weeks of ghosting that was also ignored too, correct? I think at this point it's clear that even if they sent a word for word copy of the statement 2 weeks ago there's a non-zero chance it'd have also been ignored because Jim et al were apparently too busy to care about AON's mail after giving them notice. And aside from AON, it seems that Paizo also didn't think the fans deserved a timely communication about any of this anytime soon either; they only put up a reply a day after AON forced their hand to make one and it's been weeks since they sent an email from lawyers to AON announcing the end of the contract.

I think it's really silly to call AON a bad partner given the entire everything about how this has been handled by Paizo. Paizo didn't even deign to answer questions about what they were allowed to do under CUP - they had to look it up themselves and still seem a little confused in that video.

I don’t disagree with anything you quoted though. That’s not some spooky out of control anger, that’s me being reasonably upset and disappointed with how they’ve handled this and why. And I still am. The negotiations, to the minor extent they even turned out to be real given they’re alleged to be one or two emails with vague offers, weren’t conducted in a fair or sincere manner and the situation everyone is in is still a direct result of Paizo rushing to pull the plug on volunteers out of nowhere.

This whole mess could have been avoided, to the extent they ever had to do it at all (which still isn’t clear), had Paizo communicated properly with anyone at AON before ending the contract and ghosting them. There’s no secret info we haven’t got that can possibly justify Paizo’s botched handling of whatever they’re trying to do here. All it can do is help explain it.

So I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove with that post. I’m not one of the ones calling for boycotts, nor did I in that post.

It’d be ironic if they only started pulling in significant money after Paizo dumped them. It’s almost like giving them a heads up and time to figure out a way to make royalties for them would have been a good idea…

https://www.patreon.com/nethys/posts/partnership-faq-163964893

AON just put out a video statement with clarifications and the like. It sounds like a complete clusterfuss of bad communication and decision making. Mostly from Paizo, but AON was given 6 months change the website as leeway, didn’t want to use any of it, and made it sound like they truly had 10 days to strip everything down for CUP in their initial announcement.

Giving them 6 months of leeway to comply is no excuse for weeks of ghosting questions and concerns after springing the end of the contract by the end of July without any prior indication this was coming or how it could be avoided though.

There’s since been a video statement made on AON’s Patreon going into more details, and yeah the negotiations sound like one or two emails of vague offers that AON wasn’t interested in like some of the art being grandfathered in. Followed by weeks of silence while AON kept asking for clarifications and the like.

Though it also said AON was given 6 months to change the site, so I can kinda see why Paizo wrongly thought there was no hurry to do or say anything.

Frankly, Paizo is incredibly lucky the AON crew are are magnanimous and fair as they are, cause they could easily just go "you don't think our free labour is making you enough money to give us the bare minimum our partnership requires? Cool, then AON is shutting down and you can see first hand just how vital we were to your game/business functioning well. Then you can scramble to host, hire people to build, and pay people to data input and maintain a PRD resource like ours. Maybe then you'll appreciate just how cost effective and priceless officially supporting us in full was for you".

I wouldn't really be able to blame them if they did tbh, catastrophic as it'd be for my group's ability to play the game as smoothly as we do. Which, yeah, that's exactly what I'm getting at.

The whole "we were still negotiating!" argument is not the defense Paizo seems to think it is given they're the ones who set the deadline to strip the site, they've not responded to AON for weeks by their account, and they need to start stripping the site to meet the deadline now. That's not a fair negotiation, that's letting the fire (that they set) claim most of the building before being willing to haggle for firefighting services.

I'm sure Paizo isn't lying when they say they still want to talk - but that isn't a good look in this context and feels super insincere from an outside perspective. To say nothing of the whole "this still doesn't appear to gain them anything but bad press even if they pull this off the way they want" of it all.

Lots of people saying "they just don't get pdfs before release day, nothing changes" and missing out on the massive ramifications of unpaid volunteers with busy lives going from months of lead time to coordinate data input suddenly having to start from 0 after the books are already out.

This is probably gonna lead to AON being months behind Demiplane at all times, which I increasingly suspect is part of the intent, and will have all sorts of knock-on effects for how people play the game online since hardly anyone is going to look up rules via Demiplane in the middle of a session (because it's awful and slow) in the meantime.

Gorgo Primus wrote:

ObligatoryHuman wrote:

I wonder if this is a sign of something to come for Pathbuilder.

Pathbuilder is already on the CUP that AON is being moved to. But if they’re this petty and shortsighted about AON and get away with this they might go after the CUP again like they did last time… my trust for Paizo is now at a real low.

Pathbuilder isn't on the Community Use Policy - it cannot be, as it is (partially) a paid product. That's why Pathbuilder doesn't have any Lost Omens-specific terminology - it has to rename a bunch of things. I'm pretty sure Pathbuilder is just using the ORC/OGL licenses to reference the rules free of any references to Paizo IP. AoN going to the CUP will still allow it to use Golarion lore, though there may need to be a rewording of some descriptions if they're currently taken directly from the book.

Oh, you’re right. I mixed them up.

I don't mean to dismiss anyone's reaction to all of this so I'm looking for some clarification on why this is such a major deal.

So far from what I've understood in AoN's statement is that all we would be losing is:

- some art

- the original Paizo PRD site (not sure if many even uses this)

- (near) street date access to new rules

Am I missing something here? It seems like everything else with AoN will be staying the same.

You’re not missing any bullet points, but you might be missing all the compounding ramifications of their unpaid volunteers with busy lives and sparse free time not even being able to start inputting data from new books until street date instead of having months of lead time. This is a huge blow.

Ravingdork wrote:

And what do you mean "like they did last time?" What happened?

Likely referring to this, where they replaced the Community Use Policy (CUP) with a more restrictive one: https://paizo.com/blog/new-and-revised-licenses

It got reinstated in the end. This reddit thread talks about it some with links to some discussions:
https://old.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/1ey8bgr/the_new_paizo_fan_content_pol icy_affects_more/

Yep, I was indeed referring to this. Thanks.

I wonder if this is a sign of something to come for Pathbuilder.

Pathbuilder is already on the CUP that AON is being moved to. But if they’re this petty and shortsighted about AON and get away with this they might go after the CUP again like they did last time… my trust for Paizo is now at a real low.

I'm just another poster here with zero power, but may I ask that you please stop 'subtly' shilling for AI in this thread? It's a massive derail based on vibes to get people to talk about the 'inevitable awesomeness' [massive citations needed] that is AI. AI pretty clearly has has nothing to do with AON or this move.

I can’t think of a single good reason for to do this that isn’t some misguided and mistaken belief that AoN somehow costs them sales (it does the opposite).

This decision feels openly hostile to their customer and fan base who rely on AON to get instant easy access to the rules with all the official images, terminology, names, etc without having to fumble around in their books or PDFs when running games online.

I think revoking the special Paizo Publishing License with AoN is a selfish shortsighted move that’s openly hostile to their own fan and customer base. AON having access to all the rules, with proper official terminology, names, and images is a huge part of what makes 2E so accessible and is a major selling point. It’s also the premier tool used to look up rules while running games online, rather than fumbling through all the physical books on my shelf.

I can’t think of a single reason to do this that isn’t some misguided and mistaken belief that AoN somehow costs them sales (it does the opposite).

Oh and on a related note - now that there is a common Eidolon in the game that by default gets Critical Resistance via the Ooze Eidolon, you really should errata (I know it'd be the 3rd time) the Resistance rules to explicitly explain how Critical Resistance works under the new Resistance rules. Does it work like a worse version of Resist All only it can only be used when a Crit happens, does it treat the doubled part of the damage of a Crit as it's own thing and apply to that before handling any other Resistances, etc? All the other permutations of Resistances are explicitly called out there (like Resist All), but not this one and as a GM I have no clear idea how you want it handled.

From what I've been told of Impossible Magic from people with the pdf:

The Demon Eidolon's Transcendence ability still has a redundant "you are unaffected by this decree" clause even though the Divine Decree spell now only affects enemies anyways. The clause does nothing and should probably be removed to prevent confusion.

Not sure if this is an oversight or intentional - if it's the latter nevermind this one - but Summoner's Energy Heart and Duel Energy Hearts still don't give Elemental traits to their Eidolon's attacks when you choose an Energy type for their attack damage. When you choose to make their primary attack do fire damage it should get the Fire trait, cold Cold, etc. This way their attacks can properly interact with abilities or spells that call those traits out if they go down the Magical Understudy route. They're all magical creatures doing magical unarmed attacks, so it seems to me the traits should apply.

In the Remaster Triangle Shot in PC2 had its Flourish trait replaced with the Fortune trait. Not only does the feat/ability not involve rerolling at all, but the change now allows it to stack with Flurry of Blows for a wild number of attacks per turn which doesn’t seem to have been the original intention.

Since the two traits are spelled so similarly, and the replacement trait seems so random, I’m gonna presume this is the result of a bizarre typo and request it be errated back to how it was.

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.