The Clockwork General

Var Sardos's page

57 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 57 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Cool, thanks!

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I wouldn't mind seeing the low level weapon innovation options get some tweaking. Some of the current options aren't bad, but there's a distinct lack of ranged-specific choices. Most of them are melee, and there's a couple that are agnostic with regard to weapon choice, but given that it's in the same book as the firearms, the lack of support for ranged weapons is very noticeable.

I'm probably going to be getting the PDF of the Player Core book instead of the hard copy, but I was curious to know....

If the book (and presumably the PDF) are updated due to errata, would I have to buy the PDF all over again, or would there be a "no, you bought it once, here's the link to the errata'd version" option?

Laclale♪ wrote:
Var Sardos wrote:
On a different note, are we ever going to get errata for Guns & Gears?
Otherworldly protection needs reward, and resistance to alignment damage could be replaced into spirit damage

I mean, yes, and also, how about that 2nd level Inventor feat (Reverse Engineer) that Inventors can't actually take at 2nd level.

On a different note, are we ever going to get errata for Guns & Gears?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think one of the big problems with the current Alchemist is the "Well, Quick Alchemy can make anything the Alchemist knows, and that's very powerful, so we have to weaken them to maintain balance!"

And uh.... okay, it's not very powerful. Or at least, not as powerful as Paizo contends. That is far and away an overstatement. Yes, if they have any reagents available AND they know the applicable formula (which isn't a given) they can solve a lot of niche or edge case problems.

And Paizo realized that, what with all of the "Okay, sure, Alchemists can use Medium armor. And uh, we're making this ability baseline, because holy crap, otherwise, everyone's just going to take that feat anyway because it's just that good, and.... and.... and...."

I mean, it is the most patched class.

So, yeah, I hope Paizo considers that the Alchemist (especially the Mutagenist which is my favorite) really needs a complete rewrite and a way for each of the subclasses to shine.

I would point out, however, that the Bell Implement is the only one of the three reaction Implements that has a saving throw.

That is, the Amulet Implement always lets you reduce the damage.

The Weapon Implement always lets you get the upscale attack of opportunity.

The Bell Implement.... puts a short duration debuff on the target if they fail their saving throw. So you have to have targeted them with Exploit Vulnerability, they have to use a Strike or Cast a Spell, and they have to be within 30 feet. And then they get a save.

So perhaps it was not included for balance reasons.

breithauptclan wrote:
Var Sardos wrote:
If there is a roll for a greater effect (I'm not aware of any healing that does that, but I don't know every spell and ability), both the Summoner and Eidolon would roll, and use the better of the two rolls.
There is an entire can o' worms to open if you have a regular living Summoner and their Undead Eidolon both caught in the same AoE Heal spell effect.

I had not considered that. Of course, in the game I'm currently running, the Summoner has a Dragon Eidolon, so it hasn't been a problem.

Exactly this.

If you have a Summoner who has 50 hit points, and they summon their Eidolon, that Eidolon has the same hit point pool. Not a separate pool of 50 hit points - they're shared. (This doesn't apply to anything else that the Summoner summons.)

If someone hits the Summoner or the Eidolon with an attack for 17 damage, the shared hit point pool is reduced to 33 hit points. If the Summoner or the Eidolon is healed for 12 hit points, the shared hit point pool is now 45 hit points.

If both the Summoner and the Eidolon are subjected to something that affects their shared hit point pool, they're only affected once, for the greater amount.

That is, if it's area of effect damage that requires a save, both the Summoner and the Eidolon make saving throw rolls, and take the worse effect for damage. For example, a Summoner and their Eidolon are in the area of effect of a Fireball spell. The Summoner makes their save, but the Eidolon fails. The shared hit point pool is reduced based on them having failed their save.

If it's area of effect healing that both the Summoner and the Eidolon are in, their shared hit point total is only increased once by the effects of the healing, not twice. If there is a roll for a greater effect (I'm not aware of any healing that does that, but I don't know every spell and ability), both the Summoner and Eidolon would roll, and use the better of the two rolls.

But if/when the Construct (or Undead) is reduced to 0 hit points, it is destroyed. Which...

Okay, I'm not sure how that would work with the Summoner Dedication. Is it time for retraining? If you're healed up from being unconscious/dying, can you summon it back?

Well, to be fair, before the APG came out, I don't believe that there was a way to have Infused Reagents from more than one source, as the only way to get them was 1) be an Alchemist, or 2) take the Alchemist dedication, which Alchemists can't take.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Uh.... the only point for an Alchemist to take that Gunslinger feat is to make ammunition more efficiently.

Per the APG (pg. 150, Alchemical Archetypes subsection) "If you gain Infused Reagents from more than one source, you use the highest number of reagents to determine your pool rather than adding them together." An Alchemist doesn't get extra Infused Reagents by dipping into that feat.

And your Advanced Alchemy level always depends on which ability you're using. If you're an Alchemist with that Munitions Crafter feat from dipping into Gunslinger, your Advanced Alchemy level for making ammo is 1, and for making anything through your Alchemist class is your level.

Alchemists who aren't bombers can already make bombs (not as efficiently as a Bomber Alch) with their Advanced Alchemy, without the need for the Gunslinger Archetype and Munitions Crafter Gunslinger feat, and they automatically get training in Crafting and Alchemical Crafting at 1st level from their class.

My point was that a keg, at 5000 doses, would require 500 Infused Reagents to create through Quick Alchemy, so no single Alchemist (or Gunslinger with Munitions Crafter) is creating this in one day, at the rate of 10 doses/Infused Reagent.

Sure, it's possible that some GMs would allow someone playing a 6th level or higher Alchemist to go "1 Infused Reagent = 1 keg of Black Powder", but I wouldn't base a character concept around that. Strictly speaking, per RAW, it's possible, but it's not something I'd bet money on a GM allowing to happen. (And some GMs could make it moot by saying that they're not using Guns & Gears, so this theoretical Alchemist couldn't learn the recipe for Black Powder to begin with.)

Also, per RAW, regular Crafting takes 4 days minimum (although you can spend more time on it), a keg of Black Powder is a level 6 item, and while it has the Consumable Trait, and thus you could create 4 kegs in the space of 4 days, that's, strictly speaking, not the same thing as "every day, here's another keg of Black Powder".

And given that at 6th level, a Wizard can cast 3 Fireballs a day, each of which also do 6d6 (and heighten for even more damage) and probably have a higher Reflex DC, no it's not horribly out of line.

Plus, the Munitions Crafter feat only gives a Gunslinger 1 infused Reagent per level, their Advanced Alchemy level is 1, and doesn't improve without taking another feat, and they can only make ammunition or bombs. It's actually quite limited.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Leveling up.

Your Spell DC is currently (maybe in Remastered as well, not sure):

10 + your training in your spell DC + your level (if you're at least trained in that DC) + your stat mod.

So, if you're a 1st level wizard with an 18 int, it's 17.

10 + 2 (trained) + 1 (level) + 4 (stat mod)

When you go to 2nd level, it's 18.

10 + 2 (trained) + 2 (level) + 4 (stat mod)

Given that, per Guns & Gears, one unit of Infused Reagents creates 10 rounds of black powder ammunition (Munitions Crafter, 1st level Gunslinger feat), an Alchemist who knows the recipe for Black Powder is not creating a keg a day, even at 20th level.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Perhaps I'm treading old ground here, but....

Given Paizo's involvement with organized play, it is simply not credible to believe that, over the entire time, that Paizo saw zero Alchemists being played, using Quick Alchemy to create Elixirs/Mutagens/Tools/Poisons, have their durations last more than the one turn, even if consumed, and not say something if that were the incorrect way to use them.

Especially given the amount of errata published concerning the Alchemist class that is already in existence.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I completely agree that the rules for Alchemists and Quick Alchemy could be much more clearly written. Frankly, I'm hoping that Alchemists get to where they needed to be the whole time when they're updated in the Remastered edition.

But my point is that, to the best of my knowledge, the interpretation of "things made with Quick Alchemy fade at the start of your next turn/end of your next turn (if you have the Enduring Alchemy feat) regardless of whether activated or not" is not an interpretation that anyone else seems to use.

And given that there's years of organized play with the P2E rules, if that were the case, that, for example, a Quick Alchemy made mutagen faded the round after it was created, even if consumed, someone would have brought it up before. Because then, literally, there is no point to Quick Alchemy other than to make things that are not intended to have a greater than one turn duration, like healing elixirs, or bombs, because they're intended to be used as quickly as possible.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Simply put, if Quick Alchemy elixir, and thus -ALL- mutagen durations expired the round after they were created, even if they had been consumed, then there is even less point in playing a Mutagenist then there already is.

If Quick Alchemy poisons expired the round after they were created, even if they had already been applied to a weapon, then there is literally no point in playing a Toxicologist.

Yes, Alchemists, as currently written, are not in a stellar position, even with the lengthy rewrites and errata applied to the class. (The possible exception being Chirurgeon and maybe Bomber.)

The fact of the matter is that anything made with alchemical reagents goes away the next time the Alchemist does daily preparations, whether it was made during daily prep, or somehow lasted through Quick Alchemy to that point.

Most GMs are probably going to run with the "you activated it by putting it on the weapon, consuming it, whatever, the normal duration applies", rather than going "haha, I'm going to screw you over even more."

Likewise, most GMs are going to go "those poisons you created through alchemical reagants or Quick Alchemy and then applied to the crossbow bolts that you didn't fire will expire when you do your daily prep."

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would assume Diabolic is the language of devils (or possibly a broader spectrum of fiends.)

Sakvroth is a secret sign language employed in the Darklands by creatures who wish to communicate without being overheard. (text taken directly from a wiki)

If they're only Uncommon or Common (at the very least, Sakvroth is probably not common), then you could pick them up through the Multilingual feat.

Okay, this spell has a 60 foot range, but is a 15 foot cone.

Cones have to start from one corner in the same square as the caster, or if they start from another creature or object one corner of their square.

But Vitrifying Blast doesn't state that it starts from another creature or object. Is that just assumed? Or is the AOE (cone) incorrect for this spell? Or is the range incorrect?

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, the first thing I'd do is put their casting modifier back on damaging cantrips. It's not like removing it is going to make Wizards less likely to have a +3 or +4 Int modifier, because it's still used for their casting DC. That's probably not going to happen, but I could still hope, you know?

Furthermore, at least in the Remaster preview, the idea of school curriculum, in my opinion, needs work. Wizards (well, non-universalists) are going from "your extra spell slot can contain any spell from this school for that spell level" to "here's a list of 1-3 spells that can go in there". Yes, it's more flavorful, but it's a rather extreme limitation. Plus, if Wizards are losing that much versatility for that extra slot, they honestly should get something for it.

Their defenses, over all, are terrible. Yes, I get it, squishy wizard. But the fact remains that they have one of the worst save progressions in the game, never get legendary in any save, and never get higher in unarmored defenses or perception than expert.

Yes, they get a number of skills at first level due to being an Int heavy class, but most of them never go past Trained. Okay, that's true for a fair number of classes, but would it really break things if they got free automatic improves to Arcana?

A fair number of the Wizard feats need to be looked at and revamped. Okay, most of the metamagic feats are fine as-is, but the Wizard really needs some feats that say "This is a good feat to take instead of a dedication." For example, most of the 4th level Wizard feats are just terrible.

I did say sleep near it, not sleep in it.

But this is literally a Gunslinger's dream armor.

Not to equip. Just to point at, as he's no longer the loudest person in combat.

So, the group that I GM for was looking at some of the magic items in Rage of Elements (do not even get me started on the melancholy earring), and we came across the Wisp Chain armor.

As seen here it's basically a magic chain shirt that can deafen anyone who stands next to it, and do an AOE burst of damage every round.

Here's the question - is there a way to turn the noise off? Because think about it.

"Here, have the world's noisiest chain shirt. It sounds like a massive storm all the time. Whether you're wearing it or not. Good luck trying to sleep near it, and oh, I'm sure wearing into any town won't be a problem at all."

So, I was looking through the Remaster Core Preview (here: Remaster Preview) and I was wondering....

Is the ability bonus to spell damage going away? Like, for example, Produce Flame (pre-Remaster) does 1d4 + spellcaster ability modifier in damage, and post-Remaster, it's renamed Ignition, and does 2d4, but with no spellcaster ability modifier. But I don't see spellcaster ability modifier mentioned in regards to damage on any spell. (Mind you, I have not compared every spell in that preview to their pre-Remaster version.)

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If, after new new Starfinder 2e comes out, they are separate canons according to Paizo (which the differing versions of Nocticula suggests), then technically, no god is safe from one of them being killed off in Pathfinder Remastered.

Also, I am having strong flashbacks to City of Heroes (before it officially closed) where they did "One will die" for a major hero in their canon. They killed two.... because they never said "Only one will die".

Now, that being said, killing multiple deities in a setting potentially sets up other problems....

As to my particular vile speculation..... (I'm going to leave out deities that I don't have an opinion on.)

Asmodeus could be on the chopping block simply to continue the move away from D&D similarities, but it's not like Asmodeus is specific to D&D, like, say Zariel is. (Note, I am not aware of Zariel appearing anywhere else.)

Caydean Cailean is probably too much of a fan favorite to be offed, but they could tie it into something like the power of the Starstone fading.

Gorum could have bit off more than he could chew, so he's a possibility.

Iomedae is probably safe, unless Paizo wants to do the continued kicking anything related to Aroden in the nuts, or they're doing something with the Starstone.

Irori is probably safe, because.... why? I mean, if you're going to kill a deity in the PF2e setting, there's more interesting choices.

Norgorber.... honestly, if they kill him, the rest of the gods would probably think it's some kind of twisted trick/plan of his.

Pharasma is a little too important to the cosmology of the setting to just kill.

Rovagug is probably safe. If, canonically, a coalition of good and evil gods could only imprison him, not kill him, then it's unlikely that {insert plot device} is going to kill him.

Okay, just my two cents here: As a GM, I wouldn't allow the message thing to work, because it calls back the dagger, not anything attached to it.

I would probably allow the "sell the dagger and reclaim it later" bit, but the whole point of the thrower's bandolier is literally that you don't need to rune up individual daggers, so unless you need pocket change, you do have to "sync" it to a dagger worth some cash (that is, individually runed/enchanted), which is your point.

But the thrower's bandolier is a common item. Your PC isn't going to have been the first person to think of something like this, so any merchant or other NPC buying magical daggers is probably going to be aware of that sort of gambit.

The lynchpins in a bridge/scaffolding however is neat, and that does seem like an impressive impromptu use of it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I had a thought about something that could be added to Mutagenist Alchemists.

So, as we are all aware, the drawbacks on Mutagens, to put it mildly, suck. It's like "Hey, what if they could Rage, but we make it much worse?" (Okay, that's sort of just Bestial Mutagen.)

So, give them (that is Mutagenist Alchemists) this ability.

Suppress Drawback - one action, concentrate

Temporarily suppress the drawback of your active mutagen. This lasts until the start of your next turn. You can do this a number of times per day equal to your Intelligence modifier (minimum 1).

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't see them getting legendary in any sort of weapons, simply because bombs (well, of sufficient level) give item bonuses to hit. I wouldn't mind bombers getting Master proficiency in bombs, though.

But yeah, something like "Bombers get Quick Bomber as a bonus 1st level feat", and maybe something like it for Mutagenists and mutagens. (Collar of the Shifting Spider helps, but no class should be dependent on "must have this specific item" to be effective.)

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, Enduring Alchemy should be baseline, rather than a feat.

However, I'd say the biggest problem is that their Key Ability Score (Intelligence) ends up not helping most of their build options, especially when it comes to combat.

If you're throwing bombs (regardless of research field), you need Dexterity, and the same if making ranged attacks. If you're doing melee attacks you need Strength (or Dexterity). Sure, if you're using poisons, it helps increase the DC (once you're fifth level), but for most poisons, you still need to hit, and we're back to Strength or Dexterity.

Combined with their generally poor weapon proficiencies, it ends up being really frustrating.

As a correction for that, give them something like the Investigator's ability to substitute Intelligence for Strength or Dexterity once a round for a strike.

Here's a thought..... what if Alchemists got some abilities that used Focus points? (Without cross-classing, that is.)

In the unlikely event that I ever get to play in my local gaming group (I'm currently GM'ing), one of the character concepts I had was a Summoner who, as much as possible, used "Merge With Eidolon", mostly for RP reasons.

So, I was looking at various types of Eidolon, and plant eidolons struck me as interesting. (Not going to lie, so did construct eidolons), but.... do they need to breathe?

Like, if the party was trapped in a room with a limited supply of breathable air, would using Merge with Eidolon extend the duration for the rest of the party? (I'm not looking for "I'm immune to Cloudkill because plant" levels of cheese.)

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I want mutagens to lose the penalty to saves.

That won't happen, but that's what I want.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

*crosses fingers for Guns & Gears errata*

Oh, believe me, I know.

I'm currently running a game with a Fighter, a Magus, a Summoner, and a Sorcerer. If I was to throw an anti-magic zone at them (they're nowhere near Alkenstar) only the Fighter wouldn't be nerfed into the ground.

Well, Fighters would still be able to fight quite well, just not do as much damage due to lack of runes and such, Barbarians could still Rage, Rangers could still Hunt Prey, Rogues' Sneak Attack wouldn't turn off....

Of course, all Alchemy still works.

Hrm.... would a Thaumaturge's abilities still work? I mean, obviously, their implements wouldn't, as they have the Magical trait, but they could still do Exploit Weakness and Implement's Empowerment.

So, yeah, spell-casters take it in the shorts, but a lot of other classes can still do things.

Bigdaddyjug wrote:
Var Sardos wrote:
technically, there is no "Dwarven Lore" feat by that specific name.
There's not?


I was looking here.

Super Zero wrote:
So it's definitely not correct for everybody to get a better benefit for free, then.


I mean, okay, I played a cleric in Mummy's Mask (which our GM updated to 2nd edition), and before I hit 6th level, there was at least one fight where the cone of healing healed at least one enemy, but it was still worth it because it covered a couple allies. Once I hit 6th, that was no longer an issue.

I mean, does it say, for the simplified ancestry, that they get trained in that Lore skill, or is it treated like Additional Lore - (race) Lore? I realize it says "gain the appropriate Lore feat", but technically, there is no "Dwarven Lore" feat by that specific name. It's a subcategory of the Lore skill, sure.

Or you could just say that human characters get (Nation/Country) Lore for wherever they grew up.

Also, keep in mind, Personal Antithesis is really the only option available when you use Exploit Vulnerability on a creature that either doesn't have a weakness, or it's weakness is something that doesn't normally add damage.

Okay, all spells list how many actions it takes to cast them. (Some spells are cast as reactions or free actions, but those, by the nature of being a reaction or free action, don't interfere with normal movement.)

All characters, by default, have 3 actions each turn to move, cast spells, attack, interact with objects, whatever.

So, if a character has a speed of 25 feet, they could use all three actions on their turn to move up 75 feet (25 * 3), or they could use two actions to move 50 feet and cast a 1-action spell, or they could move 25 feet and use a 2-action spell, or not move at all and cast a 3-action spell.

Super Zero wrote:

My position here is pretty simple. It was obviously meant to work that way, since that's the whole point of Negative Healing. Therefore, no matter how "technically right by RAW" it might seem, any reading that it doesn't work that way is obviously wrong and can be disregarded.

So what? We're not computer programs. We know what it means.

breithauptclan wrote:
You could still rule that you choose per target which it does.
Okay, now that's a massive power boost to the spell. Suddenly totally safe to use in mixed crowds--in both senses, as it can never accidentally harm allies or accidentally heal enemies, which is the main reason to be careful with it.

There is a cleric feat (Selective Energy - 6th level) that lets you exclude a number of targets equal to your Charisma modifier from an AOE Heal/Harm.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Red Griffyn wrote:
Sanityfaerie wrote:
Blasting Beams are more spell-like than anything. They're even on a weird form of an n-per-day limit. Good catch on the automaton, though. That's the easiest d6 ranged unarmed yet.
There isn't any n-per-day limit unless I missed it. Its unique that it uses your attack role (not class DC or spell casting DC), is one action, and scales better than typical ranged weapons. Now you have to roll a DC5 flat check per use and can have scaling self damage to yourself, which is why I'd strap it to a front liner that needs a ranged back-up.

Actually, for the Deviant abilities, it's sort of like the Oracle's focus spells, in that there's backlashes. Now those backlashes will eventually prevent you from using the power in a given day.

The first time in a day that you use it, make a DC 5 flat check. If you you succeed, you use the ability and the DC flat check goes up by 5 (to a maximum of 20). If you fail, you use the ability, and then you suffer a backlash, and the DC resets to 5.

The first time you suffer a backlash in a given day (that is, fail the flat check), you take the mild backlash. The second time in a day that you fail, you take the moderate backlash, and the third time in a day that you fail, you take the severe backlash.

Once you've taken the severe backlash in a given day, you can't use the deviant ability again until you do your daily preparations.

So, realistically, you're probably only getting between 5-8 uses a day, tops.

FanaticRat wrote:

As the title says, I'm a bit unclear on a few of the gunslinger feats:

1. For the Munition Crafter feat, it says you gain an additional 4 formulas on top of the ones granted by Alchemical Crafting. Are these formulas limited to common formulas like the ones gained by Alchemical Crafting?

2. Can Sword and Pistol be used with unarmed attacks, or only those with melee weapons? I've seen it both ways and I don't know which one is correct.

3. Do the Alchemical Shot and Shattering Shot feats apply a bomb's secondary or non-damaging effect, or only damage? For example, if I tried to alchemical shot with a tanglefoot bag would it apply the speed penalty to the target or would it do nothing?

4. Does using Black Powder Boost require an action in addition to Leap, High Jump, or Long Jump, or is it considered part of said actions?

1) I would assume that they have to be common, as uncommon and rare formulas require access to learn. (Obviously, if you have access to uncommon ones when you take the feat, sure, you can learn those.)

2) It specifically requires a one-handed melee weapons, and unarmed attacks do not count as weapons.

3) Alchemical shot converts the damage to the damage type of the bomb, and adds an extra 1d6 to the damage. It does not explicitly add any special effects. Shattering Shot says it deals the bomb's normal damage, but does not deal splash or persistent damage, so by RAW, it doesn't look like it would do the special effects either.

4) The Leap is part of it.

Yeah, and I was specifically looking at Weapon Implement options for ranged.

Still, the hand crossbow and certain firearms at least feel thematic for a Thaumaturge. And considering the amount of damage that a Thaumaturge can add to an attack, even at first level, the damage die isn't as important. It's just that "must be within 10 feet for a ranged weapon" for the reaction on Weapon Implement hurts.

Edit: After refreshing my memory on Attacks of Opportunity (which is the closest thing to what the Weapon Implement reaction is), it actually isn't that bad, as normal AoO can't be done with a ranged attack.

graystone wrote:
Var Sardos wrote:

Uncommon adds in mostly firearms, the dart umbrella, the thunder sling, and the repeating hand crossbow (but it's Advanced, so it's effectively not an option).

The Drow Shootist archetype or the Human Ancestry feat Unconventional Weaponry can get you repeating hand crossbow proficiency. Mostly, I used an Air Repeater [the regions of Alkenstar, Dongun Hold, Tian Xia, Vudra, Arcadia, Ustalav, the Shackles gives access].

I was unaware of that Archetype. Skipping out on two class feats _might_ be an effective trade-off for the Repeating Hand Crossbow utility.

Still, all in all, it seems like sans access to that and/or firearms, ranged Weapon Implement Thaumaturges are.... contraindicated.

The Raven Black wrote:

They cannot be weapon implements.

They could be another type of implement though.


That makes ranged weapon implement Thaumaturges heavily restricted, then, even more so than they already are, as the reaction can only be used within 10 feet if you're using a ranged weapon.

And I would assume thrown weapons are right out, because the implement only has power when you're holding it, so....

Common 1-handed ranged weapons (not thrown)

Hand crossbow

Uncommon adds in mostly firearms, the dart umbrella, the thunder sling, and the repeating hand crossbow (but it's Advanced, so it's effectively not an option).

Okay, I've been looking over the Dark Archive book, specifically the Thaumaturge, and for the Weapon Implement, it says it must be a one-handed weapon.

Well and good for melee Thaumaturges, as there are plenty of one-handed melee weapons.

But if you're going ranged.... the hand crossbow is definitely allowed, while the normal and heavy crossbows aren't.

But are bows? They all have a handedness of 1+.

Michael Sayre wrote:

Typically, books have to wait for a reprint cycle before errata goes up. Dark Archive kind of bucked the cycle because there were some game-balance issues that were found after the book was sent to the printer but before it was shipped out, so it had an early errata drop to address those since the errata update could be easily appended to the normal release tasks.

Guns & Gears is also looking at a longer window because it sold out so fast that we had to do an emergency print order for additional copies at like 5pm on a Friday when there just wasn't time to do an errata pass, so under the current schedule its errata timeline is more like what you'd expect from a third printing than a second.

Since the errata drops require coordination from at least 5 different departments it's tricky to move timelines unless you happen to get lucky and can add them to tasks that are already underway like what happened with Dark Archive. I'm hoping the company will get a new errata process in place in the not-too-distant future that will give us more flexibility in rolling these out, but that's a process flow decision that we don't really have much control over at the production level for main line rulebooks.

I did not realize there was that much involved in it. I mean, I had some idea, but I was still falling way short. Thank you for the update.

Not to sound too pedantic about it, but is there any insight as to when the Errata page is going to be updated with any errata for the Guns & Gears sourcebook?

I mean, it seems a little odd that the Dark Archive sourcebook already has errata up and it's been out less than a month, and Guns & Gears is closing in on having been out for a year.

1 to 50 of 57 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>