| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Suggestions for next Errata: Review the suggestions from thread https://paizo.com/threads/rzs5n02x?Spring-Errata-2025-suggestions.
Search Posts
GM Core, p. 226, Fortification Rune: Legacy Text. I see what you mean. The text and my correction with the chain of back-and-forth plus/minus (increase ... to reduce ... penalty ... +1) has been unfortunate. They should and probably will find a better wording than either legacy text as well as my attempt to correct it. Rejoinder / to my excuse (or for my inner know-all): I'd like to note:
- I think that the rune makes the armor heavier and requires the wearer to have higher strength than normal to negate the usual armor penalties. (However, if there is any debate about this, it's actually a good thing that we brought it to the rule developers' attention and hereby asked them to make it unambiguously clear.) - Armor statistics, p. 271 f., generally use attribute modifiers since remaster. - Base armor tables, p. 273, state the strength [modifier] with the plus sign. (I wanted to adhere to that style.) As said, I find the wording, which effectively constitutes double or triple negation, to be unfortunate and against intuitive brain logic. Apart from that, I should now heed my own advise and cease further discussion about errata suggestions. Your intervention was still valuable for me though.
Treasure Vault, p. 45, Skunk Bomb: Potential License and Balancing Concerns. (Though I fear that this mention comes either too late or will already be addressed in upcoming remastered Treasure Vault ... ) 1. Skunk Bomb description refers to Hezrous, which might not longer be desired since Hezrous (to my knowledge) originate from OGL 2. Skunk Bombs effect, e.g. it's effect in the Splash -- effectively Sickened on fail (or Sickened plus Slowed on Critical Fail) in whole Splash Area, even stronger effect for primary target -- appears exceptionally strong in comparison to other bombs. Request review and reconsideration.
GM Core, p. 226, Fortification Rune: Legacy Text. This property thickens the armor, increasing its Bulk by 1 and the Strength required to reduce its penalties by 2. .(italics mine) The latter phrase is still the exact legacy text of CRB. It apparently refers to old attribute (f.k.a. ability) scores, but can easily be mistaken for attribute modifiers. Suggested correction:
This property thickens the armor, increasing its Bulk by 1 and the Strength modifier required to reduce its penalties by +1.
Player Core p. 456, Trait Extradimensional says An extradimensional effect placed inside another extradimensional space ceases to function until it is removed. I understand why extradimensional containers (e.g. the omnipresent Spacious Pouches) inside extradimensional containers are undesirable in terms of balance and risk of absurd item compression effects (e.g. the fantasy analogon of zip-bomb-attacks). However, is it really intended that extradimensional containers cease to function when carried into an extradimensional structure (e.g. a Gourd Home) or a spell-created, structure-like place, e.g. a Planar Palace or teleported to a Quandary?
Source: GM Core, p. 227, Rune "Winged"
Detail:
Activate—Take to the Skies [two-actions] (concentrate, manipulate); Frequency once per hour; Effect You trace the rune on the front of the breastplate, (italics mine.) I don't know, where that "breastplate" came from, suddenly. Correction suggestion: Replace "breastplate" by something more general like "etched armor".
Meta-Question: Assuming that some of the issues mentioned in the thread at hand won't make it into actual Spring Errata 2025 - how do you want us to deal with those? My thoughts:
What could really help for this: Some sort of structured way to submit, classify and track errata/clarification request input, similar to issue tracking tools (cp. public bugtracking sites) in software engineering. I know this has been proposed by community members in some other thread. I endorse the idea and ask Paizo to consider such options, for their own benefit while simultaneously improving the community interaction incl. community-based product improvement.
I beg your pardon for recycling older, not yet addressed errata request posts, which I consider still valid. * Player Core 1, page 230 (bottom), General Skill Action "Learn a Spell (Trained)", whose description IMHO has a bad example (bard) and one instance of bad grammar:
* Player Core 1, page 252, Feat "Armor Proficiency", whose description does not honor that it can be multiple proficiencies that scale at Level 13:
* GM Core, page 225: Remainder of CRB's legacy crafting rules ("have the formula") / Inconsistency GMC vs. PC 1: See https://paizo.com/threads/rzs43wcu&page=3?Pathfinder-Remaster-Errata-Su bmission#138
Source: Player Core 2, p. 264
(hyperlink and italics mine) Correction: Remove word "ability".
Speaking of which ... Source: Player Core 2, p. 21
Correction: Replace spellcasting ability by spellcasting attribute.
Source: Player Core 1, page 274
In Detail: Section Shield Description for Buckler is clear regarding the buckler's main mechanical advantage, unconditionally: "You can Raise a Shield with your buckler as long as you have that hand free or are holding a light object that's not a weapon in that hand." However, a paragraph at the top of the same page
See the following quote:
Raise a Shield is the action most commonly used with shields. All shields [...] must be [...] held in one hand, so you can't hold anything with that hand and Raise a Shield, and you lose the shield's benefits if that hand is no longer free. A buckler, however, doesn't take up your hand, so you can Raise a Shield with a buckler if the hand is free [sic!] (or, at the GM's discretion, if it's holding a simple, lightweight object that's not a weapon). Italics mine - and I don't understand it. (1) The part with "at the GM's discretion" is a condition that does not match the Buckler description and could rob the buckler of it's main feature, if GM doesn't like it.(2) And specifically mentioning being able to Raise a shield with a free hand is confusing to me - as this is exactly how every other shield would work anyway, isn't it?: Grabbing a shield/buckler with a free hand to raise it - thereby occupying the hand with the shield/buckler - that's not what makes a buckler special. The speciality would be raising a shield with a hand that is not free because it already holds mentioned light object. Or am I now lost in English language? Anyway, the following change would clear up both issues, completely, IMHO: Raise a Shield is the action most commonly used with shields. All shields [...] must be [...] held in one hand, so you can't hold anything with that hand and Raise a Shield, and you lose the shield's benefits if that hand is no longer free. A buckler, however, doesn't take up your hand, so you can Raise a Shield with a buckler if
Lost Omens: Divine Mysteries, p. 273, Battle Creed (1 st) - Wrong word (Feat name) The last sentence of Battle Creed's description currently reads: "You must select Battle Herald Dedication as your 2nd-level class feat." (italics mine) Correction: Replace "Herald" with "Harbinger".
Player Core 1, p. 339, Spell "Invisibility", Description: Description's second sentence is potentially more confusing than helpful. In case of the caster being observed while casting Invisibility, the phrase "This makes it [Invisibility Target], undetected to all creatures" directly contradicts the definition of Invisible (Player Core 1, p. 444) and probably the Stealth (esp. Sneak) rules (Player Core 1, p. 245) as well. Suggested Correction 1:
OR
Follow-Up Request on Class Archetype Dedications feats like Flexible Spellcaster Dedication, Avenger Dedication, Bloodrager Dedication, ... (see links in previous post). I'd be grateful, if you could please confirm that these can be taken in extra feat slots from Free Archetype rule variant (s. GM Core, p. 84). I personally see no objection against, but I've noticed that prominent 3rd party tool developers apparently interpreted it differently. I guess a considerable number of players let themselves guide very strongly by the constraints of such tools, so deviating implementations fuels rule confusion. Naturally, this is not Paizo's fault, yet a short comment on this might help to get a harmonized understanding more quickly.
I'd like a clarification / errata where necessary, regarding how certain Class Archetype Dedication feats interact with the clause "you can’t select a different dedication feat until you complete your dedication by taking two other feats from your current archetype" that was outsourced from specific (actually almost all) legacy dedication feats to the general paragraph in remaster, i.e. Player Core 1, p. 215, section "Dedication Details". Is this really intended for Class Archetype Dedications (and all of them) as well? Specific (not necessarily exhaustive) examples why I am asking:
- I have similar reservations regarding War of Immortals's Class Archetypes, e.g. the Avenger (WoI, p. 58), the Bloodrager (WoI, p.60), the Vindicator (WoI, p. 64), etc.
A balance skewed toward 'We need heroes' -- I like that.
Meta request regarding the thread at hand: I really value all of your input. In the same way let us value OP magnuskn's opening of his thread. Let us focus on our actual errata/clarification requests to rule developers in this thread. Let us outsource any discussions, exchange over details, back and forth, contradiction (unless absolutely necessary to grasp the original request / correct a factually wrong input), etc. to dedicated sibling threads. Put the respective links here, put detail discussion there. The cleaner this thread, the more useful it can be for rule developers (who still will make their own, informed and authoritative judgment anyway), and the higher the chance, a particular matter gets their attention at all. I understand that there is a plethora of subjects for a discussion. Let us give everything its appropriate space.
Player Core 2, there is some "disharmony" between Alchemist (main-class) and Alchemist Multiclass Archetype rules. While they are technically correct (not obviously erroneous or incomplete), they nonetheless appear to me somewhat inconsistent. As if rules from different development stages and/or different developers were put together while still needing a final balancing pass. In detail: Nr 1:
(There have been speculation that this feat was put into place when multiclass quick alchemy had allowed to regain versatile vials like main-class quick alchemy still can. That would have made the versatile vial way more useful. Then Quick Alchemy for multiclass was degraded, but the effect on "voluminous vials"-feat not reevaluated. I can understand these speculations.) Nr 2:
Nr 3:
Lost Omens: Ancestry Guide - Remaster Compatibility: All "[Ancestry] Lore"-like-feats should be harmonized with the way core feats are styled after remaster. See Lost Omens Clarification Thread, comment 346 for a list with page numbers. Apart from that I guess that thread has more unresolved (Lost Omens) issues that might be worth review.
Speaking of Calistrian domains, is it actually intended that the "Retributive Pain" (s. Player Core 1, p. 378) and "Sudden Shift" (s. Player Core 1, p. 379) reaction spells have the Manipulate trait and thus provoke reactions on their part? (I'm aware the issue existed in Legacy as well.) Casting them may actually make matters worse and defeat the original purpose of the reactions. (Besides being awkward, if our great avenger attempts to react to an enemies attack and calls in even more damage to self...) Compare Blood Vendetta for a more practical and forgiving implementation of a revenge reaction.
Player Core 1, page 378, Spell "Charming Touch": Should this get the Subtle Trait? I'm asking this especially in comparison to how "Charm" was remastered. Legacy Charm was a somatic and verbal spell, that became Subtle in remaster. (Useful!) Charming Touch, that was only somatic, but not verbal in Legacy -- and was thus less conspicuous than Legacy Charm -- is now the noisy and conspicious cast. Seems like an oversight and currently somewhat imbalanced to me. (Especially when keeping in mind that Charming Touch has only 1/6 up to 1/144 the duration of Charm, which I don't want to criticize as the former is a focus spell.)
It is not explicitly mentioned whether familiars are sapient (or not? or just under certain conditions?). Was this intentional? Pondering: (For instance because it was actually intended that tables clarify before playing? Or because the answer was originally considered self-evident?? Anyway, a small clarifying remark could enlighten many familiar-lovers, witches, wizards, etc. and affected tables in general a lot.)
GM Core, page 49, Section "Buying and Selling Items", paragraph "Magical markets are rare or nonexistent" needs better adjustment to remastered crafting rules. It should reflect the relaxed need for formulas. Specifically the following sentence should be corrected:
In remaster Formulas are usually no longer the limiting factor (for common items); downtime still is. Hence, suggestion 1 for possible correction:
Suggestion 2 might also mention uncommon items -- e.g.
The latter might require too much space. Anyway, you'll know, what fits best.
Can vouch that Asmodeus is safe. No fake out. A contract made you tell that. ;-)
Organizational question: Have you planned a time slot of answering live questions from the audience?
Having seen the rough outline for stuff I think people will be very excited for what we are unveiling. From the Office of Expectation Management, its certainly a tease/hype stream [...] Regarding tease and hype - any tease about a PF2e remaster version of WotR?
I want to second (or third) the interest in learning about behind-the-scenes considerations for which god was picked (and for those who weren't!)--even if it's not an appropriate time to reveal that now, then whenever that time comes. That, and any other pertinent general behind-the-scenes thoughts about the set up of this whole event, its fallout, and if relevant, the Exemplar class. I concur. [...] What are you excited for? As with all behind-the-scenes comment, I'd be really interested if people from the team would share a bit of the development process. In this case, from the initial 2022 thoughts of divine death, up to making of War of Immortals. Parts of the when, why, how, that allows to understand the history and context, especially regarding earthly aspects. Would be highly appreciated, because most of that can seriously come only come from people actually involved. Sure, the community will most probably fill in any gaps, anyway. (And regarding in-world details, that can actually be fun, IMHO.) I'd just worry, what happened if everything was relinquished to forum speculations. If it doesn't fit into April 16th stream, I'd happily hear about at another occasion and/or read here in the forum, too.
Why would Lamashtu writing the prophecies correspond with her being the one to actually die? Note that I do believe that there are multifarious "lamashtan" clues, but I did not explicitly state that it must be her who will die, yet. I'm currently considering, indeed. Weighing this and that, thinking aloud.
...okay yeah that is indeed a good argument. Can't decide what that would MEAN though. Maybe it's a teasers that her ultimate brood is ready. And (Fate's Chain Theory) that actions to prevent it - e.g. by slaying her - will only hasten its birth. While simultaneously "those who lie down in front of the hooves [...] deserve to be trampled"? Believing to trace something (plus biological biases) can be a terrible thing... After warming up above finding I now start reading hidden meanings into single words like "deliver" ...
Addition: The "Divine Name Count", a.k.a. "Lamashtu Zero" ;-), could even get Yvali's "mulling over [...] the naming of the Godsrain" and her "Defenestration remark" -- i.e. "asked me to limit the word to once per page at most" -- some unexpected turn and hidden subtext. Admittedly, this may be far-fetched. But aren't prophecies usually? ;-)
Lamashtu is the mother of monsters and several have been mentioned in the prophecies. So maybe she will not be the one dying, nor the one killing, but maybe a strong participant in the War. I hope that I'm not obtrusive if I second your remark concerning Lamashtu. There is Monsters and much more, IMHO ... (Compare my recent message in LO-Subforum: https://paizo.com/threads/rzs44znp?Deciphering-the-Godsrain-Prophecies#14)
While my original theory (Deeplink) is not refuted yet, I'd like to highlight something different, now. (For the records, I'm pretty sure others community members have mentioned it much earlier.) If I connect the (explicitly stated) Lamashtu info from G&M and PC1 - especially Areas of Concern and Edicts - to the "Godsrain Prophecies", I find a lot of connections. "reveal the corruption and flaws in all things"
Then multiple occurrences of divine aberrance, weird monsters lurking and/or killing gods, plus framing comments about divine fear and nightmares (IIRC) - that's literally Lamashtu's Areas of Concern. (Update and Cross-Check: I see this degree of congruence for none of the other core 20. Norgorber might come out as second, but I'd miss some more "greed, murder, poison", here.) If one follows this idea, one might even say that the whole "Godsrain Prophecies" is deeply saturated with Lamashtu motives. Is this intended to "indoctrinate others in Lamashtu’s teachings"? Plus: The name of Lamashtu - in contrast to other core 20 - never appears. This all feels suspicious. Do you see what I mean? Or am I just caught by confirmation bias and/or another monstrous red herring? If you find this to be relevant evidence - what do we make of it?
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Besides, there are many which I agree with. (BTW: Thanks to all of you friendly speculators and guessers. Having fun to read and learning lots of nerd-knowledge.) BTW: Something that makes interpreting the "Godsrein Prophecies" even harder is Yivali's latest "dismiss (or at least deemphasize)". So effectively, by altering the way to read the stories from week to week, the hype-engine turned higher - even when the mathematical options narrowed down a little bit. I am still wondering whether Rovagug was just too useful alive as the big, world-devastating nuclear threat that looms over (or inside) creation. Changing this could be truly gigantic and change the course of an arbitrarily big amount of cosmic stories. Would that be fitting for these products - or be a bit too big? On the other hand, it might somehow be "mitigated" and fine-tuned. For instance by splitting Rovagug into multiple entities, similar to existing spawn. These might even have divine potential on their own and be more practical than the extremely overpowered worldbreaker as a whole. Plus, the dark tapestry and their powers, which I suspect to be the main source of evil anyway, might add all sorts of new world ending threats into the future mix. Points that still give me pause for thought are investigating further, suspected clues in the story and some meta-gaming considerations (like the old alignment grid, player options etc.). Actually the latter might make a killed Rovagug more likely. Though regarding story elements, perceived clues, etc. I still tend to a Gorum- or Goszreh-Rain. (Then again, Yvalis "name-dropping cue" could be a big, fat Red Herring. ;-) Or totally be revised by new Yrali-findings that "Rova-Gug" had new meanings in some pre Azlant-language. Stuff like "Divine Rein - Shaking World" or the like ;-)) (NOTE: To not mislead anyone willingly myself: That last (language) bit is utterly made up by me and not based on any actual clue I read in the "Godsrain Prophcies.")
I forgot to add: A Gorum-Rain could also be a "fitting starter" for a War of Immortals... (Maybe even a better one than a dose of Father Skinsaw.) In my initial guess I just thought that Gorum was already nihilistic and dark enough for the "Dark Tapestry" to live on. But we'll see... (Unfortunately I still can't say that my mercurial Lady (see some further posts above) is safe. But I'll mourn her in the fullness of time.)
My completely personal thesis as of now. (Maybe not overly smart to do it one day before the next "prophecy". But I am ready to be proven wrong and have the prophecy and anyone correct my daring guess. For today I try to make it rather short [Update: I failed]. If there is interest (and more time) I could try to explain more details of why I came to my conclusions.) Big bad opposite side of the war:
One common theme of the "Godsrain Prophecies" is their uncomfortable and disturbing loss of meaning, purpose, or any higher truth. Instead, what we (or the inner gods) held dear - whatever it is (whether Asmodeus Order, Cayden's Legend of the Drunken Brave, Urgathoa's hunger, ...) becomes bland, corrupted, disfigured, unmade - sometimes even their death not overly important. Godsrain Author:
The Killer(s):
Yet, If I had to put my money on someone specific and a particular complication here, I'd say: A corrupted Achaekek. With GMS allowing a chance to prevent greater harm, wanting her brother to be saved, but not be killed. Further Survivors:
The (first?) Divine Victim:
Today my first guess would be: The first strike goes against Gozreh - to cause global disruption and diminish divine control of nature. If I had to make a counter-intuitive bet, it would be Norgorber, particularly Father Skinsaw. Resulting in loss of divine control over "Murder". (Could even allow that other aspects somehow keep existing.)
PS:
They say that prophecy was a sword without hilt. ;-) How could I impartially convey it, without getting bloody hands?
3.) Apart from the departing core deity and newly entering Arazni, is leaving the core 20 while staying alive an option? (Be warned: A single "yes" could bring the speculations already distributed over 7+ weeks and 1000+ messages to an even more extreme level. I'm not sure if it was good if a certain someone was dancing even more... ;-) Maybe also a frightening perspective...)
Questions to the blogging insiders: 1.)
Or are they meant also to include further hidden hints, maybe a pattern that would allow to somehow correctly conclude the death in a logical manner? (Besides just the fact that they marked some divinities safe, directly, already.) 2.)
In this context I'd like to honor Igor Grechanyi's spectacular illustration -- s. https://cdn.paizo.com/image/content/Blog/10220_rovagug.jpg -- that obviously deals with some phase of the fight against Rovagug. (Detail: I remember them saying, that the "rocks" on the ground were actually mountains...) It might give some hint, how closely our Savored Sting flirted with the Worldbreaker. Or it might not. I can't say how accurately, how "Canon", this is meant to be. Or whether there is an in-Universe-equivalent to Igors illustration. And - if you ask me - it doesn't have to be. Artistic freedom is a wonderful thing. On Earth and Golarion as well. Anyway, no matter how toe-to-toe or cheek by jowl -- in my world, I am convinced that the Rough Beast was quite affected by the Unquenchable Fire when Creation came to its cataclysmic conclusion. To round this up, I might add: Above illustration gives me some fiery vibe for what waits just beyond the horizon, too. Allow me to add: May the Fire still burn after the next War of Immortals! (PS: Though I still see eerie indicators that keep me dread My Lady's demise. May I be wrong. At least her ally for ages seems safe, for now. Though some terrible madness seems to stay behind the stars, still. Sipping slowly. Dripping in through dreams I can't shake off. War awaits. And I don't know what to do. Besides clinging to pictures of past glory. And gore.)
Base cleanse affliction reduces the stage of an affliction, but cannot reduce it below 1 (so cannot remove it entirely), and does not attempt to counteract afflictions. Higher rank cleanse afflictions attempt to counteract afflictions in addition to reducing the stage. Ah, I now understand my mistake. When I read the sentence... Although the reduction can’t occur again, heightened versions of this spell attempt to counteract with each casting. ... my brain seemed to have put the emphasis on the final phrase "with each casting". I assumed the "with each casting" was the one and decisive difference to the function of the base version described before. (Complementary to this overemphasized "with each casting", the "counteract" part went in the background, mentally.) This is why I had thought that all versions of the spells worked by counteracting and got confused about the seemingly incompatible heightening descriptions. Thx, Red Metal for helping me out. May I suggest a slightly changed wording that will probably prevent errors like mine: (italics for recommended clarification) "Although the reduction can’t occur again, heightened versions of this spell attempt to counteract and do so with each casting.
Player Core 1, pg. 320, right column - Confusing description of Cleanse Affliction I don't understand the exact effect of Cleanse Affliction, particularly when reading it's heightened versions: First, Cleanse Affliction 2 addresses curse, disease, or poison.
(italics mine) Then, Cleanse Affliction 3 addresses "disease or poison", only. Lastly, Cleanse Affliction 4 addresses "curse, disease, or poison" again. I believe it is intended, that the higher the Cleanse Affliction rank, the more types of afflictions it can counteract. Hence, from context I assume that Cleanse Affliction 2 is meant to address only poisons, isn't it? I can't say for sure. The way the main description text is worded in conjunction with the heightened 3rd text - and how my brain processes spell descriptions - don't seem quite compatible.
Addition to YuriP's (afaik correct) deliberations: For Ganzis a feat exists that is mechanically equivalent to the typical "[Ancestry] Lore" feats whilst at the same time not following their typical "convention": Creative Prodigy. Mechanically equivalent - because it's a lvl 1 ancestry feat that gives two (non-lore) skill trainings plus a lore skill.
Not following typical convention - because the lore skill included is Art Lore not a Ganzi Lore, and the feat name differs from the implicit "[Ancestry] Lore" naming convention likewise.
Unsurprisingly, we had similar feedback internally. Don't worry! The core deities will have their stat blocks in Divine Mysteries so you won't have to flip back to Player Core. Thanks Luis for the quick reply. And I can only concur with cori: That's wonderful news. Very much looking forward to Divine Mysteries. (Albeit with a little fear that the path of some clerics, especially my own ;-), might be shattered by the impending death of one or more deities. But that is a fear for another thread. :-) There is no perfection without change.)
Then I have not expressed myself clearly enough, I'm sorry. My request centers around the consolidated statistics blocks. That is, I kindly request that the new book contains the (Quote:) "mechanical information required to play a champion, cleric, or worshipper of one of the 20 core deities". To be more explicit: This should somehow include (repeat) the statistics from PC1:
Additionally, all further "information useful for understanding those gods" remain highly welcome. For instance the following fields from G&M:
I'd like give feedback regarding "good old" Gods&Magic that will also be relevant for anounced Lost Omens: Divine Mysteries: In short:
In bit more detail:
However, I regularly need to know the other, basic statistics and mechanical details like Edicts/Anathema, Cleric Spells, Font, ... Domains, Favored Weapon as well. For the "Other Deities" from Gods&Magic and newer deity-containing-LO-books these basic statistics and mechanical details are in the respective book. But for the "Core Deities" of all they are not. Consequently, for the "20 deities who are most influential in the Inner Sea region" - which also tend to be the ones I refer most often - the way of retrieving all their relevant information is the most inconvenient one. Effectively, I have to open Gods&Magic and PC1 or Gods&Magic plus a web resource in parallel and consolidate the info on my own. I can guess why it was originally styled that way in Gods&Magic: Aiming for modularization/better maintainability by implementing the concept of Single Source of Truth (SSOT). SSOT could work fine when having tool support (like a document management system or an integrated development environment) and clickable-hyperlinks. It doesn't quite work for me for lore-centered books, where my brain usually likes to find all relevant information easily accessible, ideally at first glance in a self-contained way. (Not always possible, but definitely possible for the deities sections.) If SSOT was and still is a requirement, I could think of ways to implement it while still providing all info for a Deity in Divine Mysteries. An example method would be to explicitly state that for certain stats (like Edicts/Anathema, Cleric Spells, ...) PC1 is the authoritative source and that they are only copied&pasted to Divine Mysteries for convenience. This could be emphasized by graphical elements like different background color and/or via side-bars. However implemented, having all info in one place would be a significant usability improvement to me. Thank you for your time to read and hopefully consider this.
Lost Omens: Character Guide and Lost Omens: Ancestry Guide - Remaster Compatibility I wasn't entirely sure what was the best place to put Lost Omens-Books elements that probably need remaster compatibility errata, too. For example, I've stumbled over non-core "[Ancestry] Lore"-feats. For now, I've put them in the Lost Omens-Errata-thread (see https://paizo.com/threads/rzs43f59&page=7?Official-Lost-Omens-clarifica tion-errata-and#345) If remaster compatibility errata candidates should rather be put in the thread at hand, just give me a note and I will do for any future findings.
Lost Omens: Ancestry Guide - Remaster Compatibility
Analog to Character Guide (see my post above) Examples Feats:
Somewhat similar but mechanically different is Azarketis' Ancestral Insight (AG, pg. 13). This might require additional consideration if and how a remaster compatibility update would be proper. I searched for "Lore"-Feats, but again, these lists do not claim to be exhaustive. Particularly if feats don't follow the implicit "[Ancestry] Lore-Naming Convention" (as Creative Prodigy did) I might have missed them.
Lost Omens: Character Guide - Remaster Compatibility All "[Ancestry] Lore"-feats should be harmonized with the way core feats are styled after remaster (cp. Dwarven Lore from Player Core 1 (PC1), pg. 43). Examples for these from Character Guide, not necessarily an exhaustive list, were
Right, making them all Manipulate caused severe power changes. Most probably undesired ones. You mentioned an example; I found others in the meantime. Often spells that are particularly interesting to be cast in the front line / closely engaged. Some reaction spells come into my mind like Blood Vendetta.
(Admittedly, skimming through Focus Spells, there was precedence for such awkwardness, e.g. Retributive Pain or Sudden Shift being Manipulate Spells. I start to realize this now, as Manipulate and provoking reactions has become so transparent. But this is probably out of scope of the thread at hand, so let's get back.) Consequently, making all spells Manipulate to align the paragraph about gestures with the trait, again, wouldn't work. Leaving us with the already mentioned "small (non-manipulate) gesture"-compromise. Only other way I could see would be to alter or soften the blanket require Gesture/Incantation wording. Which required either house-ruling, errata (if all gestures wasn't intended), or "just" a different understanding that I have. Don't know.
Something I find worth emphasizing: Actions, even single actions, take time in the game world and the concept of (re-)actions occurring in the middle of other actions exists - particularly in the context of triggered free actions and reactions. Preface:
However, this case of simultaneous actions and how to deal with a situation when a reaction could decisively change the triggering actions effect is probably the very exception. Probably the actual challenge. (Otherwise, I misunderstood what was currently being discussed.) This is were I found the sidebar and quote handy, that was already mentioned at the start of this thread; excerpt copied for convenience:
I take above case of a lever someone is about to pull as example. That means pulling the lever is trigger for reactions and we define that the order to deal with all effects would make an important difference for the overall outcome. Let's indeed say, the lever person is clearly about to be taken down by a (non-critical) reactive strike. Is lever pulled or not pulled when they go down? My way of handling this: Unless an explicit way to handle the details is already given (like in case of Stand up from prone vs Stand Still reaction), I'd probably invent something on the fly. For this, I'd tend to move away from conceiving actions as digital but rather make them analog events. This would better reflect the simultaneity and something being disturbed while it is happening. If somehow acceptable for plot, that the lever can be pulled halfway, I'd go with this. In my POV that gave the original effort and trigger some credit (particularly when there was no explicit Disrupt rule invoked), while still honoring the reactive striker hitting in-midst of the action. It also minimizes weird timing effects of retroactively having to declare the trigger be unpulled or the like. This has caveats, though. IMHO, it works the better, the more there is actually some relevant "analog" effect. For instance:
It works less, the more inherently digital something is. If the trigger was about some strange magical effect or some technical stuff like radioactive emission of an elementary particle - note: approaching Schroedinger's Cat territory here - and just can't be meaningfully conceived as happening in partial, my "analog" method will probably fail. Final emergency solutions:
TL;DR
Agreed, the question of having the Manipulate trait seems to be the mechanically more important, by far. Plus - after looking at spells again - the vast majority I looked up so far have the trait. Still I'm wondering if gestures should actually be introduced mandatorily for spells that only had Verbal but no Somatic components in CRB, e.g. most classical bard composition cantrips (inspire courage, inspire defense, now anthems) or several reaction spells, as well. I note that it could be a compromise to treat Non-manipulate spells as having somewhat "smaller" gestures, now (by RAI?). Additional remarks:
|