Unlisted changes in the new Errata

The errata is online here.
It is in two sections just for space reasons on the Paizo site.

It is supposed to list all the differences between the original and the updated rules. However several changes have been missed. I'm just going to list them here (all found by other people not me). Please add any more if you find them.

Mountain Stance. Thanks Exorcist

This sentence has been added:

The item bonus to AC from Mountain Stance is cumulative with armor potency runes on your explorer’s clothing, mage armor, and bracers of armor.

Healer’s Tools p290:

Extra Sentence:

If you wear your healer’s tools, you can draw and replace them as part of the action that uses them.

This is discussed more generally in the errata but is not specifically called out.

Druid Dedication Thanks Gisher

Page 225
Now explicitly includes the Druids Anathema as part of the dedication feat, which is important as it precludes metal armour.

Mountain Stance. Thanks Exorcist

This sentence has been added:

The item bonus to AC from Mountain Stance is cumulative with armor potency runes on your explorer’s clothing, mage armor, and bracers of armor.

To flesh this out a bit, here are the unlisted changes.

You enter the stance of an implacable mountain—a technique first discovered created by dwarven monks—allowing you to strike with the weight of an avalanche and block blows with your garments. The only Strikes you can make are falling stone unarmed attacks. These deal 1d8 bludgeoning damage; are in the brawling group; and have the forceful, nonlethal, and unarmed traits.

While in Mountain Stance, you gain a +4 status item bonus to AC and a +2 circumstance bonus to any defenses against being Shoved or Tripped. However, you You have a Dexterity modifier cap to your AC of +0, meaning you don’t add your Dexterity to your AC, and your Speeds are all reduced by 5 feet. The item bonus to AC from Mountain Stance is cumulative with armor potency runes on your explorer’s clothing, mage armor, and bracers of armor.

Druid Dedication Thanks Gisher

Page 225
Now explicitly includes the Druids Anathema as part of the dedication feat, which is important as it precludes metal armour.

Here's the breakdown of unlisted changes.

You cast spells like a druid. You gain access to the Cast a Spell activity. You can prepare two common cantrips each day from the primal spell list in this book or any other primal cantrips you learn or discover. You’re trained in spell attack rolls and spell DCs for primal spells. Your key spellcasting ability for druid archetype spells is Wisdom, and they are primal druid spells.

You learn the Druidic language and you are bound by the druid’s anathema.

Choose an a druidic order as you would if you were a druid. You become a member of that order and are also bound by its specific anathema, allowing you to take the order’s feats. You become trained in Nature and your order’s associated skill; for each of these skills in which you were already trained, you become trained in a skill of your choice. You don’t gain any other abilities from your choice of order.

There is a similar unlisted change to most of the spellcasting multiclass dedications. They added language to specify the type of additional cantrips. It seems like there was some rules loophole they were trying to plug. I think wizard didn't change because it already specified that such cantrips had to be from their spellbook.

Here are the unlisted changes.
- added text in bold.

You gain a spell repertoire with two common cantrips from the occult spell list or any other occult cantrips you learn or discover.

You can prepare two common cantrips each day from the divine spell list in this book or any other divine cantrips you learn or discover.

You can prepare two common cantrips each day from the primal spell list in this book or any other primal cantrips you learn or discover.

You gain a spell repertoire with two common cantrips from the spell list associated with your bloodline, from the spells granted by your bloodline, or any other cantrips of that tradition you learn or discover.

Healer’s Tools p290:

Extra Sentence:

If you wear your healer’s tools, you can draw and replace them as part of the action that uses them.

This is discussed more generally in the errata but is not specifically called out.

This language is an editorial cleanup of Healer's tools to specify the new wearing/held/stored designations. They already said something about this in the 1st printing's description of the tools.

Animal skin has changed in a similar way to mountain stance:

Your proficiency in unarmored defense increases to expert. While you are raging and unarmored, your skin transforms into a thick hide resembling your animal’s skin. You gain a +1 status bonus to AC instead of taking a –1 penalty to AC; if you have the greater juggernaut class feature, this status bonus increases to +2. The thickness of your hide gives you a Dexterity modifier cap to your AC of +3.

Your proficiency in unarmored defense increases to expert. When you are raging and unarmored, your skin transforms into a thick hide. You gain a +2 item bonus to AC (+3 if you have the greater juggernaut class feature). The thickness of your hide gives you a Dexterity modifier cap to your AC of +3. This item bonus to AC is cumulative with armor potency runes on your explorer’s clothing, mage armor, and bracers of armor.

Gortle wrote:

Mountain Stance. Thanks Exorcist

This sentence has been added:

The item bonus to AC from Mountain Stance is cumulative with armor potency runes on your explorer’s clothing, mage armor, and bracers of armor.

To flesh this out a bit, here are the unlisted changes.

- removed text in strikethrough.
- added text in bold.

Mountain Stance: CRB, p. 159 wrote:

You enter the stance of an implacable mountain—a technique first discovered created by dwarven monks—allowing you to strike with the weight of an avalanche and block blows with your garments. The only Strikes you can make are falling stone unarmed attacks. These deal 1d8 bludgeoning damage; are in the brawling group; and have the forceful, nonlethal, and unarmed traits.

While in Mountain Stance, you gain a +4 status item bonus to AC and a +2 circumstance bonus to any defenses against being Shoved or Tripped. However, you You have a Dexterity modifier cap to your AC of +0, meaning you don’t add your Dexterity to your AC, and your Speeds are all reduced by 5 feet. The item bonus to AC from Mountain Stance is cumulative with armor potency runes on your explorer’s clothing, mage armor, and bracers of armor.

oh changing to item bonus is fantastic for Dragon Disciple's Scales of a Dragon since that is a status bonus making them stack now.

Gisher wrote:

Gortle wrote:

Mountain Stance. Thanks Exorcist

This sentence has been added:

The item bonus to AC from Mountain Stance is cumulative with armor potency runes on your explorer’s clothing, mage armor, and bracers of armor.

To flesh this out a bit, here are the unlisted changes.

- removed text in strikethrough.
- added text in bold.

Mountain Stance: CRB, p. 159 wrote:

You enter the stance of an implacable mountain—a technique first discovered created by dwarven monks—allowing you to strike with the weight of an avalanche and block blows with your garments. The only Strikes you can make are falling stone unarmed attacks. These deal 1d8 bludgeoning damage; are in the brawling group; and have the forceful, nonlethal, and unarmed traits.

While in Mountain Stance, you gain a +4 status item bonus to AC and a +2 circumstance bonus to any defenses against being Shoved or Tripped. However, you You have a Dexterity modifier cap to your AC of +0, meaning you don’t add your Dexterity to your AC, and your Speeds are all reduced by 5 feet. The item bonus to AC from Mountain Stance is cumulative with armor potency runes on your explorer’s clothing, mage armor, and bracers of armor.

oh changing to item bonus is fantastic for Dragon Disciple's Scales of a Dragon since that is a status bonus making them stack now.

It does, but it’s not intended to. I asked Mark about scales back when Mountain was getting a look at and he said scales was also getting a look at seeing as it’s based on mountain. The only reason it hasn’t (probably) is because there isn’t an APG errata. When that does happen, you can almost guarantee that Scales is getting changed to item.

It does, but it’s not intended to. I asked Mark about scales back when Mountain was getting a look at and he said scales was also getting a look at seeing as it’s based on mountain. The only reason it hasn’t (probably) is because there isn’t an APG errata. When that does happen, you can almost guarantee that Scales is getting changed to item.

dang it, it's already so hard to make it good.

Animal skin has changed in a similar way to mountain stance:

Old Animal Skin p90 wrote:

Your proficiency in unarmored defense increases to expert. While you are raging and unarmored, your skin transforms into a thick hide resembling your animal’s skin. You gain a +1 status bonus to AC instead of taking a –1 penalty to AC; if you have the greater juggernaut class feature, this status bonus increases to +2. The thickness of your hide gives you a Dexterity modifier cap to your AC of +3.

New Animal Skin p90 wrote:

Your proficiency in unarmored defense increases to expert. When you are raging and unarmored, your skin transforms into a thick hide. You gain a +2 item bonus to AC (+3 if you have the greater juggernaut class feature). The thickness of your hide gives you a Dexterity modifier cap to your AC of +3. This item bonus to AC is cumulative with armor potency runes on your explorer’s clothing, mage armor, and bracers of armor.

So not a net bonus to AC as you now have the rage penalty coming back into play. But becuase it is a different type of bonus it will stack differently with spells and items. Seems like a good change.

Might be too early to whine about this haha, but I hope scales of the dragon doesn't change to an item bonus. The best application of it was to get a bonus when in a form (ie dragon form), which was really fitting. If it stays a +2 bonus and keeps the +2 dex cap, it will basically be a feat that will have to be trained out of later on

Reporting here to keep the issues together

They made changes in the 2nd printing to match the overall direction of the faq entry. Every class raises their unarmed proficiency to keep up with their weapon proficiency (which was missing in the first printing).

In the fighter case the change notes that the proficiency for unarmed attacks depends on their weapon group, like it does for simple, martial, and advanced weapons.

Compare:

Fighter Weapon Mastery, 1st printing wrote:

Choose one weapon group. Your proficiency rank increases to master with the simple and martial weapons in that group, and to expert with the advanced weapons in that group.

Fighter Weapon Mastery, 2nd printing wrote:

Your proficiency rank increases to master with the simple weapons, martial weapons, and unarmed attacks in that group, and to expert with the advanced weapons in that group.

Weapon Legend, 1st printing wrote:

Your proficiency ranks for simple and martial weapons increase to master. Your proficiency rank for advanced weapons increases to expert.

You can select one weapon group and increase your proficiency ranks to legendary for all simple and martial weapons in that weapon group, and to master for all advanced weapons in that weapon group.

Weapon Legend, 2nd printing wrote:

Your proficiency ranks for simple weapons, martial weapons, and unarmed attacks increase to master. Your proficiency rank for advanced weapons increases to expert.

You can select one weapon group and increase your proficiency ranks to legendary for all simple weapons, martial weapons, and unarmed attacks in that weapon group, and to master for all advanced weapons in that weapon group.

Versatile Legend, 1st printing wrote:

Your proficiency ranks for simple weapons, martial weapons, and unarmed attacks increase to legendary, and your proficiency rank for advanced weapons increases to master.

Versatile Legend, 2nd printing wrote:

Your proficiency ranks for simple weapons, martial weapons, and unarmed attacks increase to legendary, and your proficiency rank for advanced weapons increases to master.

Progression for unarmed attack proficiency has been added at every step, but always gated behind the weapon group selection. The original FAQ was just a quick fix until they got this done.

And yes the first printing granted legendary proficiency with unarmed at 19 after no other progression, I just noticed that.

Basically:

Original CRB: Fighters unarmed proficiency never advanced past Expert.
Errata document: Fighters got unarmed proficiency for free regardless of what weapon group they picked.
Updated CRB: Fighters get scaling unarmed proficiency in unarmed attacks that are part of their chosen weapon group.

Why does it matter? Because Fighters now have to pick the Brawling weapon Group if they want Unarmed attack to get the higher proficiency bonus on offer for Unarmed attacks. Further some unarmed attacks don't belong to any weapon group (see any Battle Form, perfectly legit) which means fighters can't specialise in them.

Both can be worked around by taking the Martial Artist dedication feat.

A quick note on the fighter proficiencies:
in the 2nd printing Fighters get proficiency with all unarmed attacks, just at the "slow" rate they get it for weapons that are not in their chosen group (ie Expert at 1, Master at 13, Legendary at 19)

I think one problem with people interpreting these entries is that the Pathfinder FAQ (which is what Gortle linked to as "Errata") also contains Errata.

I realize the tech team was strapped for time and resources when they posted those entries. Hopefully, some day, they will be combed through for accuracy.

Until then, the general rule, as outlined in the FAQ, is that "Any class feature that improves the proficiency rank or grants the critical specialization effect access for simple weapons or a specific set of weapons, that ability also grants that benefit for unarmed attacks."

Well GMs will go different ways on that but it is a problem worth highlighting. Personally I see it as an issue of the Errata being a General statement and getting overridden by the Specific application of that Errata into the newly released CRB.

GMs in homegames can obviously ignore or change whatever rules they wish.

For something like Society, GMs must abide by published rules and official FAQs.

GMs in homegames can obviously ignore or change whatever rules they wish.

For something like Society, GMs must abide by published rules and official FAQs.

Since the second printing of the CRB is more recent than the errata, wouldn't the CRB rules supersede the errata rules?

There have been changes to that FAQ page since the CRB second printing was released.

Nefreet wrote:

GMs in homegames can obviously ignore or change whatever rules they wish.

For something like Society, GMs must abide by published rules and official FAQs.

Since the second printing of the CRB is more recent than the errata, wouldn't the CRB rules supersede the errata rules?

How would the typical person know which was first? It's not like the errata is dated. Secondly, the errata in question isn't an errata that's is directly book/page related: it's a general errata vs one that alter a page or any specific entry. As such, it's hard to say any new entry supersedes it as none are specifically overridden.

I'd be great if we actually had a reference on which one actually supersedes the other but we don't. Now if we had actual dates attached and they actually listed the book reprint errata along with the website errata we might be able to figure it out. Changes in the reprint that aren't on the errata page just makes things a mess.

Surely Paizo realizes the value of proper version control, and publishes a clear update history detailing each and every change to the rules, tracking differences between each.

No?

I had thought we were talking about the errata pdf released before the 2nd printing. I forgot there was an online version now.

That specific line appeared in the v1.0 errata pdf and is still present in the online FAQ

I hope the online FAQ gets some love soon cause at the moment it is dreadfully bad, we don't even know what changes are supposed to have made it to the 2nd printing or how to tell if new things get added in the future.

It's not even sorted.

Surely Paizo realizes the value of proper version control, and publishes a clear update history detailing each and every change to the rules, tracking differences between each.

No?

They used to. Each FAQ had a date and each errata document had one too. Now? Not so much: I know I have no clue when an individual entry was done or if it superseded one of the other entries and I have nothing to point to if I wanted to make an argument about which one was the latest one.

I had thought we were talking about the errata pdf released before the 2nd printing. I forgot there was an online version now.

I've been talking about the online errata.

Zapp wrote:

Surely Paizo realizes the value of proper version control, and publishes a clear update history detailing each and every change to the rules, tracking differences between each.

No?

They used to. Each FAQ had a date and each errata document had one too. Now? Not so much: I know I have no clue when an individual entry was done or if it superseded one of the other entries and I have nothing to point to if I wanted to make an argument about which one was the latest one.

Gisher wrote:

I had thought we were talking about the errata pdf released before the 2nd printing. I forgot there was an online version now.

I've been talking about the online errata.

Yeah, I lost track of which thread this was. I've been having memory issues lately.

Yeah, I lost track of which thread this was. I've been having memory issues lately.

No worries. I'd forgotten they'd made the errata pdf. ;)

Nefreet wrote:

GMs in homegames can obviously ignore or change whatever rules they wish.

For something like Society, GMs must abide by published rules and official FAQs.

Since the second printing of the CRB is more recent than the errata, wouldn't the CRB rules supersede the errata rules?

Yes despite what Nefreet is saying the second printing of the CRB available online came after the particular FAQ on Fighter Unarmed Proficiency we are discussing. It specifically implements this errata that was actually released before the FAQ was published in this location. It is clearly the latest version of that particular rule and is the one that should be followed.

Yes it arguable, and I take on board that the errata has been updated again but I'm not in any doubt on that rule.

Again. Date doesn't matter. Not everything in the FAQ makes it into Errata.

The rules printed on Archives of Nethys are the official Pathfinder 2 rules. There is no need to go to FAQ or Errata because those things are incorporated into the site.

It also makes sense from a design standpoint. "I'm a legendary swordsman, but I'm still pretty good with any weapon. Except punching, I'm also a legend at punching for some reason."

The general errata was done because they forgot to increase unarmed proficiency for most classes. That Errata was a patch until they could get the proper fix.

Errata is a tarp you put on your roof after a storm.
2nd printing is fixing the roof.

There is a way to reconcile the errata with the Fighter rules in the 2nd printing of the CRB.

Any class feature that improves the proficiency rank or grants the critical specialization effect access for simple weapons or a specific set of weapons, that ability also grants that benefit for unarmed attacks.

The class feature has to improve the proficiency of simple weapons or a specific set of weapons. In the first printing Wizard Weapon Expertise qualified. The feature granted Expert to a specific set of weapons: club, crossbow, dagger, heavy crossbow, staff. The feature specified exactly which weapons would be affected. Sure enough, we see that an upgrade to all unarmed strikes was added to the text in the second printing.

I would argue that Fighter Weapon Mastery and Weapon Legend do not increase proficiency for a specific set of weapons because you get to choose the weapon groups to which they apply. The features don't specify which weapons will be improved - you do. Every Wizard gets an upgrade for daggers, but with Fighters this would depend on whether they chose the knives weapon group or not. Sure enough, we see that that second printing reflects that interpretation by limiting the unarmed strikes upgraded by those features.

Similarly, the Cleric's upgrades for their Favored Weapon didn't add text that also upgraded all unarmed strikes. That's because the type of weapon that is Favored is chosen by the player rather than specified by the class.

Just gonna say again, wouldn't it be awesome if we had a real errata delivery system.

How they came to the solution they did baffles the mind.

It is both smooshed together, separated and has no date system so if you want to know what has changed or give yourself and update on the changes since the last release... Good luck.

I got way too much hope up when they said they were monitoring the well organised and documented list of errors and inconsistencies the players had maintained on the forums.
I like PF2e, but I have zero faith in whomever is in charge of this aspect now.

The old FAQ system was flawed, but we functionally have nothing now.

We could create a community recommended Errata list, with some sort of voting mechanism on contentious issues. Would it have any value?

It is both smooshed together, separated and has no date system so if you want to know what has changed or give yourself and update on the changes since the last release... Good luck.

So that's what Nefreet meant about the errata containing errata. That's a really bad way to disseminate changes. You'd have to download the entire thing and then compare line-by-line when the online copy is updated. Even with my OCD that's unappealing.

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

It is both smooshed together, separated and has no date system so if you want to know what has changed or give yourself and update on the changes since the last release... Good luck.

So that's what Nefreet meant about the errata containing errata. That's a really bad way to disseminate changes. You'd have to download the entire thing and then compare line-by-line when the online copy is updated. Even with my OCD that's unappealing.

As someone who did go ahead and build a document doing the full line-by-line diff of the two printings of the CRB, I agree that I don't want to do it again, and to someone else's point: I also agree that AoN should just have all those changes. It does not have all the changes I've seen. EasyTool might. I know others are working on it as well.

They have an internal ticket/version system, it's just that the "FAQ" page is not finished. And they don't have to bandwidth to work on it, because other features of the site have priority (they are overhauling a lot of things, *and* digitizing PFS. So yeah. Lots of work on their plate.

Gisher wrote:

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

It is both smooshed together, separated and has no date system so if you want to know what has changed or give yourself and update on the changes since the last release... Good luck.

So that's what Nefreet meant about the errata containing errata. That's a really bad way to disseminate changes. You'd have to download the entire thing and then compare line-by-line when the online copy is updated. Even with my OCD that's unappealing.

As someone who did go ahead and build a document doing the full line-by-line diff of the two printings of the CRB, I agree that I don't want to do it again, and to someone else's point: I also agree that AoN should just have all those changes. It does not have all the changes I've seen. EasyTool might. I know others are working on it as well.

What are the changes missing on AoN? If you send it to them, they will usually contact Paizo and implement them if they were supposed to be included.

They have fixed all of the "bugs" that I found myself when I reported them.

The only one I spot is that alchemists are still listed to only get light armour proficiency upgrades at lvl 13 and 19.

The only one I spot is that alchemists are still listed to only get light armour proficiency upgrades at lvl 13 and 19.

Oh yeah... Sadly, that's also in the second printing. They didn't apply the errata right. :(

I just updated my proficiency tables with the changes from the 2nd printing CRB as well as the G&G playtest.

• Guide to Proficiency Bonuses (web version)

• Guide to Proficiency Bonuses (Google Drive version)

-----

While I was doing that I noticed the following:

Gunslinger Weapon Mastery 5th

You fully understand the best way to utilize your unique weapons. Your proficiency rank increases to master with simple and martial firearms and crossbows. Your proficiency rank for advanced firearms and crossbows, simple weapons, martial weapons, and unarmed attacks increases to expert. You gain access to the critical specialization effects for firearms.

Simple and martial firearms and crossbows would qualify as a specific set of weapons, but the unarmed attack proficiency doesn't become Master to match the proficiency of that set. It does, however, upgrade to Expert match the proficiency of simple weapons in general.

Similarly...

Gunslinging Legend 13th

You’ve learned unique techniques for wielding firearms that give you unmatched skill in their use. Your proficiency rank increases to legendary with simple and martial firearms and crossbows and to master with advanced firearms and crossbows. In addition, choose one additional weapon group, such as bombs or swords. Your proficiency with simple and martial weapons from this group increases to master.

Here, the unarmed attack proficiency doesn't become Legendary like the set of simple and martial firearms and crossbows nor does it become Master like the set of advanced firearms and crossbows. Instead, it remains at Expert like the simple weapons in general do.

-----

So maybe the general rule for advancing unarmed attacks needs to be read as a prioritized list of rules. This would use the "otherwise" definition of "or." In other words the or is indicating that using sets of specific weapons is a fallback to the simple weapons rule rather than an equivalent rule.

Any class feature that improves the proficiency rank or grants the critical specialization effect access for simple weapons or a specific set of weapons, that ability also grants that benefit for unarmed attacks.

Under that interpretation, unarmed strikes advance with the class's simple weapon proficiency (if it grants simple weapon proficiency) or advances with a set of specific weapons (if the class doesn't grant simple weapon proficiency). That would conform with the Gunslinger playtest rules. That would also match up with with the rules laid out in the 2nd printing of the CRB, including the oddball cases like Fighter, Cleric, and Wizard.

• Gunfighter, Fighter and Cleric all advance sets of weapons above simple weapons, but that doesn't matter since unarmed attacks use the basic rule of following along with simple weapons.

• Wizards lacks simple weapon proficiency so unarmed strikes advance with the specific set of weapons that they do get proficiency with.

• None of the other classes advance specific sets of weapons so their unarmed attacks follow the simple weapon advancement.

Just a thought.

Yes its seems clear that while they needed to hand out unarmed attack proficiency they are trying to leave some limits on it. But you can always get around it by paying for the Martial artist dedication.

I suspect the culprit is the wizard that ONLY gets proficiency with "a specific set of weapons"

I suspect the culprit is the wizard that ONLY gets proficiency with "a specific set of weapons"

Yeah, a lot of things just became a lot simpler if you just give wizards simple weapon proficiency and tie unarmed attacks proficiency to simple.

Kekkres wrote:

I suspect the culprit is the wizard that ONLY gets proficiency with "a specific set of weapons"

Yeah, a lot of things just became a lot simpler if you just give wizards simple weapon proficiency and tie unarmed attacks proficiency to simple.

100% agree.

Not sure where the following is both appropriate and visible to the devs, but adding it here in the hopes it isn't forgotten:

The Wendigo stat block depends on casting a spell in combat. But this spell has a 10 minute casting time. Details and more info in this thread:

https://paizo.com/threads/rzs43auh?The-Wendigo

This is not a general thread for errata, just highlighting problem with changes in the rules that are not in the errata. But yout point on the Wendigo is valid. Though I confess if I GMed it I'd just assume it could do everything in a round and move on.

This is not a general thread for errata, just highlighting problem with changes in the rules that are not in the errata. But yout point on the Wendigo is valid. Though I confess if I GMed it I'd just assume it could do everything in a round and move on.

Thank you. I take it there is no better place to record this for future errata inclusion?

Zapp

PS. Please discuss Gortle's comment in the thread provided.

I take it there is no better place to record this for future errata inclusion?

Every product has a Discussion Thread where you can point out typos and suspected errata.

So maybe the general rule for advancing unarmed attacks needs to be read as a prioritized list of rules.

Though, another thing we may need to be mindful of is the fact that the errata round 1 rule for unarmed attacks makes no appearance in the 2nd printing at all—not that it existed in the 1st printing, either. It was a jury-rigged hotfix to the 1st printing's weapon proficiency class feature misprints, leaving its purpose questionable now that errata round 2 has rectified those misprints.

Just to notes the designers are aware of this and will review it. From my understanding, Syri is right. The wording of the hotfix was not perfect, but they were rushing them.
As an example: You don't scale the unarmed proficiency of fighters to the chosen "best" group automatically.