Pathfinder Advanced Player's Guide

People keep asking for changes to feats, classes ..., but errata are not that.

Errata to the alchemist either says otherwise or gave people entirely the wrong perception.

I get the disappointment though. A lot of folks feel that the class is basically a lot of wasted potential and without errata a lost cause. I've yet to have a class at my table elicit such strong and immediate frustration from people playing one (not the alchemist nor oracle). But the concept of the witch, or even the mythological value of a witch, just seems to make the class's perceived or actual weakness to irritate people more.

So I guess the question is, if the witch will not receive any improvements via errata, is it just stuck where it is forever?

I don't think anything I'd said was hoping for a buff, since it was unclear either way. I've read a lot of people that assumed dragon breath from dragon disciple used class DC, for example. Hell, even making it innate would be nice, so it scaled for classes like monk (even though it would be scaling off of charisma which is a little less ideal but better than having to spend four class feats on a caster dedication)

Any idea when the FAQ page will be updated to include the Advanced Player Guide errata? It currently has errata for the Core Rulebook (2 sets), Bestiary 2, and several Lost Omens books, but not yet the Advanced Player's Guide. I would find that more useful than the updated PDFs for the purpose of locating everything that changed.

Soon, I am told. While I can't comment on the content of the errata, (that is beyond my wheelhouse,) I can say that we have systems in place to make future updates smoother, with print product distribution, the PDF update, and the FAQ posting happening together.

The Raven Black wrote:

People keep asking for changes to feats, classes ..., but errata are not that.

Errata to the alchemist either says otherwise or gave people entirely the wrong perception.

I get the disappointment though. A lot of folks feel that the class is basically a lot of wasted potential and without errata a lost cause. I've yet to have a class at my table elicit such strong and immediate frustration from people playing one (not the alchemist nor oracle). But the concept of the witch, or even the mythological value of a witch, just seems to make the class's perceived or actual weakness to irritate people more.

So I guess the question is, if the witch will not receive any improvements via errata, is it just stuck where it is forever?

I don't think we'll ever see errata to the extent that we saw with the latest CRB errata. Like it or not. The other books are suplements, even if the APG is counted as one of the core four.

That said, I sympathize with those claiming for a Witch buff. I think the Witch is in a tight spot in that its overall kit can be seen and felt as lacklustre. If you pick the other contentious classes, like the Alchemist or the Warpriest, you still have a nice chassis that can be optimized with some system mastery. Heck, a class archetype changing some alchemical item types or uses of divine font for other goodies could even provide players with so called 'fixes'. The Witch, not so much, IMHO.

But then, I only had one Witch player in my table and I let them keep playing with the playtest version since they felt they liked that iteration of the class better.

That said, I sympathize with those claiming for a Witch buff. I think the Witch is in a tight spot in that its overall kit can be seen and felt as lacklustre. If you pick the other contentious classes, like the Alchemist or the Warpriest, you still have a nice chassis that can be optimized with some system mastery. Heck, a class archetype changing some alchemical item types or uses of divine font for other goodies could even provide players with so called 'fixes'. The Witch, not so much, IMHO.

Witch can absolutely be awesome with system mastery as is, that's never been the issue.

A witch built "correctly" is solid. The problem is the number of traps and "choose wrong" options the Witch has (Rune/wild patron cantrip, eldritch nails, basic lesson is mandatory, etc.)

I've defended WP as an option that works best when you stack spells that don't require saves (mainly heal spells) as a means to make it work at its chassis, and it's window of viability to me is way narrower than a Witch.

A Witch with Stoke The Heart/Evil Eye/Buzzing Bites + Basic Lesson + a good Specific familiar (like faerie dragon) that grabs Cackle is a great character.

A Rune Witch with Eldritch Hair and Nails and a toad is the issue.

So while I am also sad about no Witch buffs, the idea that Witch cannot be built to be effective to me is not at all true.

The issue is the power floor for a witch is way lower than it should be, but I'd argue the ceiling is just fine.

Being totally honest here, this mentality of "things being slightly too good is a huge problem, but things being bad is not an issue at all" that the designers and a big chunk of the community seem to have is slowly chipping away at all the excitement I once had about the game.

While I can't say it's chipping away at my excitment necessarily, I also don't see why "nerfing Dragon scales/independent/etc. is fine, but buffs are not" sentiment is being paraded around and it's super weird to me.

Buffs generally sell things (people buy champions in League of Legends because of buffs), so it's not only beneficial to the health of the game it's also financially motivating to some extent.

I mean, the level 16 witch in my Night of the Gray Death game is the bane of my existence, so I feel like it works pretty okay.

I mean, witches are full casters. Smart spell selection and usage, especially later in the campaign, is really all you need to be functional and acceptably successful. It's the chassis bolted on top of that, in addition to the feat selection available, that marks the witch as a lesser light among the classes.

But that's all not really here nor there. The upshot is this errata did not include any sort of balance pass on any of the classes included, and it's not out of line to assume both that Paizo sees the classes as acceptable as they are and that no significant balancing tweaks are ever forthcoming. And I suppose that's very understandable, even if it's not what I'd prefer to hear.

The Advanced Player's Guide Errata is live.

While I can't say it's chipping away at my excitment necessarily, I also don't see why "nerfing Dragon scales/independent/etc. is fine, but buffs are not" sentiment is being paraded around and it's super weird to me.

Buffs generally sell things (people buy champions in League of Legends because of buffs), so it's not only beneficial to the health of the game it's also financially motivating to some extent.

Power bloat is very definitely one of PF1's failures that PF2 wants to avoid whatever it costs.

And buffing without power bloat needs considerable time and effort (and likely playtest). So, very much out of an errata's purview.

Midnightoker wrote:

While I can't say it's chipping away at my excitment necessarily, I also don't see why "nerfing Dragon scales/independent/etc. is fine, but buffs are not" sentiment is being paraded around and it's super weird to me.

Buffs generally sell things (people buy champions in League of Legends because of buffs), so it's not only beneficial to the health of the game it's also financially motivating to some extent.

Power bloat is very definitely one of PF1's failures that PF2 wants to avoid whatever it costs.

And buffing without power bloat needs considerable time and effort (and likely playtest). So, very much out of an errata's purview.

So you think the mutagenist buffs were playtested then? I'd wager they were not.

And PF1 had more issues with feat traps than it ever did with power bloat. The overall balance between the best and worst feats was stretched in both directions.

Allowing feat traps like Eldritch Nails to continue to be options for players (as well as stuff like Eschew Materials) can be just as damaging to a system.

The Advanced Player's Guide Errata is live.

Yay!

(The list is missing the changes to Eldritch Archer. The Dedication no longer grants an extra cantrip if you have pre-existing spell slots.)

The Raven Black wrote:

People keep asking for changes to feats, classes ..., but errata are not that.

Errata to the alchemist either says otherwise or gave people entirely the wrong perception.

I get the disappointment though. A lot of folks feel that the class is basically a lot of wasted potential and without errata a lost cause. I've yet to have a class at my table elicit such strong and immediate frustration from people playing one (not the alchemist nor oracle). But the concept of the witch, or even the mythological value of a witch, just seems to make the class's perceived or actual weakness to irritate people more.

So I guess the question is, if the witch will not receive any improvements via errata, is it just stuck where it is forever?

I was hoping it was going to get *something*, not necessarily buffed just,,,, made more in line with lore and the like?

Being totally honest here, this mentality of "things being slightly too good is a huge problem, but things being bad is not an issue at all" that the designers and a big chunk of the community seem to have is slowly chipping away at all the excitement I once had about the game.

I have to agree, I love GMing for my players but after going from 2 to 12 as a blaster wizard and rarely if ever hitting with one of my attack spells (not hyperbole, I have landed 4 spells in all that time...rarely rolling below a 10), honestly broke my heart and I had to leave that campaign because I just dreaded rolling and wiffing all my slots again and being useless to the party :c. First time I ever dreaded playing a ttrpg, honestly (in sixteen years of experience, mostly as GM).

(I know CC is super strong and the like, but that wasn't my character and I don't like playing that type of class)

I just want my attack spells to hit, I don't want any damage buffs, I just want to hit in encounters.

I was extremely excited for pf2 and loved about every moment of pouring over the CRB, and with all the fun my players have, I was really looking forward to being a player in it.

I still host for my players because they have such a great time, but my fire is very much dimmed at this point, especially with how much of a let down Secrets of Magic was and how bad some of the BotD spoilers have been. Vampire is one of the worst archetypes in the game until like level 17; feels more akin a series of voluntary flaws without any real benefit until past 15 (which most tables don't see) and even then, that's going 9 levels of maybe not dying in sunlight immediately but being a sitting duck until nightfall or indoors.

There is a problem of being dedicated to the same weaknesses but not even remotely emulating the power or survivability. Daywalker should have been slowed 1 at most with an attack penalty and/or dazzled.

I know balance is important but like... maybe tone down damage or something else to at least make it feel better? Lower HP to start but maybe a passive regen sans some of the offensive ability?

Apologies for the tirade, I'm just very crestfallen with how things have gone.

Aaron Shanks wrote:

The Advanced Player's Guide Errata is live.

Yay!

(The list is missing the changes to Eldritch Archer. The Dedication no longer grants an extra cantrip if you have pre-existing spell slots.)

Source?

Gisher wrote:

Aaron Shanks wrote:

The Advanced Player's Guide Errata is live.

Yay!

(The list is missing the changes to Eldritch Archer. The Dedication no longer grants an extra cantrip if you have pre-existing spell slots.)

Source?

Second printing PDF.

Ed Reppert wrote:

Gisher wrote:

Aaron Shanks wrote:

The Advanced Player's Guide Errata is live.

Yay!

(The list is missing the changes to Eldritch Archer. The Dedication no longer grants an extra cantrip if you have pre-existing spell slots.)

Source?

Second printing PDF.

Yes. Specifically, Ed Reppert, they removed the paragraph that granted a second cantrip to those who already had spell slots.

Eldritch Archer Dedication

You blend magic with your archery, leading to powerful results.
If you don’t already cast spells from spell slots, you learn to cast spontaneous spells and gain the Cast a Spell activity. You gain a spell repertoire with one cantrip of your choice, from a spell list of your choice. You choose this cantrip from the common spells on your chosen spell list or from other spells to which you have access on that list. This cantrip must require a spell attack roll. You’re trained in spell attack rolls and spell DCs for that tradition. Your key spellcasting ability for these spells is Charisma.

If you already cast spells from spell slots, you learn one additional cantrip from that tradition. If you’re a prepared caster, you can prepare this spell in addition to your usual cantrips per day; if you’re a spontaneous caster, you add this cantrip to your spell repertoire.
You also gain Eldritch Shot.

Given that the Beast Gunner and Cathartic Mage dedications copied that paragraph, I would expect them to get the same errata eventually.

Paizo has a policy that all classes with “witch” in their name must be disappointing. The Witch must be lame so that the Starfinder Witchwarper can continue to suck.

Paizo has a policy that all classes with “witch” in their name must be disappointing. The Witch must be lame so that the Starfinder Witchwarper can continue to suck.

I can honestly 110% believe this.

dmerceless wrote:

Being totally honest here, this mentality of "things being slightly too good is a huge problem, but things being bad is not an issue at all" that the designers and a big chunk of the community seem to have is slowly chipping away at all the excitement I once had about the game.

I just want my attack spells to hit, I don't want any damage buffs, I just want to hit in encounters.

Electric Arc.

I just made it so witches get a feat at first level as most spell casting classes like wizard, druid, or bard have a thing which basically grants them a feat.

No idea why witch missed out but we don't play PFS so we can tweak things as we see them.

Admittedly, I think part of the issue is that the community picks up on ideas that I don't think are necessarily accepted as fact internally. Like the question of if the Witch even really needs buffs, I kinda don't think it does and I'm playing one right now as a dedicated healer with Life Boost and Flexible Preperation.

Some more lessons would generally be nice just to have more focus magic tailored to what role you want your witch to fulfill, the way Life Boost is ideal for my goals. But overall I think it succeeds in being a fairly average PF2e class-- I wouldn't say its particularly better or worse than the Druid really.

Admittedly, I think part of the issue is that the community picks up on ideas that I don't think are necessarily accepted as fact internally. Like the question of if the Witch even really needs buffs, I kinda don't think it does and I'm playing one right now as a dedicated healer with Life Boost and Flexible Preperation.

Some more lessons would generally be nice just to have more focus magic tailored to what role you want your witch to fulfill, the way Life Boost is ideal for my goals. But overall I think it succeeds in being a fairly average PF2e class-- I wouldn't say its particularly better or worse than the Druid really.

The druid having daily access to all common primal spells vs the witch having a spellbook is a pretty visible power divergence. But I do think beyond that they're fairly comparable. The witch gets more stuff at level 1 and the druid gets more flexibility over the long run.

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Admittedly, I think part of the issue is that the community picks up on ideas that I don't think are necessarily accepted as fact internally. Like the question of if the Witch even really needs buffs, I kinda don't think it does and I'm playing one right now as a dedicated healer with Life Boost and Flexible Preperation.

Some more lessons would generally be nice just to have more focus magic tailored to what role you want your witch to fulfill, the way Life Boost is ideal for my goals. But overall I think it succeeds in being a fairly average PF2e class-- I wouldn't say its particularly better or worse than the Druid really.

The druid having daily access to all common primal spells vs the witch having a spellbook is a pretty visible power divergence. But I do think beyond that they're fairly comparable. The witch gets more stuff at level 1 and the druid gets more flexibility over the long run.

Hmm, I'm not so sure, when I played a Wizard 1-17 (with some levels skips) I didn't even use all my spellbook picks-- while obviously being able to get a few of the interesting-but-situational utility spells is nice and probably not neutral, I'd be wary of overvaluing it, especially when a Witch/Wizard can still fit in a few of the most useful situational spells on top of their bread and butter spells for combat or other regularly occurring situations. Especially since normally a prepared caster (like the Druid) has to dedicate the slots at daily preparation, rather than right when they come up against a problem a given spell is perfect for.

Blave wrote:

Ed Reppert wrote:

Gisher wrote:

Aaron Shanks wrote:

The Advanced Player's Guide Errata is live.

Yay!

(The list is missing the changes to Eldritch Archer. The Dedication no longer grants an extra cantrip if you have pre-existing spell slots.)

Source?

Second printing PDF.

Yes. Specifically, Ed Reppert, they removed the paragraph that granted a second cantrip to those who already had spell slots.

APG, p. 172 wrote:

Eldritch Archer Dedication

You blend magic with your archery, leading to powerful results.
If you don’t already cast spells from spell slots, you learn to cast spontaneous spells and gain the Cast a Spell activity. You gain a spell repertoire with one cantrip of your choice, from a spell list of your choice. You choose this cantrip from the common spells on your chosen spell list or from other spells to which you have access on that list. This cantrip must require a spell attack roll. You’re trained in spell attack rolls and spell DCs for that tradition. Your key spellcasting ability for these spells is Charisma.

If you already cast spells from spell slots, you learn one additional cantrip from that tradition. If you’re a prepared caster, you can prepare this spell in addition to your usual cantrips per day; if you’re a spontaneous caster, you add this cantrip to your spell repertoire.
You also gain Eldritch Shot.

Given that the Beast Gunner and Cathartic Mage dedications copied that paragraph, I would expect them to get the same errata eventually.

This change still isn't included in the Official Errata, and immanuel_aj has noted that Archives of Nethys still has the original text.

I know that we usually don't get official responses on errata, but given that the actual book contradicts both of the official online sources, some clarification on which is wrong would be great.

Thanks for the note on the eldritch archer! The FAQ page was, in fact, missing the errata, and has now been updated.

Thanks for the note on the eldritch archer! The FAQ page was, in fact, missing the errata, and has now been updated.

Thank you!

Hm, the Rules Discussion forum has a pinned thread asking for all Lost Omens errata/clarification requests in one centralized spot. I wonder if a thread could be made for the Rulebook line.

I'd like to note that swashbuckler uses "weapons and unarmed attacks" with every one of swashbuckler's odd-level class features, except for a single outlier: The 5th-level 'weapon expertise' is swashbuckler's only class feature that says "You gain access to the critical specialization effects of all weapons for which you have expert proficiency", so it may have been intended to say "weapons and unarmed attacks for which you have expert proficiency" instead.

Similarly, the 6th-level swashbuckler feat Combination Finisher's wording is unclear: "–4 (or –3 with an agile weapon) if it’s the second attack on your turn, or –8 (or –6 with an agile weapon)" could be clarified like "with an agile weapon or unarmed attack".