ACG Errata


Product Discussion

101 to 150 of 727 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You mean more than about 6 or 7 feats?

EDIT: wait, since it's just dex to damage, that can be done in 2 feats. Thought it's still TWF DEX to damage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_Blake wrote:

That's a ton of changes. I'm never going to remember them all.

Think I can send back my ACG to trade it in for the next printing?

Seriously, should we be able to? Because I'm looking at almost nine full pages of changes with small font and two columns. This makes this printing of ACG almost obsolete and makes the GM have to remember a lot if he allows this book in case someone is using a hard copy first print. Can I at least get a discount?


Shisumo wrote:
graystone wrote:
LoneKnave wrote:
Quote:
The only way to get TWF dex-to-damage before was to dip Swash and use sawtoothed sabres. Because it didn't work with light weapons before.
Agile property.
Small rapier in off hand.
Weapon finesse specifies that it only works for weapons of your size category.

Hmmm... you're right. I thought either the rapier or the feat lacked that but I was wrong. Go Lace!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, this errata has nearly the same number of pages as the core rulebook, but the core rulebook is like 3x as many pages and has been around for 6 years.

Is this a sign of things to come?

Is Paizo sending a clear message that they're in such a hurry to rush a new book to market and make the quick buck that playtesting and rule balance is now pushed off to post-release, or ignored all together?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_Blake wrote:

So, this errata has nearly the same number of pages as the core rulebook, but the core rulebook is like 3x as many pages and has been around for 6 years.

Is this a sign of things to come?

Is Paizo sending a clear message that they're in such a hurry to rush a new book to market and make the quick buck that playtesting and rule balance is now pushed off to post-release, or ignored all together?

As I understand it, the issues with the ACG seem not to be repeating themselves (thankfully!). The next several hardcovers—Monster Codex, Unchained, Occult—all seem to be back on track. (I've only seen Unchained, myself, but folks who have looked at the others seem to think they're doing okay.)

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
DM_Blake wrote:

So, this errata has nearly the same number of pages as the core rulebook, but the core rulebook is like 3x as many pages and has been around for 6 years.

Is this a sign of things to come?

Is Paizo sending a clear message that they're in such a hurry to rush a new book to market and make the quick buck that playtesting and rule balance is now pushed off to post-release, or ignored all together?

It's hardly comparable. The ACG was all new stuff while the core rulebook was mostly copied from 3.5 - which had already been played for 6ish years to get most of the bugs out.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_Blake wrote:
Is Paizo sending a clear message that they're in such a hurry to rush a new book to market and make the quick buck that playtesting and rule balance is now pushed off to post-release, or ignored all together?

Tell me what you think the answer is when Occult Adventures is out for perusal.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Matrix Dragon wrote:
Maybe I should just save myself some aggrivation and not buy the hardcover books until the second printing or something?
Plenty of room in the boat for you to join me.

The only thing holding me back is my addiction to the sweet sweet early access subscriber pdfs D:


TOZ wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
Is Paizo sending a clear message that they're in such a hurry to rush a new book to market and make the quick buck that playtesting and rule balance is now pushed off to post-release, or ignored all together?
Tell me what you think the answer is when Occult Adventures is out for perusal.

I'm not even convinced I'll be getting that one. Not because of playtest complaints, but because I don't see it as being likely to be used at my table. If that ever changes, then I'll get it.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
DM_Blake wrote:
I'm not even convinced I'll be getting that one.

That doesn't prevent perusal.

Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Joe M. wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:

So, this errata has nearly the same number of pages as the core rulebook, but the core rulebook is like 3x as many pages and has been around for 6 years.

Is this a sign of things to come?

Is Paizo sending a clear message that they're in such a hurry to rush a new book to market and make the quick buck that playtesting and rule balance is now pushed off to post-release, or ignored all together?

As I understand it, the issues with the ACG seem not to be repeating themselves (thankfully!). The next several hardcovers—Monster Codex, Unchained, Occult—all seem to be back on track. (I've only seen Unchained, myself, but folks who have looked at the others seem to think they're doing okay.)

It was indeed a small hiccup. I like to think that the addition of more team members (like me and Logan on the design team, thus bringing us up to more people to double-check each other and such, but also adding more editors like Joe and Jason K.) are part of the reason that the RPG line books after ACG have had fewer such problems, but then, I'm one of the new team members, so I'm biased. ;)


DM_Blake wrote:

So, this errata has nearly the same number of pages as the core rulebook, but the core rulebook is like 3x as many pages and has been around for 6 years.

Is this a sign of things to come?

Is Paizo sending a clear message that they're in such a hurry to rush a new book to market and make the quick buck that playtesting and rule balance is now pushed off to post-release, or ignored all together?

I don't think so. I haven't really picked apart Occult Adventures but its in a similar release boat as the ACG and I haven't come across ACG levels of rules ambiguity. I can accept some glitches in books particularly in the Core Rulebook since a lot of new things bring up questions about old things, but I think ACG is just before the line where I'm outright upset (past the line for some others to be upset) and with this amount of eratta for one, not that big, book I do feel like I want a new book. I've gotten multiple copies of Ultimate Equipment and The Core Rulebook but this book is not passed around enough for me to justify having another one around just for the eratta.

Sovereign Court

TOZ wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
Is Paizo sending a clear message that they're in such a hurry to rush a new book to market and make the quick buck that playtesting and rule balance is now pushed off to post-release, or ignored all together?
Tell me what you think the answer is when Occult Adventures is out for perusal.

OA is much better edited, I can say this from experience. Especially since the 3-4 questions I had were easily answered by designers (mostly Mark) on the boards.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DM_Blake wrote:

So, this errata has nearly the same number of pages as the core rulebook, but the core rulebook is like 3x as many pages and has been around for 6 years.

Is this a sign of things to come?

Is Paizo sending a clear message that they're in such a hurry to rush a new book to market and make the quick buck that playtesting and rule balance is now pushed off to post-release, or ignored all together?

I could have handled a bit more 'ignored all together' in this errata. They used the usual 'nuke it into burning ash' method when a scalpel would have worked so much better. Sadly with all the nerfing there are still some things not in it is seems.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
LoneKnave wrote:
Quote:
The only way to get TWF dex-to-damage before was to dip Swash and use sawtoothed sabres. Because it didn't work with light weapons before.
Agile property.
I meant the only way with Slashing Grace. Sorry - I thought was obvious in the context.

agile doesn't even work on sawtooth sabers...


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
memorax wrote:
I was expecting 2-3 at most 5 pages. but nine pages. Man i'm glad I disallow the book from my tables. Even SR5 had less errata. Not to mention agreeing with what needed nerfing and what did not imo.

<= is playing SR5, SR5 desperately needs MORE errata.


So I've been searching the document for some clarity on what bloodrager archetypes can be combined and I haven't been able to find anything. Is there something I missed or will there be more info later?


Rebius Dour wrote:
BadBird wrote:


Technically Arcane Deed: Precise Strike didn't work even before the errata because, as the errata now explicitly states, it had no Swashbuckler level. Whether that was the original intent, who knows. People using it as such came down to a vast, collective cry of "of COURSE it's supposed to work, they just made a mistake!" Which may be true, but again, who knows.
As of this errata, Arcane Deed is dead, and not just for Precise Strike. The vast majority of deeds no longer function for the magus.

I wonder how many other ones ever saw use on a Magus to begin with... collateral damage is no fun when it hits an open field.


BadBird wrote:
Rebius Dour wrote:
BadBird wrote:


Technically Arcane Deed: Precise Strike didn't work even before the errata because, as the errata now explicitly states, it had no Swashbuckler level. Whether that was the original intent, who knows. People using it as such came down to a vast, collective cry of "of COURSE it's supposed to work, they just made a mistake!" Which may be true, but again, who knows.
As of this errata, Arcane Deed is dead, and not just for Precise Strike. The vast majority of deeds no longer function for the magus.
I wonder how many other ones ever saw use on a Magus to begin with... collateral damage is no fun when it hits an open field.

At least Flamboyant Arcana itself isn't destroyed as an option. Since the Opportune Parry and Riptose Deed is not coming from Arcane Deed, the caveat about never counting as having at least 1 panache doesn't apply.


TOZ wrote:
Man, so this is what it's like when Blizzard releases a WoW patch.

I really didn't want to say anything for fear of fanboy retaliation, but yeah.

This Errata document looks almost EXACTLY like some of the 10 page long Diablo 3 patches and such that basically change how every class plays entirely (I remember at least one that changed how half of the Mage's abilities worked wholesale, on top of balance tweaks).


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Man, so this is what it's like when Blizzard releases a WoW patch.

I really didn't want to say anything for fear of fanboy retaliation, but yeah.

This Errata document looks almost EXACTLY like some of the 10 page long Diablo 3 patches and such that basically change how every class plays entirely (I remember at least one that changed how half of the Mage's abilities worked wholesale, on top of balance tweaks).

i got to agree, a ton of characters out there right now simply have to be scrapped because of some of these changes.


Rynjin wrote:
Quite a few that didn't need it. Daring Champion, Merciless Butchery (it was already nearly impossible to proc, why nerf the f@&%ing thing?), Sacred Fist Warpriests, Verminous Hunters, and more.

So very nerfed, with it still (inferably) enjoying precise strike, and challenge, together. Yeah, ok - it's nerfed, but still hits fairly hard.

You know, that one trick pony martial characters are (but that's a different discussion (and I'm being facetious)).
Sacred Fist doesn't annoy me overmuch - the only surprising thing was the BAB change, and considering the archetype keeps Fervor, it remains fairly strong anyway (compared to Monk).

Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Fencing Grace doesn't need the tweak - because no one is going to try to TWF with rapiers. (Unless they use the OP & PFS illegal Effortless Lace.)

...I was (mostly to skip the extra feat to get a dueling sword or such). Am I doing it badwrongfun? :(

To be honest (although I'm sure reasons other than balance exist); I remain mostly bemused by changes to feats effecting animal companions. Was anyone really looking at Spirit's Gift thinking it a game changer?

Silver Crusade Contributor

I'm sad (although not heartbroken) about Spirit's Gift... I mostly used it to give my raven familiar some survivability.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The majority of these changes will be flatly ignored at my table.

Half part because some of the changes are just wholly unnecessary, and the other half because in their attempt to break something, they break other things all together that had nothing to do with what they were trying to prevent. What a headache.


Wow, just... wow. It's like they went through the book and took a hammer to anything that was a decent option. I'm embellishing, of course, but less than I'd like to be. Hunters got hit especially hard, for some reason I can't fathom. Animal soul? THAT was game breaking?

It reminds me of a DM I had in college. He'd have a kneejerk reaction to anything I did that was out of the ordinary, even if I showed him it was inferior to other options. It looks like someone let him write the errata on this book.

Not to mention they didn't fix several glaring problems. Such as writing brawler's flurry properly.


Kalindlara wrote:
I'm sad (although not heartbroken) about Spirit's Gift... I mostly used it to give my raven familiar some survivability.

I think part of the problem is that the same feat was meant to work for both familiars and for animal companions. Giving a familiar fast healing isn't the same as giving an animal companion fast healing.


Triune wrote:
Not to mention they didn't fix several glaring problems. Such as writing brawler's flurry properly.

That was pretty egregious. It really needed a complete rewrite, as it doesn't even tell you the number of attacks you get or what penalties you take while using them. It never actually says you are two-weapon fighting or that you take the penalties for two weapon fighting. Do you technically even have an offhand when flurrying?

Silver Crusade Contributor

Melkiador wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
I'm sad (although not heartbroken) about Spirit's Gift... I mostly used it to give my raven familiar some survivability.
I think part of the problem is that the same feat was meant to work for both familiars and for animal companions. Giving a familiar fast healing isn't the same as giving an animal companion fast healing.

I won't disagree. ^_^

I tend to use powerful things in mostly questionable ways.


Triune wrote:
Wow, just... wow. It's like they went through the book and took a hammer to anything that was a decent option.

And remember, here at Paizo, they only use the biggest hammer available. Keep smashing until all the problems go away... Sigh...

Triune wrote:
Not to mention they didn't fix several glaring problems. Such as writing brawler's flurry properly.

But that isn't a nerf! yeah, I'm embellishing too as there WHERE some good changes but they hard to see amid all the collateral hammer damage.


Melkiador wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
I'm sad (although not heartbroken) about Spirit's Gift... I mostly used it to give my raven familiar some survivability.
I think part of the problem is that the same feat was meant to work for both familiars and for animal companions. Giving a familiar fast healing isn't the same as giving an animal companion fast healing.

Huh, missed that as an option. That...would explain it. Though bit of a tangent but is fast healing one really all that powerful? Never struck me as such.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Malwing wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:

That's a ton of changes. I'm never going to remember them all.

Think I can send back my ACG to trade it in for the next printing?

Seriously, should we be able to? Because I'm looking at almost nine full pages of changes with small font and two columns. This makes this printing of ACG almost obsolete and makes the GM have to remember a lot if he allows this book in case someone is using a hard copy first print. Can I at least get a discount?

You won't get a discount, but I hear you can pick up Erroneous Origins, a campaign setting tie-in to the errata document which includes a feat that addresses all of your concerns. Also, check out the Classes chapter of Errata Unchained, which includes some important errata the designers always intended to publish in place of the actual errata they published.


Snowblind wrote:
BadBird wrote:
Rebius Dour wrote:
BadBird wrote:


Technically Arcane Deed: Precise Strike didn't work even before the errata because, as the errata now explicitly states, it had no Swashbuckler level. Whether that was the original intent, who knows. People using it as such came down to a vast, collective cry of "of COURSE it's supposed to work, they just made a mistake!" Which may be true, but again, who knows.
As of this errata, Arcane Deed is dead, and not just for Precise Strike. The vast majority of deeds no longer function for the magus.
I wonder how many other ones ever saw use on a Magus to begin with... collateral damage is no fun when it hits an open field.
At least Flamboyant Arcana itself isn't destroyed as an option. Since the Opportune Parry and Riptose Deed is not coming from Arcane Deed, the caveat about never counting as having at least 1 panache doesn't apply.

It would be great except they excluded Opportune Parry and Riposte as an option with the Flamboyant Arcana.

The Exchange

Anybody here particularly clear on the changes to Surprise Maneuvers??

The whole "dice rolled" thing makes no sense --nobody rolls their sneak attack dice while doing a combat maneuver. What am I missing?

Or was this just a rhetorical change with no mechanical impact, and we keep using it like before (e.g. you have 3d6 sneak attack, so if you meet the conditions you get +3 on combat maneuver checks...?)

Thanks,

-Goh

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
Man, so this is what it's like when Blizzard releases a WoW patch.

Exactly, all those people who are mostly happy with the patch or don't care are all busy playing and don't post here.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Gohaken wrote:


Anybody here particularly clear on the changes to Surprise Maneuvers??

The whole "dice rolled" thing makes no sense --nobody rolls their sneak attack dice while doing a combat maneuver. What am I missing?

Or was this just a rhetorical change with no mechanical impact, and we keep using it like before (e.g. you have 3d6 sneak attack, so if you meet the conditions you get +3 on combat maneuver checks...?)

Thanks,

-Goh

This change appears to have no mechanical impact.


Gisher wrote:
Snowblind wrote:
BadBird wrote:
Rebius Dour wrote:
BadBird wrote:


Technically Arcane Deed: Precise Strike didn't work even before the errata because, as the errata now explicitly states, it had no Swashbuckler level. Whether that was the original intent, who knows. People using it as such came down to a vast, collective cry of "of COURSE it's supposed to work, they just made a mistake!" Which may be true, but again, who knows.
As of this errata, Arcane Deed is dead, and not just for Precise Strike. The vast majority of deeds no longer function for the magus.
I wonder how many other ones ever saw use on a Magus to begin with... collateral damage is no fun when it hits an open field.
At least Flamboyant Arcana itself isn't destroyed as an option. Since the Opportune Parry and Riptose Deed is not coming from Arcane Deed, the caveat about never counting as having at least 1 panache doesn't apply.
It would be great except they excluded Opportune Parry and Riposte as an option with the Flamboyant Arcana.

Well, according to page 4 of the errata:

"In the Flamboyant Arcana magus arcana, replace the second sentence with “The magus can spend only points from his arcane pool (not panache points) to use these deeds and any other deeds he gains from the deed arcana. He can’t use points from his arcane pool to use deeds from other classes or those gained by feats, nor can he regain points to his arcane pool as a swashbuckler would regain panache points.”

Never does it say the Flamboyant Arcana does no longer give you Opportune parry and riposte.

But I'm not sure about how the errata'd Slashing grace now interacts with the magus Spell combat...


Felyndiira wrote:

To be fair, Steadfast Personality is now absolutely wonderful for Sorcerers, Oracles, and other CHA casters save for Paladin, who can now dump their Wisdom scores into the nethers. Even if it still counts against their will saves, a -2 WILL offset by a +5 WILL (or more) from their casting stat is a solid plus for any caster. That saves up a bunch of points to be placed in STR (for Oracles), DEX, CON, or what have you.

Once again, casters win :).

There are 2 different versions of the errata for this feat in the book, have they clarified which one applies?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

A+++ everything

my only real complaint is that slashing grace doesnt work with light piercing weapons

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:

A+++ everything

my only real complaint is that slashing grace doesnt work with light piercing weapons

What? A post which is positive instead of complaining!?

What's wrong with you? This is THE INTERNET!!! *kicks random Persian down the well of death*

Designer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:

A+++ everything

my only real complaint is that slashing grace doesnt work with light piercing weapons

I am at least partially looking into some things on that one, actually.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
andreww wrote:
Felyndiira wrote:

To be fair, Steadfast Personality is now absolutely wonderful for Sorcerers, Oracles, and other CHA casters save for Paladin, who can now dump their Wisdom scores into the nethers. Even if it still counts against their will saves, a -2 WILL offset by a +5 WILL (or more) from their casting stat is a solid plus for any caster. That saves up a bunch of points to be placed in STR (for Oracles), DEX, CON, or what have you.

Once again, casters win :).

There are 2 different versions of the errata for this feat in the book, have they clarified which one applies?

Probably the errata on the actual feat. Table text is just a summary.


Happy to see that the Bolt Ace got the tweaks that were suggested for him. It'd be great if you could take a look at Sharp Shoot + Deadly Aim thing. :)

New Slashing Grace is rough for dex-based magi, I guess it's back to Fencing Grace/Dervish Dance or bust for them. It was nice to see some variation on the magus weaponry scene while it lasted.

The new Divine Protection and the change for spirit guide oracles completely wrecked a friend's character. Turns out his replacement character was going to be a Pummeling Style crit fisher brawler... That was awkward.

I'm not sure what's going on with Steadfast Personality - the feat blurb and the actual feat seems to disagree. Any chance you could take a look at that?

Quote:
In the Steadfast Personality entry, change the Benefits entry to “Use your Charisma modifier on saves against mind-affecting effects”
Quote:
In the Steadfast Personality feat, change the Benefit section to “Benefit: Add your Charisma modifier instead of your Wisdom bonus on Will saves. If you have a Wisdom penalty, you must apply both your Wisdom penalty and your Charisma modifier.”

The bolded section seems out of place.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:

A+++ everything

my only real complaint is that slashing grace doesnt work with light piercing weapons

I am at least partially looking into some things on that one, actually.

Do you think you could comment on the eldritch scion situation?

It's just so... broken.


I've never been one to keep up much with errata for previous books. But, this one almost seemed unusable without it. For those of you who do keep up with it all, how does the amount of errata compare to previous books - APG, UM, UC, etc.?


Mark Seifter wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:

A+++ everything

my only real complaint is that slashing grace doesnt work with light piercing weapons

I am at least partially looking into some things on that one, actually.

Save the Sword Cane too.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think I may be the only person I know to play the Wild Whisperer archetype ever, and with the new errata I will say that I am disappointed that this archetype didn't actually get fixed, and don't expect anyone other than myself to play it as is.

Cons:

1. I feel I am giving up too much now for what I am gaining, as now I don't just lose wildshape being useful for combat, but I also don't gain more investigator talents without spending feats. It feels as if the archetype should have done what ranger archetypes have done with favoured enemy and progressed the reduced version separately while giving more abilities to compensate for the huge loss.

2. The Wild Stalker archetype gives similar abilities(but with the slayer instead of the investigator) and gives talents/advanced talents at levels where wildshape would normally progress. This just shows that the archetype seemed... unfinished.

3. You still have to insinuate that your druid level is equal to your investigator level for talents based on the suggested talents.

4. Without items, the capstone feels really weak. I would remedy this by not allowing items to give new forms with the wildshape, and giving an actual capstone(Ex: Druidic Legends; At 20th level the Wild whisperer may use inspiration on all natural attacks, attacks with druid weapons, and caster level checks without spending inspiration. The Wild Whisperer may also as a swift action spend 2 inspiration to add her inspiration die to the DC of a spell she casts 1/round.)

5. The Oracle version of this archetype gets errata'd to make the Oracle less MAD, while this archetype still makes the druid MAD.

6. It doesn't change the weapon proficiencies, which it should to better fit the theme of a less natural attack focused druid.

Pro's:

1. It is now obvious exactly what you lose from the archetype, where before it was up to GM fiat.

2. It is now obvious that the wildshape works with items that give new forms of wild shape such as the giant's masks.

3. It says that the ability alters wildshape... This makes me so happy, as I dislike arguing with people about whether something "alters" an ability, and I hope this becomes a trend again.

4. Reduced uses of wildshape makes sense thematically.

5. I feel that my post will at least be noticed(if not replied to or done anything about) thanks to Mark's prevalence on the forums.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

What am I going to do with my book now? Why are subscribers getting punished for their fiscal loyalty? This is too much too soon!

Bandw2 wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Man, so this is what it's like when Blizzard releases a WoW patch.

I really didn't want to say anything for fear of fanboy retaliation, but yeah.

This Errata document looks almost EXACTLY like some of the 10 page long Diablo 3 patches and such that basically change how every class plays entirely (I remember at least one that changed how half of the Mage's abilities worked wholesale, on top of balance tweaks).

i got to agree, a ton of characters out there right now simply have to be scrapped because of some of these changes.

A huge chunk of my Crazy Character Gallery is going to have to be overhauled because of this overreach.

Over a dozen characters are going to require major rewrites. Several concepts have been completely crushed by this errata.

Boo I say. BOO!


6 people marked this as a favorite.

ugh. UGH.

I am DONE with this. I'll be sticking to either d20pfsrd or playing another system entirely, because I am tired of liking (and shelling out money for!) things that aren't allowed to exist for more than a few months under paizo.


I'm curious to hear thoughts on the recently released Errata for the Advanced Class Guide.

I'd like to express my own to get things rolling.

I'm... equal parts so dissappointed I would honestly like to see someone fired for what came out, and grateful that some of the major problems I saw in the original printing in terms of things that worked poorly or not at all getting fixed.

Examples: The fixes to the Warpriest Sacred Fist and the Slayer Sniper Archetypes were repairs I was glad to see for things that had been in some need of fixing because as written they were of questionable effectiveness in areas, or entirely pointless in others.

I was, however, severely disappointed when I read what was done regarding the Opportune Parry and Riposte deed. It was deliberately removed in almost every location where It was possible to do so, except Swashbuckler itself, and the Flamboyant Arcana Magus Arcana. Kata Master lost it (even though parrying a blow is actually something a martial artist does), Amateur Swashbuckler lost it (Why I can't concieve of). Divine Protetion was a decidedly fun and enjoyable power feat that worked great according to all those I know. Now it's... a feat I don't think anyone I know would ever bother taking. Including myself.

I suspect I will both not be alone in these opinions, and not universally accepted in these opinions. What parts of Advanced Class Guide's errata were you happy to see, and where did you see things that sent you shivering or shaking with rage or disappointment?

What didn't get fixed that you thought need to be attended to?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you think they "fixed" the Warpriest you should read it again.

101 to 150 of 727 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / ACG Errata All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.