Errata questions


General Discussion

151 to 200 of 421 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Just a clarification: Flurry of Blows, how are multiple attack penalties applied?

Dark Archive

I don't know if this actually needs errata, but I find it odd that Felling Strike feat does not specify that you need to be flying and adjacent to the target? Also, to me it looks like you don't even need to hit to make the target fall from the sky, is that right?

Rulebook p.92 wrote:

FELLING STRIKE

Requirements The target is flying and you are
wielding a two-handed melee weapon.

Make a Strike with the following enhancement.

Enhancement The target falls up to 120 feet. The fall is gradual
enough that if it causes the target to hit the ground, the target takes no damage from the fall. If the attack is a critical hit, the target can’t fly, jump, levitate, or otherwise leave the ground until the end of your next turn.


Asgetrion wrote:

I don't know if this actually needs errata, but I find it odd that Felling Strike feat does not specify that you need to be flying and adjacent to the target? Also, to me it looks like you don't even need to hit to make the target fall from the sky, is that right?

Rulebook p.92 wrote:

FELLING STRIKE

Requirements The target is flying and you are
wielding a two-handed melee weapon.

Make a Strike with the following enhancement.

Enhancement The target falls up to 120 feet. The fall is gradual
enough that if it causes the target to hit the ground, the target takes no damage from the fall. If the attack is a critical hit, the target can’t fly, jump, levitate, or otherwise leave the ground until the end of your next turn.

The key wording here is "Make a Strike" which is described per the Strike action on p. 308:

Playtest Rulebook, p. 308 wrote:

STRIKE

You attack with a weapon you’re wielding or with an unarmed attack, targeting one creature within your reach (for a melee attack) or within range (for a ranged attack). Roll the attack roll for the weapon or unarmed attack you are using and compare the result to the target creature’s AC to determine the effect. See Melee Strikes and Ranged Strikes on page 17 for details on calculating your attack and damage rolls.

Per the Strike action, you have to target "one creature within your reach (for a melee attack)" with your wielded two-handed melee weapon.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd like a clarification example of magic weapon and the power attack feat and a magic fatal pick please. I've talked with a lot of people in my area looking into PF2 and I've had a few different interpretations and it'd be nice for this playtest to have clear how these work.


Asgetrion wrote:

I don't know if this actually needs errata, but I find it odd that Felling Strike feat does not specify that you need to be flying and adjacent to the target? Also, to me it looks like you don't even need to hit to make the target fall from the sky, is that right?

Rulebook p.92 wrote:

FELLING STRIKE

Requirements The target is flying and you are
wielding a two-handed melee weapon.

Make a Strike with the following enhancement.

Enhancement The target falls up to 120 feet. The fall is gradual
enough that if it causes the target to hit the ground, the target takes no damage from the fall. If the attack is a critical hit, the target can’t fly, jump, levitate, or otherwise leave the ground until the end of your next turn.

I can imagine several situations where the target is flying but the character isn't - a battle on a narrow ridge against harpies, or being dive-bombed by giant bats. I imagine part of the idea of the feat is if you crit you hold them at your level so they can't fly away.


The 1st level General/Skill Feat Additional Lore states you become trained in an additional Lore skill and at 3rd, 5th, and 13th levels you gain an additional skill increase that you can apply only to Lore. The minimum level to become a master in a skill is 7th and the minimum level to become legendary is 15th. I think the skill increases should be 2 levels later than what they are.


The Robust Recovery skill feat requires expert in medicine and is level 2. How can it be accessed via the background laborer? P.8 states: Prerequisites }.....]you must have before you can access the element.


Also don't forget that Felling Strike is 8th level. By this stage, you can gain flight through several means, such as the Fly spell. Your Wizard buddy casts Fly on you, you chase after the pesky monster, then smack it down so others can wail on it.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

"Hit Points and Healing" on page 294 really, really needs to point to the sections on recovering HP on page 317 (exploration mode) and page 318 (downtime mode). Those are not the natural places to look for the information, so it's way too easy to conclude that there is no natural healing. I realize it doesn't fit neatly on the page but... find a way, please.


Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
"Hit Points and Healing" on page 294 really, really needs to point to the sections on recovering HP on page 317 (exploration mode) and page 318 (downtime mode). Those are not the natural places to look for the information, so it's way too easy to conclude that there is no natural healing. I realize it doesn't fit neatly on the page but... find a way, please.

Just adding I think that is a GREAT suggestion.


Midnightoker wrote:


Counter Performance is impossible to use because it costs 2 reactions

This is true of Counterspell but not Counter Performance. The trigger for the latter is making a save of the appropriate type, not identifying anything appropriate.

MidknightDiamond wrote:
I'm thinking also that the Counter Performance, while currently seemingly impossible as it's written, is likely meant to be one reaction with it's Trigger requiring both verbal and somantic casting components available - thus you would have to be able to talk and have a hand free to use the reaction. It just doesn't come off like that since usually when spells have two casting components they take two actions.

You make EITHER a somatic or verbal reaction, depending on whether the trigger is visual or auditory. If it's both you can pick. I was confused at first, too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The universalist Wizard power Hand of the Apprentice doesn't mention how many spell points it costs.

Parduss wrote:
Just a clarification: Flurry of Blows, how are multiple attack penalties applied?

Combined activities use the same rules as their components. It says you make two Strikes, so they work as normal for MAC.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So... What's preventing you from Flanking with a ranged weapon?

Relevant info:

Quote:

FLANKING

When you and an ally are on opposite sides of an enemy,
you’re flanking that enemy. While the enemy is flanked,
it is flat-footed (taking a –2 circumstance penalty to AC)
to the creatures who are flanking it. To flank a foe, you
and your ally must be on opposites sides or opposite
corners of the creature. A line drawn between the center
of your space to the center of your ally’s space must pass
through either opposite sides or opposite corners of the
enemy’s space.

Both you and the ally have to be threatening that
enemy: this means you both must be wielding weapons
or ready to make unarmed attacks and not under any
effects that prevent you from making attacks. If you
have reach, you determine whether you are flanking
creatures out to the distance of your reach because you
threaten all of those squares.

You just have (excluding positioning) Threaten someone.

You threaten if you're wielding a weapon and you can attack the creature.
Quote:


Wielding Items
Some abilities require you to wield an item, typically a
weapon. You’re wielding an item any time you’re holding
it in the number of hands needed to use it effectively.
You’re not just carrying the weapon around—you’re ready
to use it. Other abilities might require you to merely carry
or have an item. These apply as long as you have the item
on your person; you don’t have to be wielding it.

So... If you're wielding your weapon, and you're ready to use it, you threaten. As long as you threaten, you flank (positioning aside).


Cantriped wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:
Cantriped wrote:
Dilvias wrote:

Humans get "One additional language, selected from

those to which you have access" but does not explain which ones they can access.
The Ethnicities (except Taldan) provide "access" to given languages, otherwise it can be infered (but isn't ever stated outright) that a character also has access to their regional language (thankfully for the poor Taldans).

So do Taldans get to choose a common language, or are they a language short in PF2?

And do the half-elf and half-orc feats potentially give a "human" character access to a third language, or just the ability to replace that human ethnic language with the language of their non-human parent?

A Taldan/Chelish character has the same potential number of languages, they just have Access to one fewer languages to choose from. By default this appears to limit them to their regional language.

Half-Elves/Orcs don't explicitly gain Access to their racial language unless they select it as one of the feat's benefits (which grants the language outright, giving you a third language).

Beyond that a player could argue for access to anything using backstory. The playtest rulebook even indicates that a bonus skill feat (specifically Sign Language) is an acceptable reward for a good backstory... though the section could also have been implying the GM would/should allow a customized Background.

Taldan is Common. I do not believe they have a regional language because their language is the Common tongue for the Inner Sea Region.

From Pathfinder Wiki: The language of the Taldan people is Taldane; the language has spread to become the Common speech of the entire Inner Sea region, a testament to Taldor's vast influence


JDLPF wrote:

Question #1

Can the bonus class feat from Natural Ambition be used to purchase a multiclass feat in place of a class feat provided the player meets the prerequisites?

Playtest Rulebook, p. 37 wrote:

NATURAL AMBITION

You were raised to be ambitious and always reach for the stars, causing you to progress quickly in your chosen field. You gain a 1st-level class feat for your class.
Playtest Rulebook, p. 279 wrote:
Applying an archetype requires you to spend your class feats on archetype feats instead of class feats. Start by finding the archetype that best fits your character concept, and select the archetype’s dedication feat using one of your class feat choices. Once you have the dedication feat, you can select any feat from that archetype in place of a class feat as long as you meet its prerequisites.

Example: Gish the Human Wizard decides to multiclass into Fighter. They take Fighter Dedication as their 2nd level class feat, Basic Maneuver as their 4th level class feat, and select Natural Ambition as their 5th level Ancestry Feat, gaining a 1st level class feat. Can Gish use this class feat to purchase the archetype feat Fighter Resiliency?

Per RAW, yes, but only in theory. In practice, there's not a single Feat in any archetype that meets the prerequisites of Natural Ambition

Reasoning:

"Once you have the dedication feat,
you can select any feat from that archetype in place of a
class feat as long as you meet its prerequisites."

When you have purchased a dedication feat for a given archetype, you can only purchase feats from said archetype. In the case of multiclass archetypes, that means that you can't, in fact, purchase class feats from the archetype's original class.

What you CAN purchase, instead, is a specific archetype feat which allows you to get said archetype's original class' feat.

In the case of the Fighter, Fighter Resilience is a 4th level Feat, so you can't chose that.

But the same also goes for 1st level Fighter Class feats. In order to get anyone of those, if you're not a fighter, you'd need to qualify for at least Basic Maneuver, which lets you select a 1st (or 2nd) level Fighter Class Feat. Basic Maneuver, however, is a 2nd level feat, so it can't be selected by Natural Ambition, as it exceeds Natural Ambition's Level 1 requirement.

The same goes for all other Archetype Feats as well. None of them are Level 1, so they all disqualify for Natural Ambition's criteria(but if ever a level 1 archetype feat were introduced, that'd be a different matter).


MidknightDiamond wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:

Under spell repotoire for Bard it says they gain 1 1st level spell and 4 cantrips and then says they gain 2 second level spells at 3rd, is this intentional? Based on the line following that states "even though you gain slots and repotoire at the same rate" it makes me feel like this is unintentional, especially since sorcerer gets 2 1st levels and they're the other spontaneous caster.

Counter Performance is impossible to use because it costs 2 reactions

Fascinating Performance states "against Will DC" but I cannot find context for a "Will DC" anywhere, only a will saving throw and skill DCs. Do they receive a save or is it a flat 10+Will check for the Performance?

I thought the same too about the Bard's 1st level spells until I read more into it. It's first level class feature Muse will give it an additional spell based on the feat so that it starts with two 1st level spells and will ultimately get a third later.

Edited for error.

That's not consistent with what is listed under the Sorcerer version of Spell Repertoire:

Quote:
At 1st level, you learn two 1st-level spells of your choice and four cantrips of your choice, as well as an additional spell and cantrip from your bloodline (see page 130).

Which explicitly calls out the bonus spell of the Bloodline.

Quote:
The Will DC of an observer would be that observer's Will Save Modifier +10. So... say someone was watching you who had a Will Save mod of +3, you'd roll a d20 and add your stuff and compare that to a Will DC of 13. If you got more than that, you succeed, if you got less, then you fail.

That may be what you define it as in your head, but there is no book definition for a Will DC at all, it is a completely foreign term. Despite that it may be possible to infer what it is means, this would be the only ability in the book I've read thus far that uses "Will DC" as a term.

Perception explicitly states that it works like Skill DCs in this way under Perception on page 301:

Quote:
In many circumstances, such as when someone’s trying to sneak past you, the GM will roll against your Perception DC. Much like skill DCs, your Perception DC is 10 plus your Perception modifier

I am mostly pointing this out because Fascinating Performance becomes extremely powerful if the check only has to beat Will DC, which against anyone that is a non Wisdom-based class is almost a guaranteed success.

Either way, clarification and a definition for Will DC would be nice.


Xenocrat wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:


Counter Performance is impossible to use because it costs 2 reactions

This is true of Counterspell but not Counter Performance. The trigger for the latter is making a save of the appropriate type, not identifying anything appropriate.

MidknightDiamond wrote:
I'm thinking also that the Counter Performance, while currently seemingly impossible as it's written, is likely meant to be one reaction with it's Trigger requiring both verbal and somantic casting components available - thus you would have to be able to talk and have a hand free to use the reaction. It just doesn't come off like that since usually when spells have two casting components they take two actions.

You make EITHER a somatic or verbal reaction, depending on whether the trigger is visual or auditory. If it's both you can pick. I was confused at first, too.

I'm not sure how you can infer that it costs "either" when the spell listing explicitly lists two reactions as the cost.

It is listed in the exact same way that two actions are required for any other spell, except they are reactions.

If the intent is to be either, there needs to be a clear definition of the difference instead of just using a comma as a separator like all of other spells.

Thus, until that clarification is made, as listed the spell is impossible to use because it lists 2 reactions just like other spells like 2/3 action costs.


The paralysed condition is more beneficial than the "asleep" or "unconsious" conditions.

Paralyzed
Your body is frozen in place. You have the flat-footed
condition.

Asleep
You can’t act. Furthermore, you have the blinded and
flat-footed conditions and take a –4 conditional penalty
to AC and Perception. You critically fail all Reflex saves
you must attempt.

Unconscious
You’ve been knocked out. You can’t act, and you have
the blinded, deafened, and flat-footed conditions, and you
take a –4 conditional penalty to AC.

It feels like paralyze should carry the same -4 to AC.

Prone
You’re lying on the ground. You take a –2 circumstance
penalty to attack rolls but gain a +1 circumstance bonus
to AC against ranged attacks.

This would mean I even get +1 to AC if the attacker is standing next to me. This seems like an oversight.


Midnightoker wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:


Counter Performance is impossible to use because it costs 2 reactions

This is true of Counterspell but not Counter Performance. The trigger for the latter is making a save of the appropriate type, not identifying anything appropriate.

MidknightDiamond wrote:
I'm thinking also that the Counter Performance, while currently seemingly impossible as it's written, is likely meant to be one reaction with it's Trigger requiring both verbal and somantic casting components available - thus you would have to be able to talk and have a hand free to use the reaction. It just doesn't come off like that since usually when spells have two casting components they take two actions.

You make EITHER a somatic or verbal reaction, depending on whether the trigger is visual or auditory. If it's both you can pick. I was confused at first, too.

I'm not sure how you can infer that it costs "either" when the spell listing explicitly lists two reactions as the cost.

It is listed in the exact same way that two actions are required for any other spell, except they are reactions.

If the intent is to be either, there needs to be a clear definition of the difference instead of just using a comma as a separator like all of other spells.

Thus, until that clarification is made, as listed the spell is impossible to use because it lists 2 reactions just like other spells like 2/3 action costs.

the RAI is clear, you choose either an auditory performance (Verbal casting) or a visual performance (Somatic castng) and you counter the appropriate thing (sound or vision respectively)

but yeah, the header needs to be written better


Midnightoker wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:


Counter Performance is impossible to use because it costs 2 reactions

This is true of Counterspell but not Counter Performance. The trigger for the latter is making a save of the appropriate type, not identifying anything appropriate.

MidknightDiamond wrote:
I'm thinking also that the Counter Performance, while currently seemingly impossible as it's written, is likely meant to be one reaction with it's Trigger requiring both verbal and somantic casting components available - thus you would have to be able to talk and have a hand free to use the reaction. It just doesn't come off like that since usually when spells have two casting components they take two actions.

You make EITHER a somatic or verbal reaction, depending on whether the trigger is visual or auditory. If it's both you can pick. I was confused at first, too.

I'm not sure how you can infer that it costs "either" when the spell listing explicitly lists two reactions as the cost.

It is listed in the exact same way that two actions are required for any other spell, except they are reactions.

If the intent is to be either, there needs to be a clear definition of the difference instead of just using a comma as a separator like all of other spells.

Thus, until that clarification is made, as listed the spell is impossible to use because it lists 2 reactions just like other spells like 2/3 action costs.

They deleted the “or” to save a line and fit the text. There’s a monk feat like this, too, reads awkwardly until you realize the missing word would have wrapped to another line.

But I agree they should clarify for the sort of people who can’t figure this out.


shroudb wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:


Counter Performance is impossible to use because it costs 2 reactions

This is true of Counterspell but not Counter Performance. The trigger for the latter is making a save of the appropriate type, not identifying anything appropriate.

MidknightDiamond wrote:
I'm thinking also that the Counter Performance, while currently seemingly impossible as it's written, is likely meant to be one reaction with it's Trigger requiring both verbal and somantic casting components available - thus you would have to be able to talk and have a hand free to use the reaction. It just doesn't come off like that since usually when spells have two casting components they take two actions.

You make EITHER a somatic or verbal reaction, depending on whether the trigger is visual or auditory. If it's both you can pick. I was confused at first, too.

I'm not sure how you can infer that it costs "either" when the spell listing explicitly lists two reactions as the cost.

It is listed in the exact same way that two actions are required for any other spell, except they are reactions.

If the intent is to be either, there needs to be a clear definition of the difference instead of just using a comma as a separator like all of other spells.

Thus, until that clarification is made, as listed the spell is impossible to use because it lists 2 reactions just like other spells like 2/3 action costs.

the RAI is clear, you choose either an auditory performance (Verbal casting) or a visual performance (Somatic castng) and you counter the appropriate thing (sound or vision respectively)

but yeah, the header needs to be written better

Is it clear?

The text reads:

Quote:
You protect yourself and allies through performance. Choose an auditory performance if the trigger was auditory or a visual performance if it was visual, then roll a Performance check for the chosen performance. You and allies in the area can use the higher result of your Performance check or their saving throw.

It only specifies the type of performance, which can be both auditory and visual (such as acting) and mentions nothing about actions at all.

Like I said, it might be something we can infer, but I wouldn't even call it RAI because RAI it doesn't really define an intent on the action cost, just that the performance type is determined that way (which can change the actual modifiers for the performance, which is why that's an important distinction to make).

In fact in the Bard entry it doesn't say you can stop "auditory or visual" it says "auditory AND visual", which is ambiguous wording to describe something with an "or" distinction.


Xenocrat wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:


Counter Performance is impossible to use because it costs 2 reactions

This is true of Counterspell but not Counter Performance. The trigger for the latter is making a save of the appropriate type, not identifying anything appropriate.

MidknightDiamond wrote:
I'm thinking also that the Counter Performance, while currently seemingly impossible as it's written, is likely meant to be one reaction with it's Trigger requiring both verbal and somantic casting components available - thus you would have to be able to talk and have a hand free to use the reaction. It just doesn't come off like that since usually when spells have two casting components they take two actions.

You make EITHER a somatic or verbal reaction, depending on whether the trigger is visual or auditory. If it's both you can pick. I was confused at first, too.

I'm not sure how you can infer that it costs "either" when the spell listing explicitly lists two reactions as the cost.

It is listed in the exact same way that two actions are required for any other spell, except they are reactions.

If the intent is to be either, there needs to be a clear definition of the difference instead of just using a comma as a separator like all of other spells.

Thus, until that clarification is made, as listed the spell is impossible to use because it lists 2 reactions just like other spells like 2/3 action costs.

They deleted the “or” to save a line and fit the text. There’s a monk feat like this, too, reads awkwardly until you realize the missing word would have wrapped to another line.

But I agree they should clarify for the sort of people who can’t figure this out.

How do you know this? Source?

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
MidknightDiamond wrote:
Someone will surely correctly me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it now - something that would have been an opposed roll before, like perception vs. stealth, is now a roll vs. DC. So someone trying to spy you if you're trying to be stealthy is your stealth roll vs. their Perception DC which would be 10 + the observer's Perception modifier.

As far as I can tell, you are correct. (In fact, the book specifically calls out stealth vs perception DC as an example.) Furthermore, searching the book for "opposed roll" comes up with zero results, which further strengthens your statement


Midnightoker wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:


Counter Performance is impossible to use because it costs 2 reactions

This is true of Counterspell but not Counter Performance. The trigger for the latter is making a save of the appropriate type, not identifying anything appropriate.

MidknightDiamond wrote:
I'm thinking also that the Counter Performance, while currently seemingly impossible as it's written, is likely meant to be one reaction with it's Trigger requiring both verbal and somantic casting components available - thus you would have to be able to talk and have a hand free to use the reaction. It just doesn't come off like that since usually when spells have two casting components they take two actions.

You make EITHER a somatic or verbal reaction, depending on whether the trigger is visual or auditory. If it's both you can pick. I was confused at first, too.

I'm not sure how you can infer that it costs "either" when the spell listing explicitly lists two reactions as the cost.

It is listed in the exact same way that two actions are required for any other spell, except they are reactions.

If the intent is to be either, there needs to be a clear definition of the difference instead of just using a comma as a separator like all of other spells.

Thus, until that clarification is made, as listed the spell is impossible to use because it lists 2 reactions just like other spells like 2/3 action costs.

They deleted the “or” to save a line and fit the text. There’s a monk feat like this, too, reads awkwardly until you realize the missing word would have wrapped to another line.

But I agree they should clarify for the sort of people who can’t figure this out.

How do you know this? Source?

It's obvious to those who are able to see it. They had zero additional characters available on that line, and they either had to eliminate the "or" or cut language out of a meaningful spell description sentence elsewhere to make the copy fit. Create Food looks like a possible option, but they decided not to cut a few words there.


Xenocrat wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:


Counter Performance is impossible to use because it costs 2 reactions

This is true of Counterspell but not Counter Performance. The trigger for the latter is making a save of the appropriate type, not identifying anything appropriate.

MidknightDiamond wrote:
I'm thinking also that the Counter Performance, while currently seemingly impossible as it's written, is likely meant to be one reaction with it's Trigger requiring both verbal and somantic casting components available - thus you would have to be able to talk and have a hand free to use the reaction. It just doesn't come off like that since usually when spells have two casting components they take two actions.

You make EITHER a somatic or verbal reaction, depending on whether the trigger is visual or auditory. If it's both you can pick. I was confused at first, too.

I'm not sure how you can infer that it costs "either" when the spell listing explicitly lists two reactions as the cost.

It is listed in the exact same way that two actions are required for any other spell, except they are reactions.

If the intent is to be either, there needs to be a clear definition of the difference instead of just using a comma as a separator like all of other spells.

Thus, until that clarification is made, as listed the spell is impossible to use because it lists 2 reactions just like other spells like 2/3 action costs.

They deleted the “or” to save a line and fit the text. There’s a monk feat like this, too, reads awkwardly until you realize the missing word would have wrapped to another line.

But I agree they should clarify for the sort of people who can’t figure this out.

How do you know this? Source?
It's obvious to those who are able to see it. They had zero additional characters available on that line, and they either had to eliminate the "or" or cut language...

Then the answer to my question would be "I do not have a source, this is not explicitly stated by anyone with actual authority and I am making an educated guess".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:

So... What's preventing you from Flanking with a ranged weapon?

Relevant info:

Quote:

FLANKING

When you and an ally are on opposite sides of an enemy,
you’re flanking that enemy. While the enemy is flanked,
it is flat-footed (taking a –2 circumstance penalty to AC)
to the creatures who are flanking it. To flank a foe, you
and your ally must be on opposites sides or opposite
corners of the creature. A line drawn between the center
of your space to the center of your ally’s space must pass
through either opposite sides or opposite corners of the
enemy’s space.

Both you and the ally have to be threatening that
enemy: this means you both must be wielding weapons
or ready to make unarmed attacks and not under any
effects that prevent you from making attacks. If you
have reach, you determine whether you are flanking
creatures out to the distance of your reach because you
threaten all of those squares.

You just have (excluding positioning) Threaten someone.

You threaten if you're wielding a weapon and you can attack the creature.
Quote:


Wielding Items
Some abilities require you to wield an item, typically a
weapon. You’re wielding an item any time you’re holding
it in the number of hands needed to use it effectively.
You’re not just carrying the weapon around—you’re ready
to use it. Other abilities might require you to merely carry
or have an item. These apply as long as you have the item
on your person; you don’t have to be wielding it.
So... If you're wielding your weapon, and you're ready to use it, you threaten. As long as you threaten, you flank (positioning aside).

Well, I am not sure that is a bug. You also now threaten with your fists I think? I also don't see a huge problem with an Archer causing enough of a distraction for a flank. As long as you can't AoO with ranged weapons. And even that probably wouldn't be the end of the world.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
Then the answer to my question would be "I do not have a source, this is not explicitly stated by anyone with actual authority and I am making an educated guess".

Oh, it's not at all a guess. It's an outcome demanded by the logic of the ability (you would use a visual performance and reaction to counter a visual attack, and an auditory performance and reaction to counter an auditory attack), the fact that reading it any other way would make the ability not work (which we know wasn't their intent), and that the page outlay demonstrates why it wasn't written more clearly (they couldn't without screwing up the rest of the page and sacrificing more important text elsewhere).

There are three kinds of people in the world: those who can figure this out on their own, those who can understand it when it's explained for them, and those who need an errata. I've been writing this stuff on behalf of the the second group, but I certainly think Paizo should also take care of the third.


Xenocrat wrote:
that the page outlay demonstrates why it wasn't written more clearly (they couldn't without screwing up the rest of the page and sacrificing more important text elsewhere).

Just so you're aware, they have a spell on the exact same page that has the Casting costed listed on 2 lines (Continual Flame).

The argument that it was to "save text" doesn't really work given that they've already set the precedent literally two spell listings before that 2 lines for Casting is acceptable as a format.

Regardless, the spell description also does not corroborate your guess.

I don't think it really helps to put people down for pointing out an obvious need to change the text of an ability simply because you have created an interpretation that you deem "obvious", however right it might eventually be.


Midnightoker wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
that the page outlay demonstrates why it wasn't written more clearly (they couldn't without screwing up the rest of the page and sacrificing more important text elsewhere).

Just so you're aware, they have a spell on the exact same page that has the Casting costed listed on 2 lines (Continual Flame).

Yes, because that requires three actions to cast and there's no way to cut that to one line and trust people's native intelligence to figure it out. Not the same at all.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I am not the OP, but I think it would be neat if a majority of this thread's posts were errata reports and not arguments about errata reports.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:

The universalist Wizard power Hand of the Apprentice doesn't mention how many spell points it costs.

Ki Strike has the same issue for the Monk.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Playtest Rulebook page 176 wrote:

Check Penalty

You take this untyped penalty to Strength-, Dexterity-, and Constitution-based skill checks, except for those that have the attack trait. Armor that is better than standard quality has a lower check penalty, as described on page 190.
Playtest Rulebook page 142 wrote:

Armor and Skills

Some armor imposes a penalty on specific skill checks and DCs. If a creature is wearing armor that imparts a skill penalty, that penalty is applied to Dexterity- and Strength-based skill checks and skill DCs, unless the use has the attack trait. Check penalties from armor are detailed in Chapter 6: Equipment on page 176.

Since there aren't any Con-based skills at the moment I assume page 176 is futureproofed, which is fine by me, but either both sections should mention Con-based skills or neither should.


Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Playtest Rulebook page 176 wrote:

Check Penalty

You take this untyped penalty to Strength-, Dexterity-, and Constitution-based skill checks, except for those that have the attack trait. Armor that is better than standard quality has a lower check penalty, as described on page 190.
Playtest Rulebook page 142 wrote:

Armor and Skills

Some armor imposes a penalty on specific skill checks and DCs. If a creature is wearing armor that imparts a skill penalty, that penalty is applied to Dexterity- and Strength-based skill checks and skill DCs, unless the use has the attack trait. Check penalties from armor are detailed in Chapter 6: Equipment on page 176.

Since there aren't any Con-based skills at the moment I assume page 176 is futureproofed, which is fine by me, but either both sections should mention Con-based skills or neither should.

I kept meaning to post this very thing, but I was too lazy to dig up both page references. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not a error, but a formatting inconsistency: The way monk saves are presented vs. the way paladin saves are presented. One of them (paladin, IIRC) reads:

Expert in Fortitude
Expert in Reflex
Expert in Will

Whereas the other reads:

Expert in Fortitude, Reflex, and Will


Playtest Rulebook page 149, Impersonate wrote:
If you’re disguised as a specific individual, the GM might give creatures you interact with a bonus based on how well they know the person you’re imitating, or ask you to roll a secret Deception check even if you aren’t directly interacting with them.

I thought "ask the player to roll" and "check is secret" were mutually exclusive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Playtest Rulebook page 149, Impersonate wrote:
If you’re disguised as a specific individual, the GM might give creatures you interact with a bonus based on how well they know the person you’re imitating, or ask you to roll a secret Deception check even if you aren’t directly interacting with them.
I thought "ask the player to roll" and "check is secret" were mutually exclusive.

You close your eyes and roll.

It's a system meant for the amusement of the rest of the table dying from laughter due to your crappy rolls. :D


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Playtest Rulebook page 151, Lore, second column wrote:
Second, all of your Lore skills are signature skills (see page 144). This means that you can advance them to expert or legendary proficiency if you so choose.

"Expert" should be "master."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
first paragraph of page 174 wrote:
Your character starts out with 150 silver pieces (sp) to spend on any common items from this chapter. Items with an uncommon rarity can only be bought with special access or GM permission. If you’re playing a spellcaster and want to buy magic items (like potions, scrolls, or holy water) or an alchemist and want to buy alchemical items, your GM can give you permission to buy those, and she will tell you which items you can choose from and how much they cost.

Unless you really meant to make it impossible for a non-spellcaster to start with a cheap potion even with GM permission, I believe the bolded sentence should actually read "If you want to buy magic items (like potions, scrolls, or holy water) or alchemical items, your GM can give you permission to buy those, and she will tell you which items you can choose from and how much they cost."


bugleyman wrote:

Not a error, but a formatting inconsistency: The way monk saves are presented vs. the way paladin saves are presented. One of them (paladin, IIRC) reads:

Expert in Fortitude
Expert in Reflex
Expert in Will

Whereas the other reads:

Expert in Fortitude, Reflex, and Will

Probably because Paladins are only trained in Reflex.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Stone fist Elixir has the Polymorph tag.

According to tag descriptions, it should be changed to Morph tag.

Polymorph usually indicates complete change while slight alterations (changing your hands to be harder) are Morphs.

Balance wise, it means that an alchemist can't atm use stonefist elixir +any mutagen (notably bestial) simultaneously, which is one more nail in the the class' coffin (only goblins are allowed more than d4 unarmed damage until level 8...)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RunnerAndJumper wrote:

Page 89:

The fighter-feat "combat grab" gives the same effect for the enhancement and the failure. Not sure, if this is intended.

I thought this when I first read it as well, but failure only renders the target flat-footed until the end of your turn (which given it's a Press trait feat -so the failure condition only applies if your multi attack penalty is -4 or higher- would mean one more action at most), while success makes the target flat-footed until the end of your next turn, meaning all of your allies can take advantage of the target being flat-footed, and you'll get a full round of actions against them as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Cognitive mutagen, Greater has the wrong duration (it regresses).

All other mutagens go:
Lesser: 1minute
normal: 10minutes
greater: 1hour
True: 1 hour

Cognitive goes:
Lesser: 1minute
normal: 10 minutes
Greater: 1minute
True: 1 hour


Cyouni wrote:
bugleyman wrote:

Not a error, but a formatting inconsistency: The way monk saves are presented vs. the way paladin saves are presented. One of them (paladin, IIRC) reads:

Expert in Fortitude
Expert in Reflex
Expert in Will

Whereas the other reads:

Expert in Fortitude, Reflex, and Will

Probably because Paladins are only trained in Reflex.

Hmmm...must be have a different class, then. Is no one other than the monk trained in all three any more? (I don't have the book in front of me).


bugleyman wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
bugleyman wrote:

Not a error, but a formatting inconsistency: The way monk saves are presented vs. the way paladin saves are presented. One of them (paladin, IIRC) reads:

Expert in Fortitude
Expert in Reflex
Expert in Will

Whereas the other reads:

Expert in Fortitude, Reflex, and Will

Probably because Paladins are only trained in Reflex.
Hmmm...must be have a different class, then. Is no one other than the monk trained in all three any more? (I don't have the book in front of me).

Huh, yeah when I got to Ranger that's what I saw.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Playtest Rulebook page 179 wrote:

COUNTING WEAPON DAMAGE DICE

Effects based on a weapon’s number of damage dice (such as charge or forceful) include only the weapon’s damage die plus any extra dice for a magic weapon. They don’t count additional dice from abilities, critical specialization effects, property runes, weapon traits, or the like. On a critical hit, you double this bonus only once; you don’t double it again due to the number of damage dice increasing.

"Magic weapon" shouldn't be italicized, even though it has an entry in the magic items list. It's not technically an error but it looks dumb.

EDIT: Same for all the other places "magic weapon" appears.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Playtest Rulebook page 182 wrote:
Monk Monks can use these weapons with their abilities that normally require unarmed attacks.

Not unless they've taken the Monastic Weaponry monk feat, they can't. Also, even with the feat they can't do so with shuriken, which have the monk trait but are ranged (Monastic Weaponry specifies "melee monk weapons," which may be an error in its own right---what's wrong with a flurry of shuriken?).


Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Playtest Rulebook page 182 wrote:
Monk Monks can use these weapons with their abilities that normally require unarmed attacks.
Not unless they've taken the Monastic Weaponry monk feat, they can't. Also, even with the feat they can't do so with shuriken, which have the monk trait but are ranged (Monastic Weaponry specifies "melee monk weapons," which may be an error in its own right---what's wrong with a flurry of shuriken?).

that's consistent with the elf/orc/dwarf/etc descriptors.

all of which require the respective races to have picked weapon familiarity first.


Vahnyu wrote:

Per RAW, yes, but only in theory. In practice, there's not a single Feat in any archetype that meets the prerequisites of Natural Ambition

Reasoning:

"Once you have the dedication feat, you can select any feat from that archetype in place of a class feat as long as you meet its prerequisites."

When you have purchased a dedication feat for a given archetype, you can only purchase feats from said archetype. In the case of multiclass archetypes, that means that you can't, in fact, purchase class feats from the archetype's original class.

What you CAN purchase, instead, is a specific archetype feat which allows you to get said archetype's original class' feat.

In the case of the Fighter, Fighter Resiliency is a 4th level Feat, so you can't chose that.

But the same also goes for 1st level Fighter Class feats. In order to get anyone of those, if you're not a fighter, you'd need to qualify for at least Basic Maneuver, which lets you select a 1st (or 2nd) level Fighter Class Feat. Basic Maneuver, however, is a 2nd level feat, so it can't be selected by Natural Ambition, as it exceeds Natural Ambition's Level 1 requirement.

The same goes for all other Archetype Feats as well. None of them are Level 1, so they all disqualify for Natural Ambition's criteria(but if ever a level 1 archetype feat were introduced, that'd be a different matter).

Can you please define what rule prevents you from taking Fighter Resiliency, the multiclass archetype feat on p. 280?

At no point did I imply that in the example the player attempted to take a 1st level feat from the Fighter class directly, on p. 86-95. They are using the rules from p. 279 "you can select any feat from that archetype in place of a class feat" to select Multiclass Archetype feats from the Fighter archetype list instead.

You said "In the case of the Fighter, Fighter Resilience is a 4th level Feat, so you can't chose that." Why not?

If it's because the feat has a 4th level prerequisite, you're committing a logic fallacy in your interpretation.

Observation: Class Feats have level prerequisites.
Observation: Archetype Feats have level prerequisites.
Conclusion: Archetype Feat level must match the Class Feat level.

This is wrong. The level prerequisites are the minimum character level you must be to take that Feat.

You can select a 1st level Class Feat at 5th level because you meet the prerequisites of being at least 1st level.

You can select a 4th level Archetype Feat at 5th level because you meet the prerequisites of being at least 4th level.

You can select any Archetype Feat in place of a Class Feat if you meet the prerequisites.

Thus you can select a 4th level Archetype Feat in place of a 1st level Class Feat at 5th level.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

20th level spellcasters who don't pick 10th level spells as a feat at 20th level keep their cantrips heightened to 9th level.

However, those who take the Cleric archetype, the Wizard archetype, the Gnome ancestry feat for a cantrip, and the Elf ancestry feat for a cantrip all heighten their cantrips to 10th level.

This inconsistent treatment is hard to justify, and spellcasters should probably have their cantrips heighten to half class level rounded up, rather than their highest spell level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JDLPF wrote:
Vahnyu wrote:

Per RAW, yes, but only in theory. In practice, there's not a single Feat in any archetype that meets the prerequisites of Natural Ambition

Reasoning:

"Once you have the dedication feat, you can select any feat from that archetype in place of a class feat as long as you meet its prerequisites."

When you have purchased a dedication feat for a given archetype, you can only purchase feats from said archetype. In the case of multiclass archetypes, that means that you can't, in fact, purchase class feats from the archetype's original class.

What you CAN purchase, instead, is a specific archetype feat which allows you to get said archetype's original class' feat.

In the case of the Fighter, Fighter Resiliency is a 4th level Feat, so you can't chose that.

But the same also goes for 1st level Fighter Class feats. In order to get anyone of those, if you're not a fighter, you'd need to qualify for at least Basic Maneuver, which lets you select a 1st (or 2nd) level Fighter Class Feat. Basic Maneuver, however, is a 2nd level feat, so it can't be selected by Natural Ambition, as it exceeds Natural Ambition's Level 1 requirement.

The same goes for all other Archetype Feats as well. None of them are Level 1, so they all disqualify for Natural Ambition's criteria(but if ever a level 1 archetype feat were introduced, that'd be a different matter).

Can you please define what rule prevents you from taking Fighter Resiliency, the multiclass archetype feat on p. 280?

At no point did I imply that in the example the player attempted to take a 1st level feat from the Fighter class directly, on p. 86-95. They are using the rules from p. 279 "you can select any feat from that archetype in place of a class feat" to select Multiclass Archetype feats from the Fighter archetype list instead.

You said "In the case of the Fighter, Fighter Resilience is a 4th level Feat, so you can't chose that." Why not?

If it's because the feat has a 4th level prerequisite, you're committing a...

No. You absolutely can't.

The Ancestral Paragon feat explicitly mentions a Level 1 Ancestry Feat. Hence, you can't take a Level 5 or above Feat. If you could, it'd say "You gain an ancestry Feat", without making any mention of levels.

Similarly, Natural Ambition explicitly mentions a Level 1 Class Feat. If the Feat is not Level 1, then, in no uncertain terms, it does not meet the prerequisites for Natural Ambition.

It's not "You must be at least Level 1 to take this Feat"

It's "You can only take Feats that are defined as <Level 1>"

For proof, look no further than the Fighter Archetype Feat, Basic Maneuver, which explicitly states: "Gain a level 1 or level 2 fighter feat." The wording couldn't be more clear. Any Fighter Class Feat that is neither level 1 nor 2 doesn't qualify.

151 to 200 of 421 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Errata questions All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.