I know a goblin who might be interested in some of that information - just from a practitioner’s perspective, of course.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some pretty good stuff in here, including a bunch of clarifications that aren't errata. I love to see that!
Some of this will need some digging into to really digest. Like Fireworks Technician changes and Instance of Damage.
Stunned is in here too which is nice.
I did see that Witches were clarified so that you do need your familiar to refocus. Which is what the rules already said unless you just exclude that whole bit about "you refocus by communing with your familiar" to somehow mean you can do that without your familiar. I'm glad to put that "it's flavour text so doesn't count!" nonsense to rest.
Unfortunately no Oracle repertoire fix as PC2 doesn't seem to have been touched at all. Pretty frustrating on this one since it's been causing significant real world confusion for a long time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see why they nerfed resentment witch. Most conditions already have count down durations and so can't be extended by the ability anyways. This only serves to weaken those very few things it did work on.
That said, overall, I'm pretty happy with this errata release. Lot of good stuff to chew on.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gunslingers can actually have a fix for alchemical ammo they make! They have a feat for activating ammo when they create it with quick alchemy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Instances of damage clarified!Insert JontronWTF.gif here.
So then the discussion is finally over, Mark Seifter was correct all along and the holy trait is applied to the strike itself , not any instance of damage and thus only happens once. Much like weakness to water was described.
What suprises me is that apparently any additional damage to strikes from spells and other effects trigger individually.
I've seen comments elsewhere that the example given was a poor one that didn't serve to clarify any of the bigger issues with instances of damage.
Nevertheless, I'm thrilled that it's finally getting addressed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gunslingers can actually have a fix for alchemical ammo they make! They have a feat for activating ammo when they create it with quick alchemy.
Considering how limited use that is, that's a great improvement.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Say it with me: it's not a pf2e patch without a caster nerf
Nice to finally have damage instances clarified though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a little surprised they made stuff like "do you fall out of stances that require ranged weapons if you throw yours" explicitly 100% a GM call. That's not really some wiggly edge case so much as a key mechanical consideration.
Also, was nerfing the Pet feat on anyone's bingo card???
"The example given" was multiple examples across multiple threads and platforms all stating the same thing. Multiple resistances and weaknesses can trigger on a single strike. But its correct that in some of his older posts he did say he was unsure about damage of the same type but from different sources on the same strike. hmm... I ponder how much this is actually going to affect foundry though. Probably not by alot.Mark Seifter was correct all along and the holy trait is applied to the strike itselfI've seen comments elsewhere that the example given was a poor one that didn't serve to clarify any of the bigger issues with instances of damage.
Nevertheless, I'm thrilled that it's finally getting addressed.
A quick read is that it looks similar to what Foundry is already doing. Will have to get more indepth later because those rules have a lot of edge cases, but it doesn't look like Foundry is all that off the mark.
Instances of damage clarified!What suprises me is that apparently any additional damage to strikes from spells and other effects trigger individually.
Magus wants to load up on Flaming rune and Ignition for those fire-weak enemies. :)
And Flame Wisp spell and Arcane Cascade (Fire) for 4x fire weakness triggers.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Die size upgrades interacting with the two-hand trait on weapons is also something I recall seeing come up on the forums recently that got clarified.
Die size upgrades interacting with the two-hand trait on weapons is also something I recall seeing come up on the forums recently that got clarified.
Good. I'd had a staff-based PC I'd shelved because of that. Kinda funny though that a staff for amateurs might do more damage than a staff designed for combat. :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thaumaturges keep winning, because at a minimum you can (per previous Mark Seifter expressed intent) add a Personal Antithesis on top of all the regular weaknesses you're already triggering. This seems fine (and was intended), because you're just getting your equivalent of precision damage or rage damage as your minimal class booster.
Or you can double dip an elemental (or spirit or holy, as appropriate) Mortal Weakness if you already have the appropriate rune. "Your unarmed and weapon Strikes activate the highest weakness you discovered with Exploit Vulnerability, even though the damage type your weapon deals doesn’t change."
I don't think this lets you double dip B/P/S weaknesses or weapon material type weaknesses, because those are inherent to the weapon. But maybe you treat the Mortal Weakness as a separate "inherent to but on top of the strike" type of trigger like sanctification?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I legit am struggling to actually navigate the errata (their search is hella broken on my browsers), but Firework Technician looks like it still has killed the Alchemist class by granting recharging VVials.
As far as I know, alchemy benefits still combine.
Guys, this is really bad. Recharging alchemy was the one chassis thing of significance exclusive to the Alchemist Class.
To be clear, F Tech alone cannot easily abuse their recharge. But any PC with another form of VVials, such as via Alchemist Dedication, will still gain recharging VVials from F Tech.
You gain the quick alchemy benefits (Player Core 2 174), creating up to 4 versatile vials during your daily preparations. Your versatile vials are pyrotechnic, so they have the fire trait and deal fire damage instead of acid. You can use versatile vials only for the Launch Fireworks action (see below) or with Quick Alchemy to create fireworks consumables, including doses or rounds of black powder, the sparkler item (Treasure Vault 55), and other items determined by the GM. You can replenish your versatile vials during exploration the same way an alchemist can (Player Core 2 59).
rofl, oh wow. The F Tech can now take a feat to +1 their VVial pool.
Alchemists would love to be able to up their VVial max, but nooooope. It's not actually written as a +1, it's a from 4 to 5 edit, so it only helps archetype poachers, and is literally useless to a real Alchemist.Ouch, they are really twisting the knife with this errata.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also the new weakness / instance of damage rules are just dumb and exploitable as hell, lol.
I think Paizo forgot that players can add weaknesses to foes, which uh, yeah, that's as cracked as it sounds.
On the easy side, anyone with alchemy can throw an inflammation flask to add fire, acid, and slash weakness to the hit foe for 3 turns, no save. Don't even need to spend a class feat on a focus spell.
Once the Fighter tosses an opening bomb, everyone with a flaming corrosive slash weapon is already popping all three of those resistances. Before the energy mutagens, rainbow vinegar, etc kick in for even more.
Yeah, I genuinely wonder if Paizo is going to walk that back and errata their errata, rofl.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Page 446: The first paragraph of Gaining and Losing actions has been updated to make stunned with a value play better. Previously, it could be much stronger to stun a creature on its turn than on your own.
”Quickened, slowed, and stunned are the primary ways you can gain or lose actions. The rules for how this works appear on page 415. All these conditions alter how many actions you regain at the start of your turn. Gaining quickened or slowed on your turn doesn’t adjust your actions that turn. If you get stunned on your turn, first complete any action or activity you’re in the middle of. If the stunned condition has a value, lose remaining actions to reduce your stunned value rather than waiting until your next turn.”
I feel vindicated. I also like this change. The punishment is instant, rather than "non-existent" like some people ruled before.
Since I know people will start the new discussion of "Stunned 3", I think we all can be sensible and assume the penalty just carries over to your next turn.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lol, omg no way. Paizo's still contradicting their own weakness rules in their example.
So what happens if a character hits a terotricus with a +2 striking holy flaming cold iron battleaxe and has two different spells that add cold damage to their Strikes?
...
The holy trait adds 15 damage from weakness to holy; the trait applies to the whole Strike, and happens only once. ...
No my dude. If each source of "additional damage" inside of a Strike is a separate instance, and the whole Strike carries the holy trait, then every separate instance would proc the holy weakness.
You need to write in another mechanic to trump or collect the many "separate instances" to prevent trait weaknesses like holy from going nuts and popping every instance.
From another angle, if the whole strike is holy, then that the slash dmg is [holy], that fire dmg is [holy], that cold dmg is [holy], etc...
This also matters for those odd traits, like [water].
It matters even more for things like "resistance to damage from demons" (a spellheart). Every "instance of damage" uses the highest resistance, so you get to benefit from that single resistance once for every instance in the incoming damage.
Nonlethal resistance via spellheart is another one that's easy to exploit, lol.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh man, literally all the Witch clarifications are relevant to the Witch I’ve currently been playing recently. We were treating those ambiguous rules as strictly as possible as an experiment, so now I’m going to get a really good feel on the qol improvements. Big thanks!
Perfectly, I’m also playing The Resentment so that nerf will be felt quite heavily. And boy did I call it being nerfed both in duration and the number of conditions it could extend. I actually didn’t think it was going to get nerfed here, but I had a strong feeling when it did, it was going to be nerfed in both aspects and not just one, which would have been enough imo. Well, I’ll get to see it in action soon!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I legit am struggling to actually navigate the errata (their search is hella broken on my browsers), but Firework Technician looks like it still has killed the Alchemist class by granting recharging VVials.
As far as I know, alchemy benefits still combine.
Guys, this is really bad. Recharging alchemy was the one chassis thing of significance exclusive to the Alchemist Class.
To be clear, F Tech alone cannot easily abuse their recharge. But any PC with another form of VVials, such as via Alchemist Dedication, will still gain recharging VVials from F Tech.
You gain the quick alchemy benefits (Player Core 2 174), creating up to 4 versatile vials during your daily preparations. Your versatile vials are pyrotechnic, so they have the fire trait and deal fire damage instead of acid. You can use versatile vials only for the Launch Fireworks action (see below) or with Quick Alchemy to create fireworks consumables, including doses or rounds of black powder, the sparkler item (Treasure Vault 55), and other items determined by the GM. You can replenish your versatile vials during exploration the same way an alchemist can (Player Core 2 59).
Another way to read it is that if you wanted more flexible flexible vials, you should avoid firework technician like the plague because once you take it you can't use the vials for anything else anymore.
I'm gad to see some new errata. Hopefully this marks getting back on schedule.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also the new weakness / instance of damage rules are just dumb and exploitable as hell, lol.
I think Paizo forgot that players can add weaknesses to foes, which uh, yeah, that's as cracked as it sounds.
On the easy side, anyone with alchemy can throw an inflammation flask to add fire, acid, and slash weakness to the hit foe for 3 turns, no save. Don't even need to spend a class feat on a focus spell.
Once the Fighter tosses an opening bomb, everyone with a flaming corrosive slash weapon is already popping all three of those resistances. Before the energy mutagens, rainbow vinegar, etc kick in for even more.
Yeah, I genuinely wonder if Paizo is going to walk that back and errata their errata, rofl.
Meh, I think Paizo just picked the interpretation of instance of damage that a lot of people, and notably Foundry, had already converged on. It feels like a natural conclusion also with how the remaster distinguished damage types and traits on damage more than before.
It shifts the balance a bit but not really that much, because this was the interpretation that was already used in many places.
The inflammation flask is a bit much, but feels kinda typical for an AP item. A lot of APs have wonky alchemical items. It's on you as a GM if you allow players to shop around in the catalog of other APs than the one you're playing. (And note that the item isn't available in PFS.)
Apart from that - I think Paizo might have decided to just roll with it. As a player, actually finding a weakness on an enemy and exploiting it is fun. Getting high damage because you chose the right attack for this specific enemy, is more the style Paizo promotes than just picking a weapon with high general damage and using it for e-ve-ry-thing.
So I don't really expect them to walk it back.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lol, omg no way. Paizo's still contradicting their own weakness rules in their example.
So what happens if a character hits a terotricus with a +2 striking holy flaming cold iron battleaxe and has two different spells that add cold damage to their Strikes?
...
The holy trait adds 15 damage from weakness to holy; the trait applies to the whole Strike, and happens only once. ...No my dude. If each source of "additional damage" inside of a Strike is a separate instance, and the whole Strike carries the holy trait, then every separate instance would proc the holy weakness.
You need to think of things like elemental/spirit runes and spells and elemental mutagens as things "attached to" rather than "inside of" a Strike. The holy trait applies to physical (almost always) strike damage (if there's some fire only unholy/holy fiend/celestial strike, as I'm sure there is, then it attaches to that), not to the riders that various extra bolted on magical/achemical effects are putting on it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another way to read it is that if you wanted more flexible flexible vials, you should avoid firework technician like the plague because once you take it you can't use the vials for anything else anymore.
No, because the errata has this: "Special If you have Quick Alchemy from another source, such as being an alchemist or having the alchemist archetype, you can choose each time you create a versatile vial whether it’s a standard vial or pyrotechnic vial."
So you get quick alchemy benefits from anywhere else, just pick up Fireworks dedication, and now you have regular alchemist recharge ability and just ignore all the fireworks specific stuff. It's great for humans who pick up Alchemist dedication at 9th and fireworks dedication wherever, as long as they don't care about entering other archetypes.
Except the text says the whole strike, not the base weapon. Even spell based additional damage is within that "whole strike" bucket, lol.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another way to read it is that if you wanted more flexible flexible vials, you should avoid firework technician like the plague because once you take it you can't use the vials for anything else anymore.
Alas, but nope.
Remaster is very clear on "alchemy benefits"Quick Alchemy Benefits: You gain the Alchemical Crafting feat if you don’t already have it. In addition, you gain the Quick Alchemy action, which lets you create short-lived alchemical consumables with a special action, and you can create a certain number of versatile vials during your daily preparations to fuel Quick Alchemy. Unless otherwise noted, you can’t regain versatile vials throughout the day the way alchemists can. The individual archetype tells you how many versatile vials you can create each day, and might impose special restrictions or benefits for how you can use them. If you gain versatile vials from more than one source, you use the highest number of vials to determine your maximum rather than adding them together, but you can use the vials for any Quick Alchemy option or other use of versatile vials you possess.
So if you have normal VVials, and F Tech VVials, they are now dual-form VVials usable for both sources of quick alch. You keep adding to your list, you never shrink it. If you can recharge any VVials, that recharges all your VVials.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except the text says the whole strike, not the base weapon. Even spell based additional damage is within that "whole strike" bucket, lol.
What their example is saying is that they do not think so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Page 301: The polymorph trait has been updated to clarify how Speeds work. In the second paragraph, before the final sentence, add: “You lose your Speeds and gain those of the battle form.” The last sentence of the first paragraph has been adjusted for space, but has the same function: “Unless otherwise stated, polymorph spells don’t allow the target to take on the appearance of a specific individual creature.”
So if I cast fly and then cast [polymorph spell] I can no longer fly?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Page 301: The polymorph trait has been updated to clarify how Speeds work. In the second paragraph, before the final sentence, add: “You lose your Speeds and gain those of the battle form.” The last sentence of the first paragraph has been adjusted for space, but has the same function: “Unless otherwise stated, polymorph spells don’t allow the target to take on the appearance of a specific individual creature.”So if I cast fly and then cast [polymorph spell] I can no longer fly?
Correct.
No my dude. If each source of "additional damage" inside of a Strike is a separate instance, and the whole Strike carries the holy trait, then every separate instance would proc the holy weakness.I'll have to go back and look but that wasn't my impression from the errata example. There was a strike with a whole bunch of traits, and two spells hitting simultaneously. The strike was all one instance, with the two spells each being separate instances.
... The holy trait adds 15 damage from weakness to holy; the trait applies to the whole Strike, and happens only once. The flaming damage is negated by resistance. The spirit damage doesn’t get any weaknesses or resistances. The cold iron battleaxe is where the “instance of damage” rules apply! It’s both slashing damage and coming from a cold iron weapon, so we apply the 15 weakness from cold iron and not the 10 from slashing. The two instances of cold damage come from different spells, so each sets off cold weakness individually for an additional 30 damage. Now our total is 92 damage!
Spells are usually worded like "Strikes deal an additional 2d6 fire damage"
So if that additional damage is inside the strike, but is a separate instance that pops weakness, you can stack weakness dmg like crazy.
(and by their own clarification, the whole Strike, including this separate instance of additional damage, is gaining that holy trait. But the whole strike also only pops holy weakness once, rofl. Both of those cannot be true at the same time Paizo!)
Weakness stacking gonna be busted, lol.
Another way to read it is that if you wanted more flexible flexible vials, you should avoid firework technician like the plague because once you take it you can't use the vials for anything else anymore.Alas, but nope.
Remaster is very clear on "alchemy benefits"
I think it's possible (actually very likely) that the Fireworks Technician language is specific rules that override this, forcing you to choose to split your VVs between regular VVs (if you have access via archetype) and pyrotechnic ones that only work with FT abilities. But since FT abilities generally suck, this archetype is (remains) a convenient dedication-only pick to add regenerating vials onto any other source of quick alchemy benefits.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's possible (actually very likely) that the Fireworks Technician language is specific rules that override this, forcing you to choose to split your VVs between regular VVs (if you have access via archetype) and pyrotechnic ones that only work with FT abilities. But since FT abilities generally suck, this archetype is (remains) a convenient dedication to add regenerating vials onto any other source of quick alchemy benefits.
Nope, that's the normal wording. The author of F Tech just decided that the precedent of all other archetype alchemy didn't apply to their personal creation, and that it was fine for their special pyro to break the Alchemist, ugh.
You gain the Quick Alchemy benefits, but can use it only to create consumables, and the consumables must be alchemical food. Any items you choose with Alchemical Crafting must be alchemical food, but they can be 1st level or 2nd level instead of only 1st level.
You create up to 4 versatile vials during your daily preparations. Typically, a wandering chef’s versatile vials take the form of parcels of foraged ingredients.
F Tech would need wording to specify the recharge cannot be used for generic VVials, and only for FTech vials. Instead, it just says "You can replenish your versatile vials during exploration the same way an alchemist can"
... Meh, I think Paizo just picked the interpretation of instance of damage that a lot of people, and notably Foundry, had already converged on. ...
Nooooo. No no no.
That is NOT what Foundry was doing.
Foundry was following the ancient dev post instead of the RaW, where you group all redundant bits of additional damage into one weakness pop per type.
If you had 5 sources of fire damage on your Strike, you would only pop fire weakness once.
If the foe had both fire & holy weakness, you could at most pop the fire & holy once per swing.
After this errata, that swing will pop that fire weakness 5 times.
I have not heard of a single table playing with that form of the weakness rules before. This is a big change.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except the text says the whole strike, not the base weapon. Even spell based additional damage is within that "whole strike" bucket, lol.
Seems like a dishonest reading of the new errata to me. They're clearly talking about adding the bonus damage from Holy weakness only once to the whole attack, not once per instance of damage within said attack.
Seems like a dishonest reading of the new errata to me. They're clearly talking about adding Holy once to the whole attack, not once per instance of damage within said attack.Except the text says the whole strike, not the base weapon. Even spell based additional damage is within that "whole strike" bucket, lol.
The whole point is that they are contradicting themselves.
You cannot have something both be a distinct and separate instance from other instances, but also have those instances be connected inside a Strike bucket at the same time.
Either the different bits of additional damage are grouped together, or they are separate instances, lol. It breaks logic to have it both ways.
And that contradiction affects gameplay due to the difference between your common elemental type-based weak/res like fire, and the other versions of weak/res, trait and custom.
If you've got resistance to "damage from demons," and get hit by some multi-type damage, wtf happens?
There is no way use use null instructions to say which specific type chunk you apply the resistance once total. If being multi-type means they are genuinely different instances, then the only option is to resist and subtract from every different chunk of damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see why they nerfed resentment witch. Most conditions already have count down durations and so can't be extended by the ability anyways. This only serves to weaken those very few things it did work on.
They didn't need most conditions, they had slow.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except the text says the whole strike, not the base weapon. Even spell based additional damage is within that "whole strike" bucket, lol.
Actually I read it as applies only once to the whole strike and not to each instance of damage therein.
Similar conceptually to Sorcerous Potency restriction : "An individual creature takes this damage or benefits from this healing only once per spell, even if the spell would damage or heal that creature multiple times."
Nope, that's the normal wording. The author of F Tech just decided that the precedent of all other archetype alchemy didn't apply to their personal creation, and that it was fine for their special pyro to break the Alchemist, ugh.I think it's possible (actually very likely) that the Fireworks Technician language is specific rules that override this, forcing you to choose to split your VVs between regular VVs (if you have access via archetype) and pyrotechnic ones that only work with FT abilities. But since FT abilities generally suck, this archetype is (remains) a convenient dedication to add regenerating vials onto any other source of quick alchemy benefits.
It's certainly possible that with another source of Quick Alchemy benefits both pyrotechnical vials and standardd VVs work for all pooled quick alchemy options, with the only meaningful distinction between the two being fire/acid when thrown as a bomb.
But I don't really think bomb uses of VVs via archetype is significant. The only real point of the Fireworks Technician archetype remains the dedication and only for the regenerating vials for other unrestricted quick alchemy options. And it remains absurd for that purpose.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think I actively dislike this errata round.
-One of the only good prepared spellbook casters caught a massive stray.
-Stunned is now less intuitive (and arguably nerfed) to cover an edge case, the only abusive version of which is probably readied power word stun. (Gun crits with crit spec and stuff like readied stunning fist are not terribly abusive.) Previously, getting stunned on your turn would've had "you can't act" lock you out of actions until your next turn, and then you'd lose the actions at that time and it'd wear off. Now it just wears off immediately if you run out the stunned value? And it also creates its own special edge case, via errata, that violates the general principle that you only gain or lose actions at start of turn. If stunned is going to work this way, why can't I get actions on the turn I haste myself? I hate this sort of arbitrary inconsistency.
-Disappearance appears to be absolutely gutted. It no longer says it works on imprecise senses, so against any enemy without a special precise sense, it's no better than rank 4 invis. A lot of special senses are imprecise, too. It now doesn't work against a lot of enemies that foil senses works against. I'm not sure this is even remotely worth an eighth rank slot.
I need to look over more, but this is not a winner for me. Clarifications confirming how the community already handled things (i.e. instances of damage) are nice but ultimately not useful; meanwhile, a lot of the other stuff has been actively annoying.
The whole point is that they are contradicting themselves.
Except they're not.
You cannot have something both be a distinct and separate instance from other instances, but also have those instances be connected inside a Strike bucket at the same time.
Why not?
I can see how it might cause issues coding it out in machine language, but thankfully, we're not machines. People are capable of parsing the meaning in a way that makes sense AND falls in line with the new clarifications.
People cleverer than I can probably even find a simple solution to make it work in machine language I'd imagine.
If you've got resistance to "damage from demons," and get hit by some multi-type damage, wtf happens?
It's been a while since I've read the Resistance rules, so I might be wrong here, but following the same logic established by the Weakness example, I would imagine you would figure out the total damage (including adjustments for more traditional weaknesses/resistances), then deduct that resistance value from the total one time LAST.
In any case, I don't see why an example about Weaknesses would have any impact on Resistances.