Typos / Mistakes / Etc in 2E Books Collection


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

401 to 450 of 476 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

CRB page 180, Rogue's Racket, Thief wrote:
When you attack with a finesse melee weapon, you can add your Dexterity modifier to damage rolls instead of your Strength modifier.

IMHO this needs to make explicit whether or not throwing a finesse melee weapon is supposed to work with it.


graystone wrote:
DemonicDem wrote:

Hello again, forgot to post this last time.

The Ranger Class feature Nature's Edge (page 169) says that: "Enemies are flat-footed to you if they’re in natural difficult terrain, on natural uneven ground, or in difficult terrain resulting from a snare."

However, the section on Uneven Ground (Page 476) states "You are flat-footed on uneven ground," which makes part of the feature redundant.

The target might NOT be flat-footed because of an ability like Rock Runner and Steady Balance or using a Jade Cat.

This is a situation of specifics conflicting with each other. Either way, this is not for us to decide.


Is forceful damage added to certain strike? The damage is related to the number of damage dice, but if take away the damage dice it isn't certain you also take away the forceful circumstance bonus damage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DemonicDem wrote:
graystone wrote:
DemonicDem wrote:

Hello again, forgot to post this last time.

The Ranger Class feature Nature's Edge (page 169) says that: "Enemies are flat-footed to you if they’re in natural difficult terrain, on natural uneven ground, or in difficult terrain resulting from a snare."

However, the section on Uneven Ground (Page 476) states "You are flat-footed on uneven ground," which makes part of the feature redundant.

The target might NOT be flat-footed because of an ability like Rock Runner and Steady Balance or using a Jade Cat.
This is a situation of specifics conflicting with each other. Either way, this is not for us to decide.

I'm not making a judgment on it, JUST pointing out that it is in fact not redundant as not all creatures might not be flatfooted.


Does A Silent Spell, after spending an action, take it's full amount of actions, or one less? Relevant rules text:

p303 wrote:
If the next action you use is Casting a Spell that has a verbal component and at least one other component, you can remove the verbal component
p210 wrote:
A spell description lists the components required to Cast the Spell. For most spells, the number of components is equal to the number of actions you must spend to Cast the Spell.

Given that Silent Spell has the "concentrate" trait, I could see the intention being either, seeing as you're spending at least two feats to get it, merely not needing to speak when casting doesn't seem like such a big deal, though who knows what the devs think.


Read the Github file and did not find it was posted before.

Magic fang currently can target only an ally, is this intended? As a Druid you can not boost yourself as written, and that does not seem to have much sense.


Page 298 The description for illusion school is very misleading. It says, "Illusion
Illusions create the semblance of something real, fooling
the eyes, ears, and other senses. They almost always have
the mental trait, and depending on how the illusion is
perceived, they might also have the auditory or visual trait."

The school of illusion rarely has the 'Mental' trait.


A follow up to my previous post.

Apparently people who have received the Lost Omens Character Guide PDF through their subscriptions have reported that "spellcasting class feature," has appeared as a prerequisite again. This time for Hellknight Signifier Dedication.

So I guess my post should be shifted in the compilation from errata to FAQ.

What counts as a spellcasting class feature? Do multiclass archetypes grant it? Do archetypes that aren't based on classes but do grant some spellcasting ability grant it?

It needs clarification.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

If you are not a spell casting class, you can't very well have a "spell casting class feature", I think. The dedications are a bit unclear. They say that you get the "cast a spell activity", and a couple other things, but not the "spell casting class feature". So yeah, it needs clarification.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

For Produce Flame, Burning Hands, and Fireball granted by the elemental sorcerer's bloodline, the fire traits are not removed due to choosing the Air, Earth, or Water traits. Which means a water elemental sorc can't cast their 'water'ball underwater.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
CRB page 180, Rogue's Racket, Thief wrote:
When you attack with a finesse melee weapon, you can add your Dexterity modifier to damage rolls instead of your Strength modifier.
IMHO this needs to make explicit whether or not throwing a finesse melee weapon is supposed to work with it.

IMHO it should. Otherwise it would say "When you make a melee attack with a finesse weapon..." It just says attack, so it should work for any attack using that weapon.

Sovereign Court

Syries wrote:
For Produce Flame, Burning Hands, and Fireball granted by the elemental sorcerer's bloodline, the fire traits are not removed due to choosing the Air, Earth, or Water traits. Which means a water elemental sorc can't cast their 'water'ball underwater.

Your post alerted me to the problem, so for my house rules, I went ahead and created 4 different Elemental Sorcerer Granted Spells lists, divided by the Elemental Type of their parentage. I'm not sure why they didn't do this themselves, it would not have taken much more room than the "Elemental Type" paragraph-long note they printed.

Elemental Sorcerers: Replace their Granted Spells with the following, chosen by their Elemental Type

Fire: Cantrip: Produce Flame 1st: Burning Hands 2nd: Flaming Sphere 3rd: Fireball 4th: Wall of Fire 5th: Elemental Form 6th: Fire Seeds 7th: Fiery Body 8th: Prismatic Wall 9th: Storm of Vengeance

Air: Cantrip: Electric Arc 1st: Gust of Wind 2nd: Obscuring Mist 3rd: Wall of Wind 4th: Gaseous Form 5th: Cloudkill 6th: Chain Lightning 7th: Reverse Gravity 8th: Wind Walk 9th: Storm of Vengeance

Earth: Cantrip: Telekinetic Projectile 1st: Shillelagh 2nd: Acid Arrow 3rd: Meld Into Stone 4th: Shape Stone 5th: Wall of Stone 6th: Flesh to Stone 7th: Volcanic Eruption 8th: Earthquake 9th: Storm of Vengeance

Water: Cantrip: Ray of Frost 1st: Hydraulic Push 2nd: Water Breathing 3rd: Feet to Fins 4th: Hydraulic Torrent 5th: Wall of Ice 6th: Repulsion 7th: Energy Aegis 8th: Polar Ray 9th: Storm of Vengeance


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but
The rules say you can get critical hits on objects (such as an unattended weapon, door, window, etc.), but there seem to be no rules on determining how you hit said objects, what their AC values might be, or how to determine if you get a critical hit.

This strikes me as an error of omission.

RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32

Shouldn't the Spell Disintegrate have the "ATTACK" trait? You do need to make a spell attack roll.

Also the spell, Cataclysm, says one reflex save applies to ALL SIX types of damage, but there are actually SEVEN types in the spell.


Looking at discussion threads, some clarity on Jump spell might be appreciated:
"You jump 30 feet in any direction without touching the ground. You must land on a space of solid ground within 30 feet of you, or else you fall after using your next action."

Does this mean the total movement is limited to 30 feet, i.e. combined horizontal and vertical (up and down) movement?
Or is total distance of movement irrelevant as long as end point is within 30 feet?
(but max distance in any direction at any point in jump is always 30'?)

--------

If you "Jump, use next action, fall", seemingly you still have one action remaining normally... (or potentially more, with Haste etc)
Can one freely use that action DURING the fall? AFTER the fall? (assuming altitude < fall speed per round) EITHER/BOTH?
What about multi-action activities used immediately after Jumping?

--------

Can you use Jump spell while in mid-air, possibly immediately after previously casting Jump?
Or should there be requirement to be standing on solid ground to cast Jump? (or would water be OK? with Swim speed?)

--------

Is "or else you fall after using your next action" how normal (non-Jump spell) jumping/leaping is intended to work, as well?


Samurai wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
CRB page 180, Rogue's Racket, Thief wrote:
When you attack with a finesse melee weapon, you can add your Dexterity modifier to damage rolls instead of your Strength modifier.
IMHO this needs to make explicit whether or not throwing a finesse melee weapon is supposed to work with it.
IMHO it should. Otherwise it would say "When you make a melee attack with a finesse weapon..." It just says attack, so it should work for any attack using that weapon.

There are already threads for discussing rules interpretations and houserules. This thread is typos, mistakes, and FAQ/clarification requests.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Battle medicine: "manipulate" doesn't require a free hand and this is not an explicit use of "Treat Wounds" (it uses the same DC) so:
* Is it intended to require a free hand?
* Is it intended to require a Healer's Kit?
* Is it intended to be a use of Treat Wounds?


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
tivadar27 wrote:

Battle medicine: "manipulate" doesn't require a free hand and this is not an explicit use of "Treat Wounds" (it uses the same DC) so:

* Is it intended to require a free hand?
* Is it intended to require a Healer's Kit?
* Is it intended to be a use of Treat Wounds?

From the glossdex: manipulate (trait) You must physically manipulate an item or make gestures to use an action with this trait. Creatures without a suitable appendage can’t perform

actions with this trait. Manipulate actions often trigger reactions. (Emphasis is mine).

Treat wounds takes 10 minutes. That kind of time is not available in combat, so this is not, IMO, a use of Treat Wounds.

Kind of hard to patch yourself up without a free hand, plus the definition of "manipulate" doesn't clearly say you don't need a free hand, so I'd say "battle medicine" does require a free hand.

Healer's tools? Yes.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Can we please stop having discussion in this thread? It's aimed at the devs not at everyone on the forums. If someone reports what they believe to be a problem, just leave it for the devs to deal with. Disputing whether it is a problem does not help the devs (who can figure it out on their own easily enough) but does clutter the thread. So if you must dispute, please take it to another thread. Unless, of course, you are yourself a dev.

I will not respond to any posts made in this thread in reply to this one.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber

Everything up to Fuzzy-Wuzzy's post has been updated.

https://github.com/alexbrault/Pathfinder2EOversights

citricking wrote:

Can you change gnome flickmace to be 1d6 with disarm, reach, trip?

Its current iteration seems against guidelines of reach losing one damage die and advanced weapons adding one minor property

I don't really want to get into power-level debates in the list. I'd rather stick to confusing passages and objective or obvious mistakes over more subjective things such as whether a weapon is one die size too large or electric arc's power relative to other cantrips.

tivadar27 wrote:

Does A Silent Spell, after spending an action, take it's full amount of actions, or one less?

Given that Silent Spell has the "concentrate" trait, I could see the intention being either, seeing as you're spending at least two feats to get it, merely not needing to speak when casting doesn't seem like such a big deal, though who knows what the devs think.

Nothing in Silent spell says it removes an action (contrast with the Sorcerer's Quickened Casting), neither does the Spell Components section of the rules say the actions and components must correlate 1:1. Unless someone else chimes in that the text is unclear, I'll leave that out.

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
So if you must dispute, please take it to another thread. Unless, of course, you are yourself a dev.

Yes, that. Please.


3Doubloons wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:

Does A Silent Spell, after spending an action, take it's full amount of actions, or one less?

Given that Silent Spell has the "concentrate" trait, I could see the intention being either, seeing as you're spending at least two feats to get it, merely not needing to speak when casting doesn't seem like such a big deal, though who knows what the devs think.

Nothing in Silent spell says it removes an action (contrast with the Sorcerer's Quickened Casting), neither does the Spell Components section of the rules say the actions and components must correlate 1:1. Unless someone else chimes in that the text is unclear, I'll leave that out.

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
So if you must dispute, please take it to another thread. Unless, of course, you are yourself a dev.
Yes, that. Please.

EDIT: Sorry, realize you might not have context. There was significant debate for this in the Silent Spell thread. There's text in the rules that states "For most spells, the number of components is equal to the number of actions you must spend to Cast the Spell." While I don't necessarily think this is intended as a general rule so much as a statement of intent, it is at least ambiguous in that sense, and while in the minority, there were enough people who thought that effectively Silent Spell was action neutral.


I hope this is a good thread to add this to. I have searched the forums to see if any information is mentioned but it doesn't seem to be said anywhere.

Problem location - Core Rulebook, Chapter 1, Sample Character, Step 7, pg.30

"Turning to skills, he marks Nature as trained and notes that once he picks his druid order, he’ll become trained in another skill determined by that order. He then gets to choose three more skills (if he had a higher Intelligence, he would have gotten more). He decides on Athletics, Diplomacy, and Medicine, marking all of them as trained." CR pg.30

What is granting the ability to choose three skills?

Step 3: Ancestry Abilities: + Constitution, + Wisdom, - Charisma
Step 4: Background Abilities: + Wisdom, + Constitution
Step 4: Background Skill: Assurance (Survival), Lore (Caves)
Step 5: 1st Level Abilities: + Wisdom, + Strength, + Dexterity, + Constitution

Class Skills: Nature (Step 7)
Druidic Order Skill: Intimidation (Step 7)

Class Skills Description: "Trained in a number of additional skills equal to 2 plus your Intelligence modifier" CR pg.129

With a modifier of 0, it's unclear to me if is an oversight of mine or a mistake in the description.


FAQ candidate
from the Pick a Lock stealth action

"Locks of higher qualities might require multiple successes to unlock, since otherwise even an unskilled burglar could easily crack the lock by attempting the check until they rolled a natural 20."

Locks of higher qualities requiring multiple successes do not stop an unskilled burglar from rolling until they hit a natural 20 as written.

(I am guessing they meant that critical successes are required to gain a success, or possibly even consecutive successes. But as it stands a level 9 good quality lock worth 200GP is always overcome by a level 2 rogue eventually. It becomes more painful when you look at the level 17 superior one :P)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
CRB page 34, Dwarf wrote:

You Might...

• Strive to uphold your personal honor, no matter the situation.
• Appreciate quality craftsmanship in all forms and insist upon it for all your gear.
Don’t waver or back down once you’ve set your mind to something.

"You might don't" is bad grammar. It should be something like "(you might...) never waver or back down".


Bestiary Page 295, the Simurgh is listed as CR 18 instead of Creature 18. This is inconsistent with level listings for other bestiary creatures.


Lost Omens Character Guide Page 45

The halfling ancestry feat Incredible Luck has the line "if you have Helpful Halfling, you can still use Halfling Luck on an ally instead of yourself only once per day."

Helpful Halfling is an Aid feat and has nothing to do with luck. The actual feat it is probably referring to is Shared Luck.


CRB page 151:
Possible omission in "Incredible Ricochet", flavor and rules don't fit.
The flavor text implies that you use the previous shot to help targeting with the current shot. But the rules don't say that you have to target the same creature. The feat should probably require you to target the same creature as your previous strike to make sense.


Is the github still being updated? The last commit is over a month old now. Obviously people get busy and things happen, but this can be continued elsewhere if OP no longer has the bandwidth to keep up with the flood of attention (and derailing) this thread has received.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber
Vaktaeru wrote:
Is the github still being updated? The last commit is over a month old now. Obviously people get busy and things happen, but this can be continued elsewhere if OP no longer has the bandwidth to keep up with the flood of attention (and derailing) this thread has received.

I have a fork that I keep updated (currently as of a few posts ago; I don't have time to update it today, but I should catch up some time this weekend).

I don't know if VestOfHolding wants to keep maintaining the repository; I'd be happy to make a huge pull request if he is, or to take over the project if not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not sure the purpose/ desirability of the line in Shield:
"A shield bash is not actually a weapon, but a maneuver in which you thrust or swing your shield to hit your foe with an impromptu attack."
Is this so Shields cannot be Runed? (could Bosses/Spikes, or are they just 'modified Shield'?)
Would you not count as 'wielding a weapon in hand' because of this?
They still are somehow Martial Weapons, and comprise specific Weapon Group for Crit Spec effects.
I'm not really feeling the value of this, and it mostly seems confusing and potentially problematic.
It's not like Shields are GOOD weapons, so if somebody wants to Rune theirs (or use with Doubling rings), I don't see problem.

This came up when discussing whether Shields / Bosses/etc should have Shove trait as Martial weapons, since currently Bucklers are better for being able to Shove (given their free hand) than Light/Heavy Shields despite both inflicting Shove with Crit Specialization.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Monk Feat "Wild Winds Initiate" doesn't have Stance trait, despite openly describing itself as a stance, and it's subsidiary Focus spell having the Stance trait. Although it's unusual in having a Focus spell to enter instead of an action directly enabled by the Feat, I don't believe that disqualifies it from being a Stance Feat?

I believe it should work with other Feats like Stance Savant, Master of Many Styles, or Fuse Stance, although the wording there isn't fully obvious...
"Use an action that has the stance trait" -> So casting Wild Winds Stance spell qualifies?
"When you enter your fused stance, you gain all the effects of both stances, including the requirements and restrictions."
-> So "requirements and restrictions" means somatic spellcasting mechanics and focus point consumption still apply?


Quandary wrote:

I'm not sure the purpose/ desirability of the line in Shield:

"A shield bash is not actually a weapon, but a maneuver in which you thrust or swing your shield to hit your foe with an impromptu attack."
Is this so Shields cannot be Runed? (could Bosses/Spikes, or are they just 'modified Shield'?)
Would you not count as 'wielding a weapon in hand' because of this?
They still are somehow Martial Weapons, and comprise specific Weapon Group for Crit Spec effects.
I'm not really feeling the value of this, and it mostly seems confusing and potentially problematic.
It's not like Shields are GOOD weapons, so if somebody wants to Rune theirs (or use with Doubling rings), I don't see problem.

This came up when discussing whether Shields / Bosses/etc should have Shove trait as Martial weapons, since currently Bucklers are better for being able to Shove (given their free hand) than Light/Heavy Shields despite both inflicting Shove with Crit Specialization.

I forgot to say, the explicit bar on etching shields with runes is in general shield rule section, but that is in comparison to ARMOR runes... So I'm not even sure that was written with intention to prevent weapon runes on Shield Bash, it seems more just to counter old 3.x/1E assumption Shields can take same/similar bonuses as Armor.


Quandary wrote:
Monk Feat "Wild Winds Initiate" doesn't have Stance trait, despite openly describing itself as a stance, and it's subsidiary Focus spell having the Stance trait. Although it's unusual in having a Focus spell to enter instead of an action directly enabled by the Feat, I don't believe that disqualifies it from being a Stance Feat?

I would say that Stance is a trait applied to the action of entering a stance, not just to any feat that grants a stance - it just so happens that in every case except Wild Winds Initiate, the feat itself is also the action.

This makes a fair amount of sense, since Stance is one of the traits in the game that inherently implies something about an action, instead of just being a keyword for other things to interact with:

Quote:
A stance is a general combat strategy that you enter by using an action with the stance trait, and that you remain in for some time. A stance lasts until you get knocked out, until its requirements (if any) are violated, until the encounter ends, or until you enter a new stance, whichever comes first. After you use an action with the stance trait, you can’t use another one for 1 round. You can enter or be in a stance only in encounter mode.

Those rules and restrictions don't mean anything for Wild Winds Initiate, because it is a non-action feat that just awards you the focus power (plus a extra focus point), so the actual stance itself has the trait instead.

I'm not seeing the confusion with what the stance interacts with, since as far as I can tell none of the feats like stance savant care where a stance actually comes from - they normally reference 'an action which has the stance trait', which the Wild Winds power unambiguously is.


Sure, those specific rules don't need to apply to WWI Feat directly, but there seems reasonable utility in listing Stance Trait for Feats that grant a Stance: Direct player usage, especially filtering by category (online), or mechanics where specifying "Stance Feats" is convenient, like an Archetype built around Stance Feats. No reason not to, AFAICT.

I don't believe the Cast a Spell action itself gains the Traits of the "payload" spell (other than component traits, which are distinctly listed under Cast section). Only the spell effect has the given spell Traits, so the action Cast a Spell:Wild Winds Initiate would not have Stance trait (nor air, or evocation etc) needed to work with Stance Savant. AFAIK.

"Inheriting" WWI somatic component & Focus consumption to Fused stance action is functionally plausible assuming WWI is intended to be used with Fused stance, but it seems rather a stretch from wording of "requirements and restrictions".

Anyhow, I'm posting this here not to bring it to a conclusion by discussion, but bring it to developers' attention, with conclusion according to their design/editorial standard probably clear from the given details.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Quandary wrote:
I forgot to say, the explicit bar on etching shields with runes is in general shield rule section, but that is in comparison to ARMOR runes... So I'm not even sure that was written with intention to prevent weapon runes on Shield Bash, it seems more just to counter old 3.x/1E assumption Shields can take same/similar bonuses as Armor.

"A shield can’t have runes added to it. You can also buy and attach a shield boss or shield spikes to a shield to make it a more practical weapon. These can be found on Table 6–7. These work like other weapons and can even be etched with runes." -- CRB, p. 277.

Note the last clause.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thanks, I did find that when re-reading later, but didn't think it needed specific updating here...

Honestly, given there is no real impediment to having Boss/Spikes on your Shield (as they are 0 Bulk and just 5sp so not a problem especially past Level 1), I don't really understand the critical game value of base Shield not counting as weapon (sort of), which just seems to introduce complexity and confusion (i.e. situations like "are you wielding weapon in hand?").
-------------------

Relatedly, something that occured to me when thinking about Boss/Spike with 0 Bulk, although the question applies to base Shield Bash too:
How are special materials supposed to work for Shield Bash / Boss / Spike?

There is distinct pricing for special material shields (which is less than flat base for weapons), but would that count towards weapon usage (Bash/Boss/Spike), especially Boss/Spike since those count as a weapon more than base Shield?
As weapons, they all (including base Shield Bash, albeit that's not consistently treated as weapon) list Bulk - (0), so just use flat material pricing for weapons with no Bulk cost i.e. less than any L weapon?

I'm inclined to just use Shield pricing (while applying material benefit to attacks), but the distinct treatment of Boss/Spikes (i.e. "works like other [actual] weapons") compared to base Shield "not a weapon" makes me doubt about using Shield pricing there... That seems like it might be another situation where differentiation between "not weapon" / "weapon" just invites more questions. If the Shield material section explicitly said it applied to Bash/Boss/Spike attacks that would be clearer to me.

Paizo Employee Designer

13 people marked this as a favorite.

Hi, everyone! Thanks to all y'all for collecting all this information. I'm the Pathfinder designer assigned to compiling the first round of errata, and it's been so helpful to see all the pieces you've collected for us.

Many of you are already doing this, but it's a big help for our process if you can include a page number when you post about an error. Thanks to those who have!

Also, I super appreciate the focus on posting rather than discussing, and I'd like to reiterate the request that you take other discussions to other threads. There's lots of places to talk about the minutiae of whether something is an error or not, how you’d fix it in your home game, or what you want to see us do about it, but this thread is way easier for us (read: me) to navigate if it’s just a list of the things that need our attention.

Thanks again for all your help on this! We’re working up a formal errata post to come out before the end of the month, so you’ll see final calls on almost everything here soon!

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber

Well, I shouldn't procrastinate on updating the repo should I?

https://github.com/alexbrault/Pathfinder2EOversights

Lyz Liddell wrote:
Thanks again for all your help on this! We’re working up a formal errata post to come out before the end of the month, so you’ll see final calls on almost everything here soon!

Hurray! Formal Errata post incoming!

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lyz Liddell wrote:

Hi, everyone! Thanks to all y'all for collecting all this information. I'm the Pathfinder designer assigned to compiling the first round of errata, and it's been so helpful to see all the pieces you've collected for us.

Many of you are already doing this, but it's a big help for our process if you can include a page number when you post about an error. Thanks to those who have!

Also, I super appreciate the focus on posting rather than discussing, and I'd like to reiterate the request that you take other discussions to other threads. There's lots of places to talk about the minutiae of whether something is an error or not, how you’d fix it in your home game, or what you want to see us do about it, but this thread is way easier for us (read: me) to navigate if it’s just a list of the things that need our attention.

Thanks again for all your help on this! We’re working up a formal errata post to come out before the end of the month, so you’ll see final calls on almost everything here soon!

I'm glad to see that this has been useful to you folks (and that you're using it!).

One thing I do wonder about: you (not you personally, all the designers) keep bringing up the errata as if it's a massive monolithic thing that you're going to get done. Personally I'd be quite happy if you guys made it a bit easier on yourself and established an easy to update medium (a Github Markdown page or two?) that you could just incrementally update. Why delay an errata to an easier question because the answer to a big intractable question is still held up in discussion?

Digression on why Github-Markdown would be so good for errata
- The IT infrastructure already exists, places no new burden on Paizo IT.
- Interested people can subscribe to notifications about updates, this is extremely useful for venture officers for example.
- Version control built in.
- Requires fairly little training. Markdown is about the easiest way to format text.
- Issue tracking built in. Fairly easy to submit issues, although perhaps just enough effort that people take a moment to think about getting their question right.
- Pull requests can be used to collaborate, for example to have some taskforce submit proposals while the core design team still keeps final control.
- Publishing an individual erratum or FAQ once it's been signed off on by the design team becomes a manner of minutes, not the "we submitted it to IT and it'll be online in a few weeks" that we currently get.

Right now frequently answered questions actually rarely get FAQed, the FAQ is mostly changes to the rules (fixing typos or inconsistencies). I suspect that's because the amount of effort to get anything published is overly high. Other games, many many other games actually have like a weekly rubric of player questions that are really just questions, but people do really like the answers. These are things that would not be nearly as draining on the design team to answer (no need to agree on a new rule, just explain what's already there), if only publishing it didn't take so much effort.


Given how averse to technology beyond calculators the fanbase is, this might not work as well as you hope it will.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Sensitive ROLEplayer wrote:
Given how averse to technology beyond calculators the fanbase is, this might not work as well as you hope it will.

Most of the (easy) technology aspects would fall to Paizo staff. To the fanbase, it would be about as difficult as visiting any other website.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
Sensitive ROLEplayer wrote:
Given how averse to technology beyond calculators the fanbase is, this might not work as well as you hope it will.
Most of the (easy) technology aspects would fall to Paizo staff. To the fanbase, it would be about as difficult as visiting any other website.

Given how averse a strong part of the fanbase is to any use of electronic equipment at the table and how necessary would that make to ensure Internet access at every PFS game, not happening. You need something you can print and lug around with you, be it for a PFS game in place that has no WiFi and shoddy mobile (a typical scenario in rural US) or for a game at Joey's every since Joey smashed one player's tamagotchi (smartphone, but you don't say that word at Joey's home) against the wall.


Conflicts to do with the rules of flying between

Manuever in Flights pg 240-241

Fly pg 272

Specifically the hover ability of fly and how it takes a DC15 check with Manuever in Flight. Oh and reverse direction.

I am assuming that using Maneuver in Flight allows you to ignore the difficult terrain elements of moving up or down by beating the DCs set


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Sensitive ROLEplayer wrote:
Given how averse to technology beyond calculators the fanbase is, this might not work as well as you hope it will.
Most of the (easy) technology aspects would fall to Paizo staff. To the fanbase, it would be about as difficult as visiting any other website.
Given how averse a strong part of the fanbase is to any use of electronic equipment at the table and how necessary would that make to ensure Internet access at every PFS game, not happening. You need something you can print and lug around with you, be it for a PFS game in place that has no WiFi and shoddy mobile (a typical scenario in rural US) or for a game at Joey's every since Joey smashed one player's tamagotchi (smartphone, but you don't say that word at Joey's home) against the wall.

The fact that something can be available on the internet but that a particular game site does not allow internet access does not lead to the conclusion that the thing should not be made available on the internet. As for needing hard copy, there's this neat bit of technology called a "printer'. :-)


Just to get it added to the thread now that the book is out - Leshy Seedpod does not specify a range increment despite being a ranged weapon/strike.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Lyz Liddell wrote:

Also, I super appreciate the focus on posting rather than discussing, and I'd like to reiterate the request that you take other discussions to other threads.

[snip]
this thread is way easier for us (read: me) to navigate if it’s just a list of the things that need our attention.


Dubious Scholar wrote:
Just to get it added to the thread now that the book is out - Leshy Seedpod does not specify a range increment despite being a ranged weapon/strike.

To be precise, that's on (or isn't on) page 54 of the Lost Omens Character Guide, in the "Seedpod" feat.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Hm. Perhaps the bestiary (1st or 2nd edition) entry on Leshies gives an indication of how far they can throw or spit or whatever a seed or seedpod.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sensitive ROLEplayer wrote:
Given how averse to technology beyond calculators the fanbase is, this might not work as well as you hope it will.

The standard argument for why anything doesn't get published on time on Paizo.com is "we sent it in, but IT is overwhelmed". A Github/Markdown solution is considerably simpler than how Paizo currently does things and less burdensome on IT.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Sensitive ROLEplayer wrote:
Given how averse to technology beyond calculators the fanbase is, this might not work as well as you hope it will.
Most of the (easy) technology aspects would fall to Paizo staff. To the fanbase, it would be about as difficult as visiting any other website.
Given how averse a strong part of the fanbase is to any use of electronic equipment at the table and how necessary would that make to ensure Internet access at every PFS game, not happening. You need something you can print and lug around with you, be it for a PFS game in place that has no WiFi and shoddy mobile (a typical scenario in rural US) or for a game at Joey's every since Joey smashed one player's tamagotchi (smartphone, but you don't say that word at Joey's home) against the wall.

Markdown easily turns into PDF, and thus something you can print. Much better actually than the current FAQ pages.

401 to 450 of 476 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Typos / Mistakes / Etc in 2E Books Collection All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.