Errata and APG Playtest Updates???

[NemoNoName]

Phntm888 wrote:

NemoNoName wrote:

All of them? What do I care. They should also make sure to include the delay for handling errata on those books into releases after them as well.

And realistically, I doubt they need more than a week of delay to handle the errata.

I'm not sure what you mean by the bolded part. Could you elaborate?

EDIT: I should clarify I bolded that, Nemo did not, so that I could better point out what I was referring to.

I mean that if a book gets delayed by a week or a month, nothing changes from my perspective - especially if it's announced well in advance. And for books in future, you don't see the delay, they should have this time calculated into the original release date.

[Phntm888]

@Ascalphus: Since quoting your entire post in response to mine would be really long at this point, I'm going to say that you've raised some good points. However, I do think there are some areas where I need to clear some things up, to better convey my points, so I'll quote those.

Ascalphus wrote:

Phntm888 wrote:

This process must then be repeated each month for each product. One year from now (October 2020), that means potential errata for the following: Core Rulebook, Lost Omens World Guide, Lost Omens Character Guide, Bestiary, Gamemastery Guide, Bestiary 2, Lost Omens Gods & Magic, and the Advanced Player's Guide. That's monthly errata updates to potentially 8 books as needed, and the number only increases as more content is published. Eventually, the number of books requiring monthly errata will reach a point where all the design team has time to do is compile, create, and test the errata for the next monthly update. This means they don't have time to work on new releases, which are the core of Paizo's business model.

You're presenting it as if new bugs will continue to appear at the same speed from books that have been published for a while already. That doesn't make sense.

We were still picking at bugs in the PF1 Core Rulebook 10 years after release. I'm not intentionally saying new bugs will just appear at the same speed, but an RPG with as many books as Paizo intends to publish is a highly complex ecosystem where new additions or changes can have unintended consequences on the net effect of the whole. The more options there are, the more unintended consequences have to be considered when adding new content and making errata. That takes time. I'll admit to a bit of hyperbole where I said they would spend all their time working on errata for monthly releases, but I do think that, having to make monthly errata releases will slow down the release schedule in a way that eventually negatively affects the business side of things.

Ascalphus wrote:

Also, you're presenting it as if designers are sitting behind their desk with a looking glass looking through their books to try to find novel bugs. Also ridiculous.

This was absolutely not my intent to present it this way. My intent was to say that the designers wrote the system, created some characters and encounters, tested those characters and encounters, found what didn't work, went back and made changes, then repeated the process (an iterative design model, if you will). They did all this before holding a public playtest with adventures specifically designed to test points in the system, gathered data from players and GMs, made changes based on that data, then released new iterations of problematic rules. They did this for several months before taking their final data points, making further changes, testing those changes internally, and then publishing the final product.

Ascalphus wrote:

Phntm888 wrote:

I think the only way they could handle the monthly model would be to focus on a limited number of issues per month, based on a priority system that takes into account the brokenness of the issue, the customer outcry over the issue, and the recentness of the issue. The problem with this option is there are some issues that may never get addressed, as they continue to release new material, which would get higher priority due to its "recentness."

This is what I've been saying all along.

And my question to you is are you okay if "little" errors from the CRB never get addressed on account of the CRB being an older book in five years time?

Ascalphus wrote:

Other companies actually go farther; I get quite a few emails from DriveThruRPG saying "your PDF for game X has been updated, you can download the new version here". It's okay that Paizo puts things in an FAQ and carries out actual changes to the text on a print run, but it's unreal to say that you can't do more. Because others do.

I think a comparison of DriveThruRPG's business practice to Paizo's business practice isn't particularly helpful. DriveThruRPG does not design the games it hosts, nor do they make the errata updates and changes. It provides a hosting and on-demand printing service for smaller game developers to widely distribute their work. They aren't the same kind of company.

Perhaps a better comparison would be whether or not, say, Green Ronin or one of the companies that uses the Powered by the Apocalypse system provides the same level of notification when they make an errata update to one of their RPGs?

[Phntm888]

NemoNoName wrote:

Phntm888 wrote:

NemoNoName wrote:

All of them? What do I care. They should also make sure to include the delay for handling errata on those books into releases after them as well.

And realistically, I doubt they need more than a week of delay to handle the errata.

I'm not sure what you mean by the bolded part. Could you elaborate?

EDIT: I should clarify I bolded that, Nemo did not, so that I could better point out what I was referring to.

I mean that if a book gets delayed by a week or a month, nothing changes from my perspective - especially if it's announced well in advance. And for books in future, you don't see the delay, they should have this time calculated into the original release date.

Ah, okay, thank you. I didn't want to read that in a negative context, and thought I would ask for more.

I suppose that, apart from Gen Con, they could be more fluid in release dates for future products. However, while you and I may be okay if they nofity the fanbase of a delay in a previously announced product, not everyone would be, and that can be a quite vocal group.

[Chetna Wavari]

Phntm888 wrote:

Since Paizo begins work on products 1 year before announcing them, they probably have already begun work on the following products:

The Next Lost Omens Book

Nope, those are quarterly. So, they're working on 4 of them for next year.

[NemoNoName]

Phntm888 wrote:

Ah, okay, thank you. I didn't want to read that in a negative context, and thought I would ask for more.

Good :)

Phntm888 wrote:

I suppose that, apart from Gen Con, they could be more fluid in release dates for future products. However, while you and I may be okay if they nofity the fanbase of a delay in a previously announced product, not everyone would be, and that can be a quite vocal group.

So can people who want erratas. :) And also, the sooner they cut the cord, the better for them. It will have a knock-on effect of less erratas needed for future books.

[Phntm888]

Chetna Wavari wrote:

Phntm888 wrote:

Since Paizo begins work on products 1 year before announcing them, they probably have already begun work on the following products:

The Next Lost Omens Book

Nope, those are quarterly. So, they're working on 4 of them for next year.

I thought it was all PF2 books quarterly, including bestiaries and rulebooks like the APG?

[Ed Reppert]

Why aren't all these folks who have the perfect answer to how to deal with FAQ and errata working for Paizo and implementing their perfect answer?

[Ascalaphus]

Ed Reppert wrote:

Why aren't all these folks who have the perfect answer to how to deal with FAQ and errata working for Paizo and implementing their perfect answer?

Because you can't just walk up to a country on the far end of the world and say "I work here now and this is what I've decided you're going to pay me for".

Some of these people have, however, on many times volunteered to help Paizo. I've been involved with various projects to sort out difficult rules bits for PFS in the past and I'm currently a volunteer in the PFS Additional Resources taskforce.

So don't presume that we're all talk and no work.

[Ascalaphus]

Phntm888 wrote:

@Ascalphus: Since quoting your entire post in response to mine would be really long at this point...

Yeah, that's how these things go :)

My major point is that handling bugs in your game is not a surprising or incidental thing. It's something that you can expect to be necessary, that you should budget a reasonable amount of time for.

My annoyance is that to all outside appearances, Paizo does not have any kind of regular approach to these things. The last couple of years, most designer interventions have been to put an end to a forum fire that was particularly pernicious. If you want something done, you have to make yourself a nuisance.

Fixing problems should be something you set aside a slice of time for regularly, and you prioritize along a couple of axes. Much like a big helpdesk triages problems.
* Is it easy to fix or not? It can be as simple as acknowledging that Disrupt Prey should be a reaction, not a free action, and that the free action symbol is a typo.
* Is the problem serious or not? People can't come to an agreement on whether Battle Medicine needs 0, 1 or 2 free hands, and it could be a matter of life and death.
* Does it affect a low of people? The class table for wizards suggests that they get a feat more than they're supposed to get. That's everyone playing that class affected.
* Have people been asking for it for a long time? The "your unarmed proficiency increases along your simple weapon proficiency" was an issue from quite early on. Now we have an Iruxi Unarmed Expertise feat that actually only does something for wizards, because all other classes have simple weapon proficiency. Good example of the price of leaving an old issue lying for too long.

Triage your problems, find out how severe they are, and then deal with them based on priority and opportunity.

So yeah, it might mean that a CRB problem remains unsolved for a long time, but if you use criteria like these, the longer the issue remains known and open, the higher priority it should be. If it's so low impact that it never rises to the top of the list, then I guess it's just not important.

[Gorbacz]

*looks at WotC errata/FAQ policy
*looks at D&D 5e sales and market position

[NemoNoName]

Ascalaphus wrote:

Now we have an Iruxi Unarmed Expertise feat that actually only does something for wizards, because all other classes have simple weapon proficiency. Good example of the price of leaving an old issue lying for too long.

That feat doesn't do anything for Wizards. Unarmed proficiency scales with your normal proficiency scaling, whatever it is. Confirmed by checking class-specific character sheets from the pack.

[RicoTheBold]

Gorbacz wrote:

*looks at WotC errata/FAQ policy

*looks at D&D 5e sales and market position

Those are good points, except that of course many of us haven't touched one of their books in basically 10 years and have no idea what the policy says.

For anyone else like that, a quick googling seems to indicate:
- They update errata with new printings
- They communicate errata through a blog
- Some designer periodically ruled on stuff through tweets and the like and some people consider his word law
- They don't appear to have a page that explains any of that, so the most relevant explanations I saw were things like a question posted on Stack Exchange, a reddit thread, and miscellaneous fan sites
- Like...I literally couldn't find whatever "policy" Gorbacz mentioned for the current edition

So...not unlike Paizo for PF1, they don't seem to actually publish it all in one easy place (except for an old FAQ listing for 3.5, I guess).

[NemoNoName]

Also, consider that 5e approach to rules is pretty much "whatever you want, maaan", so it's not like having unclear rules is actually relevant. It's barely a game as-is.

[Samurai]

Ed Reppert wrote:

Why aren't all these folks who have the perfect answer to how to deal with FAQ and errata working for Paizo and implementing their perfect answer?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm putting my changes and errata fixes online in these forums for free for people to download. And if Paizo wants to hire me, I'm currently unemployed...

[Rysky]

NemoNoName wrote:

Ascalaphus wrote:

Now we have an Iruxi Unarmed Expertise feat that actually only does something for wizards, because all other classes have simple weapon proficiency. Good example of the price of leaving an old issue lying for too long.

That feat doesn't do anything for Wizards. Unarmed proficiency scales with your normal proficiency scaling, whatever it is. Confirmed by checking class-specific character sheets from the pack.

Define “normal” Proficiency scaling.

[Phntm888]

Ascalaphus wrote:

Phntm888 wrote:

@Ascalphus: Since quoting your entire post in response to mine would be really long at this point...

Yeah, that's how these things go :)

My major point is that handling bugs in your game is not a surprising or incidental thing. It's something that you can expect to be necessary, that you should budget a reasonable amount of time for.

My annoyance is that to all outside appearances, Paizo does not have any kind of regular approach to these things. The last couple of years, most designer interventions have been to put an end to a forum fire that was particularly pernicious. If you want something done, you have to make yourself a nuisance.

Fixing problems should be something you set aside a slice of time for regularly, and you prioritize along a couple of axes. Much like a big helpdesk triages problems.
* Is it easy to fix or not? It can be as simple as acknowledging that Disrupt Prey should be a reaction, not a free action, and that the free action symbol is a typo.
* Is the problem serious or not? People can't come to an agreement on whether Battle Medicine needs 0, 1 or 2 free hands, and it could be a matter of life and death.
* Does it affect a low of people? The class table for wizards suggests that they get a feat more than they're supposed to get. That's everyone playing that class affected.
* Have people been asking for it for a long time? The "your unarmed proficiency increases along your simple weapon proficiency" was an issue from quite early on. Now we have an Iruxi Unarmed Expertise feat that actually only does something for wizards, because all other classes have simple weapon proficiency. Good example of the price of leaving an old issue lying for too long.

Triage your problems, find out how severe they are, and then deal with them based on priority and opportunity.

So yeah, it might mean that a CRB problem remains unsolved for a long time, but if you use criteria like these, the longer the issue remains known and open, the higher priority it...

I feel I understand your frustrations and viewpoint better, now. Thank you for the respectful discussion.

While I personally feel that a monthly errata might be too much, I do understand that not having a published errata has led to the issues of feats that do nothing, like Iruxi Unarmed Expertise. I'm not sure if that specific problem could have been prevented, though, since I suspect that the LOCG was on its way to the printers either before or right around the time that the CRB was released. Hopefully, these issues can be prevented in the future, though, and Paizo can come up with a dedicated errata schedule, as well.

[Gisher]

thenobledrake wrote:

NemoNoName wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Was it every class is trained and advanced in Unarmed Proficiency, or Classes with Simple Weapons Proficiency? Pretty sure it was the latter.

I'm pretty sure it was every class. They said they did it correctly on the official class-specific character sheets and forgot to include it in the rulebook.

So, there is a fairly simple solution: someone who has the official character sheets with class-specific sheets, please check for us and let us know. Specifically for Wizard and Cleric how it looks.

The Cleric sheet has expert proficiency in simple, favored weapon, and unarmed as part of the Warpriest's Third Doctrine - where the core book has that feature only give expert proficiency in the favored weapon.

And on the Wizard sheet Wizard Weapon Expertise says "Gain expert club, crossbow, dagger, heavy crossbow, and unarmed staff." which is an error-filled way of adding unarmed to the list of improved proficiencies.

That's good to know. Do the sheets say anything about the Cloistered Cleric getting Expert Proficiency in Simple Weapons or Unarmed Strikes?

[thenobledrake]

Gisher wrote:

That's good to know. Do the sheets say anything about the Cloistered Cleric getting Expert Proficiency in Simple Weapons or Unarmed Strikes?

Nope, only in their favored weapon.

[Gisher]

thenobledrake wrote:

Gisher wrote:

That's good to know. Do the sheets say anything about the Cloistered Cleric getting Expert Proficiency in Simple Weapons or Unarmed Strikes?

Nope, only in their favored weapon.

Thanks!

[Ed Reppert]

NemoNoName wrote:

Every class has a list of Initial proficiencies. One subpart of that list "Attacks". Everything that is in there advances on later level according to character sheets, and developers specifically said those sheets are correct.

Do the sheets conflict with the printed CRB? If so, have the devs said the CRB is *not* correct?

As I read it, every class starts out trained in unarmed combat. Druids can get to expert, and Barbarians and Monks can get to Master. Nobody can get to Legendary.

For Simple Weapons, Fighters can get to Legendary, Barbarians, Champions, Monks, and Rangers can get to Master, the rest (except Cleric, which is a special case I'm ignoring for this post) can get to Expert. Martial Weapons, Fighters can get to Legendary, Barbarians, Champions, and Rangers to Master, Bards can get to Expert (for some weapons), the rest can get to Trained. Advanced Weapons, Fighters can get to Master, others can get to at most Trained.

Did I miss something?

[Deadmanwalking]

Yes, you did. The designers have said their intent is that people's Unarmed Proficiency should generally progress along with their Simple Weapon Proficiency.

So that's an errata we'll be getting.

[Ed Reppert]

Ah. Fair enough, I suppose. Although it still looks like only fighters can get to Legendary in Unarmed, and I would have thought that would be a Monk prerogative. :-)

[Gisher]

I've updated my Guide to Proficiency Bonuses (Google Drive version) to reflect the changes with Warpriest weapon advancement.

[Ed Reppert]

Gisher, that is very cool. Thanks for doing it!

[Gisher]

Ed Reppert wrote:

Gisher, that is very cool. Thanks for doing it!

Glad you like it. I'm looking forward to the official errata so I can confirm that I got things right. For some reason I had the impression that it would be posted today. :(

[Deadmanwalking]

Gisher wrote:

Ed Reppert wrote:

Gisher, that is very cool. Thanks for doing it!

Glad you like it. I'm looking forward to the official errata so I can confirm that I got things right. For some reason I had the impression that it would be posted today. :(

Nah, they just talked about it today. It officially hits next week. Hopefully early next week.

[Deadmanwalking]

Paizo Friday Errata Description Summary:

-Errata should land Wednesday (and include things not on this list), both in a Blog Post and as a PDF. Should be 6 or 7 pages. Errata will be in a similar format to the playtest...for now (they have hopes to change the format in the future but didn't want to wait to release this). Book PDFs will be changed eventually.
-Errata will be more readable and involve more explanation of the 'why' on changes than most PF1 errata.
-This errata is not an end state. More stuff will follow as they decide on it.
-Typos are not dealt with in this document, but please keep posting them, as it makes the designers lives easier.
-Some terminology fixes are happening (Elven Longevity is Ancestral Longevity, Battle Medic is Battle Medicine, etc.)

-Dwarves all get access to Clan Daggers, and may get one for free (the language was slightly unclear).
-Gnomes with Gnome Weapon Familiarity get access to Kukris.

-Proficiency ranks in Simple Weapons transfer to Unarmed Attacks. Wizards also advance in Unarmed when they advance Wizard Weapons.

-Champion Divine Weapon effects do apply to unarmed attacks and Divine Ally can apply to Handwraps.
-Mutagenists have a 'Mutagen Flashback' free action to regain the effects of a mutagen they've previously used today for 1 minute.
-Minor Barbarian changes (none specified).
-Bards get to go to 5 Cantrips. As do Druids.
-Monks use Wis for Ki. Stance Savant is a Free Action rather than a Reaction.
-Ranger's Disrupt Prey is a Reaction.
-Rogue's Minor Magic is Cha based.
-Sorcerers go to Master in Will Saves at 17th level.
-Wizards do not get a Class Feat at 1st level.

-Cleared up the wording on commanding Animal Companions.
-Spontaneous Spellcaster Archetypes now grant one of your spells as a Signature Spell.

-The Noisy Armor Trait now adds its check penalty to Stealth even if you have enough Str to ignore the penalty.
-Formula Books are now L Bulk. Alchemist's Tools are Bulk 1 and usable for Alchemist Class Stuff. There's now an Alchemist Lab for downtime (and to give skill check bonuses) which is Bulk 6 and not expected to be carried.
-Waterskins are just always L Bulk, Adventurer's Pack is Bulk 1. There are other Bulk changes. All the kits have adjusted Bulk slightly, and may intentionally give a slight discount.

-Animal Messenger will only make the animal wait for one day to deliver the message, not forever.
-Magic Fang can now be cast on yourself and can be cast even if the target has more than one damage die (though it will not provide additional dice in that case...just make the attack magic).
-Sound Burst critical failures now result in the victim being deafened for one minute and Stunned 1.
-Goodberry has been changed significantly. It takes two actions to cast, lasts 10 minutes, requires only a 'ripe berry', heals 1d6+4, and you need 6 berries to count as a day's nourishment. The Heightened version allows you to eat all the berries created at once.

-Desna gets fly instead of dream message. Iomedae gets enlarge instead of see invisibility. Following the Whispering Way now requires being of Evil alignment.

-There is now a minimum damage rule (of one point). This is before the Weakness and Resistance step, which is relevant.
-With Emanations you, the caster, now get to pick whether the central square is effected. Antimagic Field is probably a specific exception to this.
-Harm deals negative damage.
-When knocked out, your initiative moves to before the turn it occurs on, rather than before the turn of the creature that does it.
-Heroic Recovery brings you to 0 HP, not 1 HP.

-Poisoning a weapon is clarified. It requires two actions to apply (and a separate one to draw), and the number of hands is apparently clarified (you need two, but one can be holding an item to be poisoned...like a dagger).
-All mithral shields are L Bulk.
-Alignment traits do not require you to be an equivalent Alignment to do things with them. So you can cast Evil spells even if Good aligned.
-Shield HP and Hardness are being looked at, but it is intentional that Sturdy Shields are the best in those things. Not every shield is designed to work well with the Shield Block reaction, some are intended for other uses.

[Wheldrake]

Thanks, that's a good preview. Many questions are addressed, even if a few remain outstanding. Like:

- No touch, no patch, stern gaze Battle Medicine.
- Formula requirements for scrolls and wands.
- The 2-action leash on familiars, even outside encounter mode.

[Gisher]

Thanks for posting all of that, Deadmanwalking!

[Quandary]

Thanks, I saw the whole stream myself, but I love transcripts like that which catalog the actual info.

The Spontaneous Caster Archetype getting Signature Spells is pretty key for them, IMHO. From my understanding of the stream,
Each of the 3 Multiclass Casting Feats (Basic/Expert/Master) will allow designating 1 Signature Spell (allow Spontaneous Up/Downcasting).
Considering full chain, you will end up with 3 Signature Spells which hopefully offer wide range of level variations,
but the rest of repertoire spells can't be Spontaneously Up/Downcast so won't normally have pressure on choosing multi-version spells.

Of course, there are also Multiclass and Class Feats like Breadth and the Tradition Evolution Feats which expand repertoire and/or slots,
and Focus and other Class Feats which don't depend on repertoire or slots, so I think Spont Multiclasses will have valid path in big picture.
If you take 1st Casting Feat at earliest possible level, you still only have 1 repertoire spell and 1 slot.
But once you qualify for 2nd level spells you can have additional effective repertoire spell ("version" of other repertoire spell).

EDIT: One thing critical to all Spontaneous casters that didn't touch upon, but I hope is being included in this round of Errata, is whether it is "appropriate" to cast any spell in higher level slots, i.e. without Signature Spell but also with any Heighten effects, just counting as low level version.
Using SigSpell, a low level spell cast with high level slot may not have any improved effect if spell doesn't offer variant at that level, but would actually count as higher level spell for anything that cares (e.g. Counteract checks), which simply allowing low level spells to be cast with higher slots would not inherently accomplish. Likewise, without SigSpell only knowing a high level variant of a spell would not allow for Undercasting it's low level versions in lower spell slots.
Depending on their editing stance, that may just be a FAQ rather than Errata per se, but a pretty important topic IMHO.

They did emphasize the previewed issues are not the only ones included in upcoming Errata, and that they also have other issues which won't make it into upcoming Errata but which they hope to resolve by the next round of Errata whenever that is, and in whatever format.

[K1]

Happy with shields statement.

Quote:

-Shield HP and Hardness are being looked at, but it is intentional that Sturdy Shields are the best in those things. Not every shield is designed to work well with the Shield Block reaction, some are intended for other uses.

Since it is something they are still looking at, I doubt we will see more news in the next few days.

However, seems that shields as weapons are totally fine as I thought.

So do tanky shields.

Not sure how they would like to deal with the rest, but is reassuring that they stated that non all shields are meant to block. Balance in terms of bonuses.

The only problem, but maybe is something which is wanted, is that building a board and shield fighter is way more expensive than building a 2h or 2w one.

Since the shield will cost you way too much.

[Unicore]

Battle medicine would only require Eratta if it is supposed to require healer’s tools/ free hands. It could be that no change is intended and that it will be addressed in a future FAQ, which they did say is something that will be coming down the pipeline eventually. It could also be something they are trying to collect more data on as far as wether it is a problem as is.

[Deadmanwalking]

They didn't actually mention any General or Skill Feats at all. I'd suspect either there's very little non-Class Feat errata, or they decided that was the category of errata that wasn't making it into the stream.

Either seems plausible.

[shroudb]

i hope the "attack" Tag on several spells without attack rolls get addressed.

that seems like an obvious oversight from when the spells transitioned from attack roll spells to saving throw spells after the playtest.

same for the opposite (no attack tag on spells with attack rolls)

tbh, a general overarching rule/errata/faq regarding "attacks" would be greatly appreciated

and i sure hope there's more to the alchemist changes than those already mentioned, but my expectations aren't that high, it still seems like a class that is way below every other class in game atm in power level.

[Salamileg]

Mark said on Reddit that the Arrow-Catching Shield is going to be looked at, since it doesn't have high HP but requires you to block to use its ability.

[tivadar27]

Yeah, the reach of the errata seems fairly limited in this first pass. Tney're addressing glaring stuff, such as Alchemist Mutagenist and Ranger Free Action AoO, but leaving a lot out. Curious how much hardness changes there are to shields, as even though Sturdy Shields should be the best, I don't really think any other shields were anywhere near comparable (maybe around 1/2 hardness/BT).

I am a bit disappointed in the scope TBH. For example, they didn't mention anything about retraining and the retraining "bug" is a pretty big one (because you're required to take something you qualified for when you "originally took the feat", if you retrain your 2nd to sorcerer dedication, you can't retrain your 4th to basic bloodline spell, as you didn't have sorcerer dedication when you took your 4th level feat originally...), and it seemed like a pretty obvious omission/not intended to work that way.

Beyond this, there's *a lot* of questions regarding unarmed attacks, shield attacks, and a bunch of magic items (I'm looking at you shifting rune!) Some of these are likely candidates for FAQs, but I could also see them being addressed in the errata.

[Deadmanwalking]

tivadar27 wrote:

For example, they didn't mention anything about retraining and the retraining "bug" is a pretty big one (because you're required to take something you qualified for when you "originally took the feat", if you retrain your 2nd to sorcerer dedication, you can't retrain your 4th to basic bloodline spell, as you didn't have sorcerer dedication when you took your 4th level feat originally...), and it seemed like a pretty obvious omission/not intended to work that way.

This is a pure wording issue, not a mechanics one in the traditional sense. It's about how you parse the phrase 'when you originally took the Feat'. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they fixed this sort of thing without mentioning it in the stream, simply because discussing the parsing of grammar is usually pretty boring.

They mentioned that there were a number of wording issues being taken care of, though not what they were specifically.

[Laran]

So did they clarify whether TK Projectile uses ranged attack modifier of DEX or ranged spell attack modifier of (CHA/INT/WIS)? Since I ask for PFS, they need an actual ruling or we get table variation

*edit* This was actually discussed using these terms with two different DMs providing two different answers so it is not a hypothetical

[Ed Reppert]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Book PDFs will be changed eventually.

Probably the fourth Tuesday of next week. :-)

[Deadmanwalking]

Laran wrote:

So did they clarify whether TK Projectile uses ranged attack modifier of DEX or ranged spell attack modifier of (CHA/INT/WIS)? Since I ask for PFS, they need an actual ruling or we get table variation

*edit* This was actually discussed using these terms with two different DMs providing two different answers so it is not a hypothetical

Not in the stream...but that was more a highlights reel than an exhaustive list. I'd bet a fair amount of money this one will be covered in the errata on Wednesday.

[NielsenE]

I'm satisfied. They covered a lot of stuff, there's still more, but I appreciated hearing the acknowledgement that they can't wait to have it all and should release it in chunks as they can.

I would have liked to have heard a timeline for non-errata, but rather FAQ matters.

[Ed Reppert]

Two things I'm not clear on:

1. Do multi-class spellcaster archetypes (e.g. Wizard dedication) get the spellcasting class feature? If not, you can't use an archetype to meet that prerequisite for Hellknight signifer, you'd have to start with one of the spellcasting classes. And the dedications do not say that you get it.

2. Can all spells be heightened? On CRB page 299 the sentence "This is useful for any spell, because some effects, such as counteracting, depend on the spell’s level" seems to say yes, but on page 306, the sentence "If the spell can be heightened, the effects of heightening it appear at the end of the stat block" seems to say no.