Errata (what do you expect most? )


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 114 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Hi there,

Just wanted to know everybody's top 3.

I'll start

1) clarifications about shields and weapons.

2) dedication classes dc ( how to increase them ) and bard/sorc dedication modifies.

3) Alchemist.

What about you?

Liberty's Edge

1) Bulk tweaks

2) Sweeping changes of how Unarmed Attack profs work & changes to feats & features relating to it

3) Clarification on Spells/Formulas for availability for Uncommon options

4) Rules for the Noisy trait


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm pretty interested in how shields turn out. If they decide not to errata them, that's as interesting as what an errata might look like.

The shield paradigm is bizarre as-is, but who knows what might be introduced later.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not really any expectations. But I would like..

Some work on Alchemist, fixing class bits maybe, and clarifying stuff.. or m aybe removing double batch/3batch class feats, making those feat choices, and replacing them with something to sure up their Off Martial status.

I'd love to know if you count as that class for Dedication stuff. In particular for situations like Poisoned Weapon where it calls out the class name (rogues get x amount of free poisons, but do you count as a rogue when you multiclass it, if so what level).

maybe clarification on cases where you have profiency with an uncommon weapon. If you know how to use it, shouldn't it be available for you to figure out? Like shuriken are uncommon, but martial, so they know how to use it but they can't access to buy it (baring being in a specific in setting place). I don't think you can get them via Inventor either. I do wish the inventor skil lfeat unlocked uncommon and rare formulas as your profiency in craft went up. (GM can easily restrict and all)

But really I'm far more interested to see what they valued for FAQ so I can get some idea of where they're going with this and future works~


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1) Non-evil chars allowed to cast evil spells, etc.

2) Alchemist love

3) Explicit statement of when a focus spell is gained without increasing focus pool


Probably that rogue minor magic thing (I suspect it’s CHA based, but I’m not really sure)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What is this about shields needing changes? Is it because any class can use them?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
BellyBeard wrote:
What is this about shields needing changes? Is it because any class can use them?

I think Waterslethe means the special shields HP/Hardness which are much lower than an appropriate level shield. Just a guess.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Midnightoker wrote:
BellyBeard wrote:
What is this about shields needing changes? Is it because any class can use them?
I think Waterslethe means the special shields HP/Hardness which are much lower than an appropriate level shield. Just a guess.

Yeah! It seems that high level shields are too easily broken.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just want them to state that shields are weapons, with or without boss/spikes.

And to know if magic shields are meant to be an alternative to sturdy shields, or those made of rare materials, or simply the way they are.

Currently sturdy shields are the real deal, and part of the magic ones has no sense because of their hardness and hp.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Durations of most spells increased by a factor of 10 (to let casters have actual utility).

But seriously:

Sound burst crit fail has a weird effect: stunned 1 for 1 minute. What's intended here? (stunned x exists, and stunned for 1 minute exists, but stunned x for time does not, as far as I can tell).

How many times per round can you sustain the same spell? Sustain a single flaming sphere three times in one round?

If you cast an attack spell from a staff, which has a potency rune, does the spell get a hit bonus? Weapon Potency: "Attack rolls with this weapon gain a +1 item bonus". Staves: "You can cast a spell from a staff". Is an attack roll from a staff an attack roll with the staff? (probably not intended anyways, but casters need some hit bonus love :)

Any rules for jumping down safely/less damage?

Is it intended that people who take the armor training feat train out of the feat at level 13 (or whichever level you get expert in your class armor prof)?

Does battle medicine require healers tools? Does it even require a free hand? It's manipulate, but I'm not sure the hand needs to be free for that.

Disarm penalty is intended to last until the start of the target's turn?

I guess some of these are more FAQ than Errata


2 people marked this as a favorite.

There's actually one thing I would like to see **NOT** get fixed, and that's wizards with an extra class feat at level one. It's not game breaking, it makes playing a wizard feel like you get a little something extra, and given how with all the changes to spellcasting it feels like wizards got hurt the worst (kinda) them having that one extra feat still makes wizards feel special, even if only briefly

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
TheGoofyGE3K wrote:
There's actually one thing I would like to see **NOT** get fixed, and that's wizards with an extra class feat at level one. It's not game breaking, it makes playing a wizard feel like you get a little something extra, and given how with all the changes to spellcasting it feels like wizards got hurt the worst (kinda) them having that one extra feat still makes wizards feel special, even if only briefly

I don't think so man, Human Universalist Wizard starting with 3 Class Feats (Or effectively 4 if you take the Familiar Thesis) is just straight-up broken AF. This needs axed ASAP.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
K1 wrote:
I just want them to state that shields are weapons, with or without boss/spikes.

Seems pretty clear to me.

"The shield bash is an option only for shields that weren’t designed to be used as weapons."
"A shield bash is not actually a weapon"
"You can also buy and attach a shield boss or shield spikes to a shield to make it a more practical weapon...These work like other weapons and can even be etched with runes."

Shield = not a weapon, but can be used for bashing anyways.
Shiled+Boss = weapon.

Though I agree that the hardness seems off.
And alchemist needs some help, especially the mutegenist.

Sovereign Court

Mellored wrote:
K1 wrote:
I just want them to state that shields are weapons, with or without boss/spikes.

Seems pretty clear to me.

"The shield bash is an option only for shields that weren’t designed to be used as weapons."
"A shield bash is not actually a weapon"
"You can also buy and attach a shield boss or shield spikes to a shield to make it a more practical weapon...These work like other weapons and can even be etched with runes."

Shield = not a weapon, but can be used for bashing anyways.
Shiled+Boss = weapon.

Though I agree that the hardness seems off.
And alchemist needs some help, especially the mutegenist.

I'm wondering how much of my House Rules document will turn out to be officially Errata? I have already given a fix for shields by stating that special shields can be created by using a Sturdy Shield as the base instead of a common shield. Doing so just increases the cost by the Sturdy Shield's price.

I have also created fixes for the Alchemist and his Bulk issues by including a Formula book in the Alchemist kit. (After all, you need formulas, so it's only logical that a full Alc tool kit include a formula book. This reduces the total bulk they need to carry around, and the cost too. I then changed "Alchemists get a free Formula book" to "Alchemists get a free Alchemist's tools kit (including the book)."


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Do thrown melee weapons lose the Melee trait? (temporarily, that is)
Do thrown melee weapon count as ranged weapons for meeting feat/ability criteria? (When they're going to be thrown, of course)

Don't Elemental Sorcerer Bloodline spells converted from fire damage lose the Fire trait?

Isn't the Ranger's Disrupt Prey meant to be a Reaction?
If a Free Action, how many uses/round? Would that mean it's immune to all the abilities that circumvent Reaction Triggers, i.e. Mobility or Swiftness?

Does Combat Grab (and other abilities that bypass using the Grapple action) really allow you to grab & immobilize a creature of any size?


Personally I would be quite sad if they go back on the hardness choices of shields.

If they did that there would be no real purpose to sturdy shields and it would be better to have shields take runes and make sturdy a fundamental rune.

As it is shield decision is "do you want a durable shield, or a utility shield" with special materials briding the gap.


1) general fix on missing detail (mutagenist, wizard feat & will, monk DC, few more)
2) alignment traits fixup
3) Electric Arc nerf.

I do not expect rebalancing, I expect errata. And I expect Electric Arc to be some form of misprint.


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

1) Clarifications to familiars (rejecting the 2-action leash outside encounter mode)

2) Clarification on Battle Medicine (rejecting the no touch, no patch interpretation)

3) Clarification on formula use when crafting items like scrolls, wands and so on (whether you need a formula at all for crafting scrolls, and whether you need a different formula for each spell level of each different spell for wands and other items)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Actually, when reading the twenty or so replies what strikes me the most is:

There aren't really any showstopping errors, are there?

I mean Wizards having one feat too many or shields having low hit points or some equipment being bulkier than intended (or not bulky enough?) hardly makes the game unplayable.

I've heard the cries for "errata now" but if what's been suggested so far is really it, it makes me understand better Paizo's decision to not make errata their highest priority...

PS. Not trying to dismiss or ridicule anyone's concerns. But take the Alchemist as an example - if it really is as underpowered as some reports make it out to be the stopgap measure is... not to play one. I mean, compare to 5E's Beastmaster Ranger which isn't errataed even five years after publication!

My point is simply that my burning question is "are there any mistakes that truly lowers quality of play?" So far, it doesn't seem there is, in that every "un-errataed" item is either bearable or avoidable.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ediwir wrote:


3) Electric Arc nerf.

I do not expect rebalancing, I expect errata. And I expect Electric Arc to be some form of misprint.

Just as a note to people reading this:

If you read our thread on Electric Arc you will find that plenty of people are fine with it as-is, pointing out several mitigating factors (that I won't repeat here since we already have a thread for that). So expecting errata is likely wildly misguided.

(There might be some rebalancing down the line, but even that feels unlikely after reading the thread)


4 people marked this as a favorite.
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

Personally I would be quite sad if they go back on the hardness choices of shields.

If they did that there would be no real purpose to sturdy shields and it would be better to have shields take runes and make sturdy a fundamental rune.

As it is shield decision is "do you want a durable shield, or a utility shield" with special materials briding the gap.

I hope you can see why people are confounded.

In effect, the game first says "shields in this edition can outright block damage".

Then it appears that's only true for non-magical shields: once you level up, you're effectively asked to choose between a shield with useful abilities that only provides the traditional AC bump, and a shield that blocks damage (but provides little other benefit).

So what the game really is saying is "shields in this edition can outright block damage or provide magical abilities but not both"

Not saying it's outright "wrong".

Saying it's "unintuitive". Possibly even "disappointing".

At least we should be able to agree Paizo could have communicated their intent for PF2 shields better.


Zapp wrote:
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

Personally I would be quite sad if they go back on the hardness choices of shields.

If they did that there would be no real purpose to sturdy shields and it would be better to have shields take runes and make sturdy a fundamental rune.

As it is shield decision is "do you want a durable shield, or a utility shield" with special materials briding the gap.

I hope you can see why people are confounded.

In effect, the game first says "shields in this edition can outright block damage".

Then it appears that's only true for non-magical shields: once you level up, you're effectively asked to choose between a shield with useful abilities that only provides the traditional AC bump, and a shield that blocks damage (but provides little other benefit).

So what the game really is saying is "shields in this edition can outright block damage or provide magical abilities but not both"

Not saying it's outright "wrong".

Saying it's "unintuitive". Possibly even "disappointing".

At least we should be able to agree Paizo could have communicated their intent for PF2 shields better.

I get that people are confused, i just don't think it makes for good game design / interesting choices to just boost durability. Allowing for any magical shield to be made out of other materials intersts me. Especially since the issue of instant breakage doesn't really occur until after around level 13 if my memory serves me correctly.

As for the alchemist, I would argue it is in a better place than the beast master ranger in 5e, and both are way better off than a weaker class was in pf1e or 3.5. Issues exist and I look forward to seeing solutions but the issues aren't great enough that I would direct any away from the class.


The problem is that sturdy shields are magic shields.

It is not that we are comparing magical shields against not magical shields made to block.

They are both magical.

Shields as weapons are fine, because you can choose the special materials and enchant them once you decided their damage type, as any other weapon ( we just need an answer to clarify for how a shifting rune works with a shield ).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:


I get that people are confused, i just don't think it makes for good game design / interesting choices to just boost durability.

I hope you saw I don't directly argue against you. I just wanted to know if you could see how this might have been handled more... delicately?

Edit: People clearly expect shields to be enchantable as you level up, even with the new-fangled blocking thing.

That is, if Paizo's intention really is to make people choose they could have said so clearly.

Now there is only disappointment that shields with magical abilities "only" provide +2 AC after all, despite all the hoo-haa involving shield blocks, giving fighters a shield block reaction and so on.

It is not unreasonable to ask that Piazo could and should have foreseen this issue. People clearly expect to be able to keep blocking with their shields even as they gain abilities.

A design where the default is the same as with every other edition of D&D, where shield block is not a thing, but where select shields CAN be used to block with, and then just not offering that ability together with any other enchantment would possible have come across as more direct and more intuitive.

After all, the current design only invites people to block with their expensive magic shields only to see tens of thousands of gold coins go down the drain, and for what? 50 points less damage once?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
K1 wrote:

The problem is that sturdy shields are magic shields.

It is not that we are comparing magical shields against not magical shields made to block.

They are both magical.

Well, if sturdy shields *weren't* magical, it would just be a matter of time before people started arguing you could enchant them to gain both the hit points AND the rune effects.

So an argument can be made it's the solution and not the problem.

PS. Please understand I don't have a beef in this fight. I understand the arguments of both sides.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am perfectly fine the way shields are.

The difference between them is neat, and different shields perform better with different tasks

- Sturdy shields block massive dmg

- lion's shield gives a free attack during a fight, while maintaining the raise action benefits.

- dragonslayer shield grants +2 circ vs reflex on aoe effects, more hardness against a specific energy, and the possibility to block effects of that element as well. +2 against frightful presence of that dragon.

- force shield provvides a 5 dmg reduction from physical dmg once per day for 1 minute. Every 4 attacks you suffer 20 damage less without using a reaction, to make an example.

- spellguard shield gives you +2 on saving throws against spells which targets you ( not aoe effects i guess ).

And so on.
It is simply a trade.

A fair one.

There are just a bunch of shields which doesn't work

Arrow catching shield
Forge warden ( even if it still has an aoe fire resistance effect )

Because of their low hp and hardness.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
K1 wrote:

I am perfectly fine the way shields are.

The difference between them is neat, and different shields perform better with different tasks

- Sturdy shields block massive dmg

- lion's shield gives a free attack during a fight, while maintaining the raise action benefits.

- dragonslayer shield grants +2 circ vs reflex on aoe effects, more hardness against a specific energy, and the possibility to block effects of that element as well. +2 against frightful presence of that dragon.

- force shield provvides a 5 dmg reduction from physical dmg once per day for 1 minute. Every 4 attacks you suffer 20 damage less without using a reaction, to make an example.

- spellguard shield gives you +2 on saving throws against spells which targets you ( not aoe effects i guess ).

And so on.
It is simply a trade.

A fair one.

There are just a bunch of shields which doesn't work

Arrow catching shield
Forge warden ( even if it still has an aoe fire resistance effect )

Because of their low hp and hardness.

The matter with shields is quite simple: Shields should not break after a single a attack s dealt to them. Period.

You know why? Because they are not being priced as consumables. They are items people create builds and concepts around them, having their main mechanic of shield blocking completely fall apart later into the game is simply unacceptable and only removes a valuable niche of possible builds.

It's not hard to grasp. Shields that don't turn to dust at later levels allows for more builds to be created into the game. You know what else is not hard to grasp? Solid foundational mechanics allows for future content that expand and enhances the game,rather than things that either try to fix previous content or needs to jump to several hoops to make it worth because the underlying foundation is poorly implemented in the game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I prefer to differ.

You can choose between 3 kind of shields

1) weapon shields
2) blocking shields
3) utility shields

All of them, apart from the dancing one i guess, gives you the +2 circumstance bonus while raised.

That said, what do you want your shield to do?

Off hand weapon?
Then choose the material, the attachment and enchant it with weapon runes.

You want to block damage by using your reaction? Then you will definitely go with sturdy shields, which are shields meant to block damage.

You want instead to get some specific benefits like extra attacks, auto repair, resistances, bonus to saves against spells, etc... ?

Then you will go with a specific utility shield.

You can't have anything, and as for class feats, choices have to be made.

Oh I almost forgot. Period.


I doubt they’ll make major changes in an errata. It’s not what it’s for.
Whike there might be big changes, they’ll likely be the result of fixing copy/editing mistakes, or direct contradictions like Mutagenist.
Remaking a whole system? Nah. Not that soon, not like this.


K1 wrote:

I prefer to differ.

You can choose between 3 kind of shields

1) weapon shields
2) blocking shields
3) utility shields

All of them, apart from the dancing one i guess, gives you the +2 circumstance bonus while raised.

That said, what do you want your shield to do?

Off hand weapon?
Then choose the material, the attachment and enchant it with weapon runes.

You want to block damage by using your reaction? Then you will definitely go with sturdy shields, which are shields meant to block damage.

You want instead to get some specific benefits like extra attacks, auto repair, resistances, bonus to saves against spells, etc... ?

Then you will go with a specific utility shield.

You can't have anything, and as for class feats, choices have to be made.

Oh I almost forgot. Period.

Except that there are some really expensive magical shields that specifically have an ability that activates when you use Shield Block and if it takes damage from a high-level threat (when you're supposed to have that amount of money to afford the shield) it instantly breaks beyond repair.

"Utility", "weapon" and "blocking shields". That's just weird. Why not have a shield, that can do something else, rather than just holding an effect with my "utility" shield.

And seems like it's actually hard to grasp. Huh.


Lightning Raven wrote:
The matter with shields is quite simple: Shields should not break after a single a attack s dealt to them. Period.

They should not be destroyed after one blow. If they are just broken, you can repair them. Making them similar to THP.

But a Greater Floating Shield shield is going to be destroyed in a hit.

Personally, I think there should be some scaling with the user. "When you raise shield, it get's temporary hit points equal to your level". Or something.
Study shield can still get 2x the THP, keeping it as the blockers choice.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Would like to know how the Thief Racket is meant to interact with Daggers, Star Knives, and Filchers Fork when thrown, as written they apply Dex to damage since the thrown text specifically says it’s a ranged attack with a melee weapon and the racket says an attack with a finesse melee weapon.

While not unbalanced in the slightest, I would like to hear an official ruling that it’s okay to do so.

Everything else has already been said.


Midnightoker wrote:

Would like to know how the Thief Racket is meant to interact with Daggers, Star Knives, and Filchers Fork when thrown, as written they apply Dex to damage since the thrown text specifically says it’s a ranged attack with a melee weapon and the racket says an attack with a finesse melee weapon.

While not unbalanced in the slightest, I would like to hear an official ruling that it’s okay to do so.

Everything else has already been said.

Sorry, but pretty sure Mark Seifter came to that thread to say adding Dex to damage for thrown was not the intention. So I don't think you'll get that ruling.


Mellored wrote:
Lightning Raven wrote:
The matter with shields is quite simple: Shields should not break after a single a attack s dealt to them. Period.

They should not be destroyed after one blow. If they are just broken, you can repair them. Making them similar to THP.

But a Greater Floating Shield shield is going to be destroyed in a hit.

Personally, I think there should be some scaling with the user. "When you raise shield, it get's temporary hit points equal to your level". Or something.
Study shield can still get 2x the THP, keeping it as the blockers choice.

I realize that I used the wrong word for that. The point was that shields shouldn't be completely broken beyond repair with a single attack, which is very likely to happen the higher your level. Only sturdy shields manage to withstand them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BellyBeard wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:

Would like to know how the Thief Racket is meant to interact with Daggers, Star Knives, and Filchers Fork when thrown, as written they apply Dex to damage since the thrown text specifically says it’s a ranged attack with a melee weapon and the racket says an attack with a finesse melee weapon.

While not unbalanced in the slightest, I would like to hear an official ruling that it’s okay to do so.

Everything else has already been said.

Sorry, but pretty sure Mark Seifter came to that thread to say adding Dex to damage for thrown was not the intention. So I don't think you'll get that ruling.

Not being intended doesn't necessarily mean they'll reverse it: one can hope. As Midnightoker says, it doesn't seem overpowered even if unintended.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BellyBeard wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:

Would like to know how the Thief Racket is meant to interact with Daggers, Star Knives, and Filchers Fork when thrown, as written they apply Dex to damage since the thrown text specifically says it’s a ranged attack with a melee weapon and the racket says an attack with a finesse melee weapon.

While not unbalanced in the slightest, I would like to hear an official ruling that it’s okay to do so.

Everything else has already been said.

Sorry, but pretty sure Mark Seifter came to that thread to say adding Dex to damage for thrown was not the intention. So I don't think you'll get that ruling.

Mark didn't come to that thread and state as such, he stated on stream that Thrown Melee weapons being treated differently than Ranged Thrown weapons was something that was not intended.

The Rogue Racket for Thief, RAW, that is how it works. If that is not the intent, they need to clarify that Melee weapons are no longer melee weapons when they are thrown.

That ruling however, would also create weird scenarios where throwing a weapon with Disrupt or other Melee properties loses their magic mid throw if Melee Thrown weapons are no longer treated as Melee weapons.

Personally, I don't see why a melee weapon would suddenly become a ranged weapon just because it was thrown. It's still a melee weapon.

And as Graystone pointed out, it's 3 weapons of 1d4 damage with 10ft (20ft for filcher's fork, uncommon halfling) so it's not like this is going to break the game.

They need to errata it if it's not intended, because it 100% reads that way.

EDIT: Mark entered the thread and reiterated what he said on stream:

Quote:

We have Rage on the list to look at for clarity updates, I can add the thief ability as well. Are there any other that are ambiguous and seem to work with thrown melee weapons if you read them a particular way?

and then I said

Me wrote:
Javelins for instance are clearly ranged

since they don't have a melee usage.
It would be weird for thrown daggers to work differently than thrown javelins

He said it was on the list to clarify, not that it did not work.

If the Rogue Racket read "When you make a melee attack with a finesse weapon" then it'd be pretty clear.

Instead it says "When you make an attack with a melee finesse weapon"

Note how it doesn't specify the type of attack, only the type of weapon.

So if a Dagger stops being a melee weapon when it is thrown, there needs to be explicit rulings that state such (and once again, that change has a whole lot more ramifications than just the racket).


BellyBeard wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:

Would like to know how the Thief Racket is meant to interact with Daggers, Star Knives, and Filchers Fork when thrown, as written they apply Dex to damage since the thrown text specifically says it’s a ranged attack with a melee weapon and the racket says an attack with a finesse melee weapon.

While not unbalanced in the slightest, I would like to hear an official ruling that it’s okay to do so.

Everything else has already been said.

Sorry, but pretty sure Mark Seifter came to that thread to say adding Dex to damage for thrown was not the intention. So I don't think you'll get that ruling.

That would surprise me.

To me the rules are clear, and there is zero confusion: thrown weapons get Dex to damage.

Sure they can change that, but it should then be called errata and not "clarification" WotC style (=stealth errata).

Changing this by acknowledging the rules are wrong and need editing --> good

Changing this by pretending the rules have always said the opposite of what they're saying --> bad


Zapp wrote:


To me the rules are clear, and there is zero confusion: thrown weapons get Dex to damage.

Just to clarify, only thrown melee finesse weapons get DEX to Damage as written now.

I think it would be weird for Rogues to get DEX to damage with Javelins, but I also don't think it would be that weird for them to get it on Darts.

The long term ramifications of leaving it as is and just stating that a melee weapon when thrown remains a melee weapon is almost none, except in the context of introducing new weapons with the finesse/thrown quality.

Or in the case of Throw Anything, but I think Throw Anything will more than likely have a clause that states "The weapon loses all of it's normal traits if you give it the thrown property".


Midnightoker wrote:
Mark didn't come to that thread and state as such, he stated on stream that Thrown Melee weapons being treated differently than Ranged Thrown weapons was something that was not intended.

He said in the quote you gave

"We have Rage on the list to look at for clarity updates, I can add the thief ability as well. Are there any other that are ambiguous and seem to work with thrown melee weapons if you read them a particular way?"

He said Rage and the thief ability "seem to work" with thrown melee weapons, which reads to me like the intent was that they don't work that way and the wording needs to change to make that explicit. He then went into another example two posts down from that making it more clear that, if ranged Dex to damage is an interaction allowed by a strict reading of the rules, it isn't one that was intentionally built into the thief racket. It is simply not the design intention, and saying that's how it works right now RAW, while perhaps correct, doesn't change the design intent. Which IMO is what we should be talking about in a thread about what we expect the errata to look like.

As for thrown melee weapons losing properties, I assume there was a reason those properties were supposed to be melee-only in the first place. What does it change to allow them on a ranged attack?


Zapp wrote:

To me the rules are clear, and there is zero confusion: thrown weapons get Dex to damage.

Sure they can change that, but it should then be called errata and not "clarification" WotC style (=stealth errata).

Changing this by acknowledging the rules are wrong and need editing --> good

Changing this by pretending the rules have always said the opposite of what they're saying --> bad

We are talking about the errata materials and what we expect, so yeah it's going to be called errata. The rules can be read to give Dex to damage on ranged attacks, and that's not a can of worms they want to open, so they're rewriting to make it more explicit that interaction shouldn't happen. I don't know what your last point is supposed to mean in regards to issuing errata.


BellyBeard wrote:


We are talking about the errata materials and what we expect, so yeah it's going to be called errata. The rules can be read to give Dex to damage on ranged attacks, and that's not a can of worms they want to open, so they're rewriting to make it more explicit that interaction shouldn't happen. I don't know what your last point is supposed to mean in regards to issuing errata.

When you state something like this:

Quote:
Sorry, but pretty sure Mark Seifter came to that thread to say adding Dex to damage for thrown was not the intention. So I don't think you'll get that ruling.

It implies no ruling needs to be made.

Regardless of which way things fall, a ruling does need to made/clarified.

further thoughts:

As for items that lose the property, losing magical properties when thrown on a melee weapon is just a super bizarre interaction (and none of the specific properties that apply have any issues that I can see for a thrown melee weapon).

There seems to be a reason to allocate Melee Weapons to the Melee Weapons category over simply being "Thrown weapons".

Either list them as Ranged Weapons, state they are ranged weapons if they are thrown (and not just ranged attacks), or whatever, but it needs to be stated.

Personally, I thought it was intentional to list them separately, especially considering the ranges for melee thrown weapons are significantly lower than regular weapons.

This is my last comment on the subject. We're derailing the thread over something that's ultimately trivial, but I will say taxing a thrown weapon Rogue a Class Feat just to be viable and then also removing this means they're going to have to create additional support for Thrown Weapon rogues to even be viable (SA is already off the table most of the time).

Paizo Employee Customer Service & Community Manager

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Please don't debate particular pieces of errata in this thread. It is unhelpful. You can take a discussion of a particular topic to a new thread and link that here if you need to.

Additionally, getting sarcastic and name calling is not appropriate behavior for our community forums.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Clarification on the interaction of stealth, perception, and switching from exploration to encounter mode. I legit get headaches reading all the back and forth on how it's supposed to be done. I need a flowchart or something because it's way too complicated for my tiny brain right now.

Sovereign Court

Rycke wrote:

If the shield is going to be destroyed beyond repair by an attack, don't block the damage from that attack. Block the damage from a non-critical hit. I didn't realize that people were under the impression that shields could only be used by stupid people.

You don't get to decide to Raise your Shield or not AFTER the attack and damage are rolled, you do it before. And you can't change your mind when you find out it is a crit hit or not..


Samurai wrote:
Rycke wrote:

If the shield is going to be destroyed beyond repair by an attack, don't block the damage from that attack. Block the damage from a non-critical hit. I didn't realize that people were under the impression that shields could only be used by stupid people.

You don't to decide to Raise your Shield or not AFTER the attack and damage are rolled, you do it before. And you can't change your mind when you find out it is a crit hit or not..

They are talking about shield block, raising your shield doesn't risk the shield barring some very specific magical shields, the ones they mentioned,and even they can be made out of special materials to stop them from being one hit broken up until the very late levels.

"Trigger While you have your shield raised, you would take damage from a physical attack."

"Low-grade items can be used in the creation of magic items of up to 8th level, and they can hold runes of up to 8th level. Standard-grade items can be used to create magic items of up to 15th level and can hold runes of up to 15th level. High-grade items use the purest form of the precious material, and can be used to Craft magic items of any level holding any runes. "

1 to 50 of 114 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Errata (what do you expect most? ) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.