CRB Typos / Mistakes / Etc Post Errata 1.0


Rules Discussion

1 to 50 of 72 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Kicking off a thread to re-raise typos or clarifications still needed in the CRB specifically. If people want to discuss other books, I think separate threads are a good way to go.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Retraining:

CRB p.481 wrote:

When retraining, you generally can’t make choices

you couldn’t make when you selected the original
option. For instance, you can’t exchange a 2nd-level
skill feat for a 4th-level one, or for one that requires
prerequisites you didn’t meet at the time you took the
original feat.

Following an exact reading of this text, you're not allowed to, for example, retrain your 4th level feat to "Sorcerer Dedication" and then retrain your 6th level feat to "Basic Blood Potency" because at the time you took your 6th level feat, you didn't have "Sorcerer Dedication", you retrained into it later. I'm assuming this isn't the intent, and the wording here should be cleared up. Perhaps indicating that when you retrain, you're considered to have taken that feat at the time you took the original feat you trained out of.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So the errata for thrown weapons (pg. 283), they now state thrown weapons become ranged weapons. So what happens to melee weapon runes like ghost touch on melee weapons that are thrown? They seriously quit working? That's kinda messed up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CRB p.277 wrote:

A shield can be used as a martial weapon for attacks,

using the statistics listed for a shield bash on Table 6–7:
Melee Weapons (page 280). The shield bash is an option
only for shields that weren’t designed to be used as
weapons. 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.

Is a shield considered a weapon when held in the hands for purposes such as Fighter Dual-Weapon feats or for that matter, Doubling Rings, or does this require Shield Boss/Spikes?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
tivadar27 wrote:

Retraining:

CRB p.481 wrote:

When retraining, you generally can’t make choices

you couldn’t make when you selected the original
option. For instance, you can’t exchange a 2nd-level
skill feat for a 4th-level one, or for one that requires
prerequisites you didn’t meet at the time you took the
original feat.
Following an exact reading of this text, you're not allowed to, for example, retrain your 4th level feat to "Sorcerer Dedication" and then retrain your 6th level feat to "Basic Blood Potency" because at the time you took your 6th level feat, you didn't have "Sorcerer Dedication", you retrained into it later. I'm assuming this isn't the intent, and the wording here should be cleared up. Perhaps indicating that when you retrain, you're considered to have taken that feat at the time you took the original feat you trained out of.

That may be true for the “exact” wording but the intent and spirit is reflected by the text that follows that you also quoted. It is all about taking feats at an appropriate level and not skipping prerequisites.

I am not sure this really needs clarifying

And isn’t there already a typos thread ? Why has a new one been started . It surely isn’t necessary.
And the errata isn’t really an excuse as the errata isn’t really focused on typos


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The Staff of Necromancy contains the spell Enervation, which doesn't exist.

Druids are the only full casters with a Class DC and it never seems to be advanced or used.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lanathar wrote:
And isn’t there already a typos thread ? Why has a new one been started . It surely isn’t necessary.

As the OP stated "I think separate threads are a good way to go". So that's why he started it.

I agree with him, I prefer Errata threads separated by product... and the original thread wasn't even in right forum.
Although the thread should have linked to earlier Errata thread(as also applies to any threads started for other books).

Gisher wrote:
The Staff of Necromancy contains the spell Enervation, which doesn't exist.
I don't think you need worry there...
Errata PDF wrote:

UPDATED TERMINOLOGY

Change this... ... ...to this ... Page(s) ... and location
Enervation ... vampiric touch ... 594, ... greaterstaff of necromancy (4th level)


The Fighter class feat Flinging Shove lets you use Aggressive Block to shove 10 feet on a success, or 20 feet on a critical success. That makes no sense, since Aggressive Block doesn't involve a roll. It just automatically succeeds. Does that mean it just automatically shoves 10 feet?

https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=408


Strill wrote:

The Fighter class feat Flinging Shove lets you use Aggressive Block to shove 10 feet on a success, or 20 feet on a critical success. That makes no sense, since Aggressive Block doesn't involve a roll. It just automatically succeeds. Does that mean it just automatically shoves 10 feet?

https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=408

Flinging Shove applies to either Aggressive Shove or Brutish Shove. So the critical effect must've been mentioned for the sake of Brutish Shove, then.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Unarmed proficiencies isn't clear for Fighters or Clerics. Do Fighters get master unarmed proficiency at level 5? And do Clerics get expert unarmed proficiency at level 7 or 11? By my reading they do, but I'm not sure if that is intended.


Do you need 2 kits and both kills to use and improve the Chirugeon base ability? If not, how does it work?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
tivadar27 wrote:
Kicking off a thread to re-raise typos or clarifications still needed in the CRB specifically. If people want to discuss other books, I think separate threads are a good way to go.

3Doubloons is one who is maintaining the compilation of all the errors.

It would probably be polite to ask them what their preference is for errata threads because they're doing the most work for it.


Quandary wrote:
Lanathar wrote:
And isn’t there already a typos thread ? Why has a new one been started . It surely isn’t necessary.

As the OP stated "I think separate threads are a good way to go". So that's why he started it.

I agree with him, I prefer Errata threads separated by product... and the original thread wasn't even in right forum.
Although the thread should have linked to earlier Errata thread(as also applies to any threads started for other books).

Gisher wrote:
The Staff of Necromancy contains the spell Enervation, which doesn't exist.
I don't think you need worry there...
Errata PDF wrote:

UPDATED TERMINOLOGY

Change this... ... ...to this ... Page(s) ... and location
Enervation ... vampiric touch ... 594, ... greaterstaff of necromancy (4th level)

Thanks, I didn't catch that. I went looking for the change in the Magic Items section. Silly me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Spamotron wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:
Kicking off a thread to re-raise typos or clarifications still needed in the CRB specifically. If people want to discuss other books, I think separate threads are a good way to go.

3Doubloons is one who is maintaining the compilation of all the errors.

It would probably be polite to ask them what their preference is for errata threads because they're doing the most work for it.

I actually sent a message to them indicating I was starting up this thread and pointing to it :). Also, it's unclear to me if devs are working based off of that list or the thread itself, if it's the second, then having separate threads seems preferable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Shifting Runes:

CRB p.585 wrote:

With a moment of manipulation, you can shift this weapon

into a different weapon with a similar form.
Activate [one-action] Interact; Effect The weapon takes the shape
of another melee weapon that requires the same number of
hands to wield. The weapon’s runes and any precious material
it’s made of apply to the weapon’s new shape. Any property
runes that can’t apply to the new form are suppressed until
the item takes a shape to which they can apply.

There have been many questions regarding this, and I think the main ones are:

1. Can this apply to Handwraps, if so, how does that actually work!?
2. Can a champion with this apply it to a specific magic weapon (since it's not etched), if so, how does *that* work?
3. Especially for the cases of 2. as well as for Staves, are other abilities/properties of the item preserved?
4. Is the intention that if the rune is transferred/removed, the item reverts to its original form?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
tivadar27 wrote:
Spamotron wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:
...
3Doubloons is ... maintaining the compilation of all the errors.
... it's unclear to me if devs are working based off of that list or the thread itself, if it's the second, then having separate threads seems preferable.

On Discord, if I recall, Mark indicated that they use the github as one source for their master issues-list.


tivadar27 wrote:
Spamotron wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:
Kicking off a thread to re-raise typos or clarifications still needed in the CRB specifically. If people want to discuss other books, I think separate threads are a good way to go.

3Doubloons is one who is maintaining the compilation of all the errors.

It would probably be polite to ask them what their preference is for errata threads because they're doing the most work for it.

I actually sent a message to them indicating I was starting up this thread and pointing to it :). Also, it's unclear to me if devs are working based off of that list or the thread itself, if it's the second, then having separate threads seems preferable.

Agreed, I always assumed they worked off the threads and the separate compilation was a quixotic endeavor.


Gisher wrote:
Druids are the only full casters with a Class DC and it never seems to be advanced or used.

Trying to understand this...

The only classes with Class DC seem to be Alchemist and martials with Crit Specialization (some of which trigger Save using Class DC).
Brawling group in fact is one that uses Class DC for Save, so they may have planned to use this for Wildshape/etc?
I don't believe there is any mechanic enabling CritSpec for Druids using Wildshape or otherwise, not sure if that should be fixed?

If it is intended, never advancing the Proficiency seems an error, since merely Expert is minimum assumption for any relevance at high level.


Hatchet (Axe group) has problem applying CritSpec effect when Thrown:

Quote:
Choose one creature adjacent to the initial target and within reach. If its AC is lower than your attack roll result for the critical hit, you deal damage

When thrown as ranged weapon, no "Reach" is in play when target is struck. Possibly could be re-phrased to "Choose one creature adjacent to initial target, that you are able to attack" which is more neutral to requirements of Melee vs Ranged... Although the Cleave-like effect itself feels strange with ranged attack, possibly this could be changed to other CritSpec group when Thrown?

Hand of the Apprentice may also trigger this issue, although possibly with distinct questions raised by "as if you had hit with a melee Strike" wording. Not sure if "within Range of spell" (500') should be equated with "within reach". I feel HoA's "as if melee strike" wording is more confusing than helpful in long run, with functionality as thrown weapon probably raising less questions...? Flanking for one. If it's desired for melee-specific Runes to still function, that could be explicitly stated without necessarily being Melee NOT Thrown for all other purposes...?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

How Divine Sorcerors resolve Divine spells referencing "Deity Alignment" and "Favored Weapon" isn't clear.
I don't believe any Deity they casually "worship" (or even as Multiclass:Cleric/Champion) should affect their Sorceror spellcasting.
Using own Alignment doesn't make sense with Divine Bloodlines defacto affiliated to Alignment by Creature Type irrespective of Caster's Alignment.
So it seems each Divine Bloodline should specify "effective Deity Alignment" (Angel: Good, Demon: Chaotic Evil, Devil: Lawful Evil, Undead: Evil?)
and at the same time specify "effective Favored Weapon", with Bloodline-specific weapon seeming more flavorful than generic Alignment association.

Beyond the Divine Bloodlines themselves though, any Sorceror can gain access to these spells via Crossblooded Evolution, so there needs to be specific mechanic to cover that... Probably using own (caster) Alignment and maybe a generic Alignment-Favored Weapon rule? That might even just match however this is resolved for Oracles with non-Aligned Mysteries (most, if not all, I assume). But there is no rules to make that work currently AFAIK.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Relatedly, while some Divine Bloodline Focus spells have appropriate Alignment trait, others lack it despite seeming to qualify in thematic content:
Swamp of Sloth: conjuring "Demonic" swarm
Abyssal Wrath: evoking energy of Abyssal realm
Celestial Brand: inflicting Good aligned damage VS evil creatures
I'm not sure if some/all Undead spells should have Evil trait or not.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

re: Divine Spells and "Deity Weapon"/"Favored Weapon", I realized there can also be other cases where those aren't clearly defined:
Trick Magic Item (Religion), Innate Spells, or anything allowing to cast Divine spells like Magaambyan Archetype.
So there probably should be general rule to account for Divine spells assumption of Deity Alignment and Favored Weapon,
that could be phrased to account for any associated Alignment of parent ability like Bloodline,
or simply be over-ruled wheneer appropriate for specific situation like Bloodlines or Oracle Mystery etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Fighter feat Aggressive Block is triggered mostly on enemy turns, but lasts until the start of YOUR turn. This means it has no effect if your turn is next. Is this intended, or should it last until the start of the OPPONENT's turn?

http://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=363

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Aggressive Block wrote:
You push back as you block the attack, knocking your foe away or off balance. You use your shield to push the triggering creature, either automatically Shoving it 5 feet or causing it to become flat-footed until the start of your next turn. The triggering creature chooses whether to be moved or become flat-footed. If it chooses to be moved, you choose the direction. If the Shove would cause it to hit a solid object, enter a square of difficult terrain, or enter another creature’s space, it must become flat-footed instead of being moved.

That’s how it was in the playtest from what I remember, let’s not post stuff in here just because we don’t like it.


Sustain a Spell (p. 304) currently does not indicate it can only be done once a turn for a spell. While many spells have limits explicitly stated (such as Divine Aura) and others are worded to impose limits on the benefits (such as animated objects getting 2 actions per turn which are usable when the spell is sustained), however, Flaming Sphere has no such restriction, and seems overly powerful if not limited (3d6 damage 3 times a turn after the first round).

Is this intended? Is it the intention that you can only sustain once per round per spell (this would neuter things like Spiritual Weapon a bit), or is this an issue with the Flaming Sphere spell failing to state a limit of once per round?


It's not game breaking by any account, and has no issues at the moment but there exists a disconnect between phrasing in the sorcerer entry and the the sorcerer dedication.

The sorcerer class entry says you are trained in one or more skills determimed by your bloodline (all existing bloodlines grant 2 skills, the spell lists associated skill and usually a CHA skill (except Imperial who get society)).

The sorcerer dedication says you become trained in the sorcerer's two skills.

This does not currently cause problems, and should not be on the top of any sort of errata list but it does seem like they built in the versitailty to have bloodline with only 1 or with more than 2 bloodline skills and then neglected that when the MC dedication got written.

Here's hoping for more cool bloodlines, with more cool abilities.


So the errata applied a change to the Deer Animal Barbarian to now get a 1d10 Piercing unarmed attack with the Grapple trait instead of the 1d8 with the Charge trait. It's supposed to put it in line with other 1d10 unarmed attacks. But then you look at the Specialization Ability on page 86:

"...The frog’s tongue attack and deer’s antler attack gain reach 10 feet."

So now the Deer by RAW has a 1d10 Piercing attack with Reach 10, something none of the other Animal's unarmed attacks have.

Was this an honest mistake? Or am I missing something here?

EDIT: Correction, Specialization Ability also increases all of their unarmed attacks via Rage by one step. So everyone's got some kind of 1d12 attack, but Deer has 1d12 Piecing PLUS Reach 10. Seems insanely good to me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Core Rule Book pages 80 and 81

True Debilitating Bomb says:

" If you instead apply one of the effects listed in Debilitating Bomb, the target avoids the effect only if the result of its saving throw is a critical success."

Perfect Debilitation says:

" When you use Debilitating Bomb, your target avoids the condition the bomb imposes only if it critically succeeds at its saving throw."

That looks redundant and confusing to me.

Nethys Links:

True Debilitating Bomb

Perfect Debilitation

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

True Debilitating Bomb only has the “if they critically succeed” caveat if you instead apply earlier effects, not ones granted by TDB.

Perfect Debilitation applies that caveat no matter what effect you apply.


Furious Finish applies bonus damage to "a Strike" which would seem to include even Ranged Weapons.
Despite Rage bonus damage only applying to melee weapon/unarmed attacks (or Thrown, with Raging Thrower),
and this Rage being supposed origin/source of FF ala "you pour all your rage into one final blow".


The CRB has 8 spells/focus spells with the "[one action symbol] to [two action symbol]" line. Those being Heal, Harm, Magic Missile, Rebuke Death, Ki Blast, Aberrant Whispers, Swamp of Sloth, and Warped Terrain.

Of those, only Magic Missile and Rebuke Death have the casting components (somatic, verbal, or material) in parenthesis beside the symbols. All the others do not have the casting components in parenthesis.

Faerie Dust also has the casting components in parenthesis, ostensibly to keep the it from bleeding into the "or more" after the [one action symbol]. That said, this is the with a casting designation of "[one action symbol] or more" in the game.

My guess for all the discrepancies is that, at some point in development, "[one action symbol] or more" was a standard for spells where you could choose up to three actions. This caused them to need to put some of the components in parenthesis to make the entry more clear. They eventually decided that it looked sloppy and transitioned to the "[one action symbol] to [two action symbol]" formatting. They missed Faerie Dust. Then they got rid of the parenthesis, but missed Magic Missile and Rebuke Death.


The description of the 'Magic Aura' spell refers to a spell called 'Study Aura'. The spell in question is actually 'Read Aura'.


Kaokaokao wrote:
The description of the 'Magic Aura' spell refers to a spell called 'Study Aura'. The spell in question is actually 'Read Aura'.

That's been addressed on page 5 of the current errata.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CRB p.218 wrote:

Each day, you channel your magic into two abilities,

which can be either familiar or master abilities. If your
familiar is an animal that naturally has one of these
abilities (for instance, an owl has a fly Speed), you must
select that ability. Your familiar can’t be an animal that
naturally has more familiar abilities than your daily
maximum familiar abilities.

Can you select the same ability multiple times, or is the intent that you can only select an ability once?


Innate Spells wrote:
You’re always trained in spell attack rolls and spell DCs for your innate spells, even if you aren’t otherwise trained in spell attack rolls or spell DCs. If your proficiency in spell attack rolls or spell DCs is expert or better, apply that proficiency to your innate spells, too. You use your Charisma modifier as your spellcasting ability modifier for innate spells unless otherwise specified.

Spell proficiency is usually per Tradition.

This doesn't mention anything about "proficiency of same Tradition", so seemingly ANY Tradition proficiency applies even to Innate spells of different Tradition?
Since that would be variation from the norm, it may be reasonable to explicitly say "of any Tradition" to make that clear, if it is intended...?


Gisher wrote:

The Staff of Necromancy contains the spell Enervation, which doesn't exist.

Druids are the only full casters with a Class DC and it never seems to be advanced or used.

The staff of necromancy is fixed in the errata. At the very end of the document it says that enervation is replaced by vampiric touch cast at 4th level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was surprised that they didn't fix the bulk of manacles. Manacles, which one imagines as heavy clanky chains of iron with thick iron restraints at either end, have no bulk! This means that your ranger/bounty hunter can carry 100 sets of manacles on their belt without any increase to their encumbrance!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
S. J. Digriz wrote:
which one imagines as heavy clanky chains of iron with thick iron restraints at either end,

Imagine zip ties instead.


Yeah, that was one of things where maybe Bulk was ported over from Starfinder anachronistically.
Being "surprised" this wasn't amended in latest Errata seems a stretch, nobody's real gameplay hinges on this.
I wouldn't be surprised if they do fix it in 2nd printing, but calling out "replace - Bulk with L" doesn't really seem worth it,
so it could be silently Errata'd without specific call-out like they do for countless minor type-o's and the like,
since those also don't really affect anybody's game play so isn't worth explicitly telling everybody to change it.


Quandary wrote:

Yeah, that was one of things where maybe Bulk was ported over from Starfinder anachronistically.

Being "surprised" this wasn't amended in latest Errata seems a stretch, nobody's real gameplay hinges on this.
I wouldn't be surprised if they do fix it in 2nd printing, but calling out "replace - Bulk with L" doesn't really seem worth it,
so it could be silently Errata'd without specific call-out like they do for countless minor type-o's and the like,
since those also don't really affect anybody's game play so isn't worth explicitly telling everybody to change it.

For errata, there is no cost to adding a note that manacles should have bulk of 1 or L. It was an oversight, not the result of a cost/benefit analysis.


The Malyass root paste is 3 actions in the CRB, and not mentioned in the list of Poisons to fix in the Errata v1.0 PDF..

The Only Sheet


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Don't people think it is weird that a discussion on Blog Post about Errata is in Rules Discussion, but this thread isn't,
when if anything this thread is more tightly focused on specific rules issues? Flagged.


Continual Recovery says "When you Treat Wounds, your patient becomes immune for only 10 minutes instead of 1 hour" but Treat Wound's normal 1 hour immunity overlaps the 10 minutes spent Treating Wounds, starting at the time treatment begins. So if the "1 hour" duration is changed to "10 minutes" that means by the time you finish treatment, the immunity already expired. I don't believe that is the intent, because if it were it could be stated more obviously.

Rather than bother with confusing "20 minute duration" or changing when the start of Immunity begins (which is what prevents simultaneous Healing), perhaps it would be simpler to not overtly specify a new duration in 1:1 comparison to original norm, but just say "the Immunity expires only 10 minutes after end of Medicine check" (which means 20 minutes duration, but avoids the confusion).


Quandary wrote:

Don't people think it is weird that a discussion on Blog Post about Errata is in Rules Discussion, but this thread isn't,

when if anything this thread is more tightly focused on specific rules issues? Flagged.

Yep, that's on me. I posted it where the other thread was. I'd agree it should be under "rules". Happy to have mods move it.


I also posted a new thread for LOCG Errata in Rules Discussion, but happened to realize in time to delete it, that it would be weird and cluttering if errata for every product line was posted there... So I reposted to Campaign Setting product forum. Not that some discussion of those things isn't appropriate in Rules Discussion, but every product Errata thread is probably too much, and they will have more lasting visibility to future Errata reporters if they are in own forum.

Paizo Employee Customer Service Representative

Moved to Rules Discussion.


Thanks :), as an update:

The Parry action has the manipulate trait, meaning it provokes an attack of opportunity. I'm guessing this is unintentional...


OK, this is more design issue, but it's so obvious and janky I figured it's worthy:

Chill Touch VS Undead seems out of wack VS how other Cantrips are balanced, AND it's awkward for gameplay:
The imbalance I'm posting about is the Critical Effect, which can impose Fleeing 1, BUT ONLY IF IT FAILS ADDITIONAL WILL SAVE.
So this Crit Effect can't be directly compared to other Cantrips with strong Crit debuffs (for example Daze Stun, Tanglefoot Immobilized), since it's substantially less likely to happen. More than power balance, this feels like un-necessary pain in the ass for gameplay, forcing ANOTHER roll for what is a measly Cantrip.

The rationale seems to hinge on relevance of Will Save to this effect, which I recognize is reasonable and plausible.
I think it's simplest to make ENTIRE usage VS Undead subject to Will Save instead of Fort, with Will still seeming plausibly related to base Fail effect.

Although not quite as critical, I do think the base Fail effect VS Undead (imposing Flatfooted) also isn't up to par: Flatfooted per se might appear fine, but given Chill Touch is a Touch spell it seems reasonably common for target to be Flanked, thus making additional Flatfooted superfluous at least for Caster and one ally.
So I think some other debuff effect could be more relevant than Flatfooted. Frightened would be obvious as lower version of Fleeing (kind of sort of), and if doubled on Crit could persist 1 more round after Fleeing 1 duration?


Here is 2 for you Page 599

Under both Cold iron Weapons and Silver Weapons:
Craft Requirements at least 20 sp of cold iron + 2 sp per Bulk

I expect that should read - least 20 gp

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber

Well, that'll teach me to fall behind. Here is a big update

https://github.com/alexbrault/Pathfinder2EOversights

As for the things I didn't include:

S. J. Digriz wrote:
I was surprised that they didn't fix the bulk of manacles. Manacles, which one imagines as heavy clanky chains of iron with thick iron restraints at either end, have no bulk! This means that your ranger/bounty hunter can carry 100 sets of manacles on their belt without any increase to their encumbrance!

This is a power level comment which I don't include in the repo because of their subjectiveness.

Quandary wrote:

Continual Recovery says "When you Treat Wounds, your patient becomes immune for only 10 minutes instead of 1 hour" but Treat Wound's normal 1 hour immunity overlaps the 10 minutes spent Treating Wounds, starting at the time treatment begins. So if the "1 hour" duration is changed to "10 minutes" that means by the time you finish treatment, the immunity already expired. I don't believe that is the intent, because if it were it could be stated more obviously.

...

I'm having trouble finding a phrasing for this that doesn't boil down to "Is Continual Recovery really supposed to allow continual recovery?" If you can find one, I don't mind including this

Quandary wrote:

OK, this is more design issue, but it's so obvious and janky I figured it's worthy:

Chill Touch VS Undead seems out of wack VS how other Cantrips are balanced, AND it's awkward for gameplay:
...

As above, this is more subjective than what I include in the repo.

Strill wrote:
The Fighter class feat Flinging Shove lets you use Aggressive Block to shove 10 feet on a success, or 20 feet on a critical success. That makes no sense, since Aggressive Block doesn't involve a roll. It just automatically succeeds. Does that mean it just automatically shoves 10 feet?

As was mentioned, Flinging Shove also applies to Brutish Shove

Strill wrote:
The Fighter feat Aggressive Block is triggered mostly on enemy turns, but lasts until the start of YOUR turn. This means it has no effect if your turn is next. Is this intended, or should it last until the start of the OPPONENT's turn?

This is also subjective (and was the same in the playtest as pointed out by Rysky)

Alsolomir wrote:
5. The Wizard dedication archetype "Arcane school spell" does not give access to "Hand of the Apprentice" since universal wizard is not a school of magic. Was this intended?

Hand of the Apprentice is gained through a feat.

ZomB wrote:

Staves:

The staff of fire appears under statted compared to all other staffs. Likely should cost 90 gp and be level 4.

The rare staff of power likely should have a rare cost premium applied of at least 50% in line with the staff of the magi.

This is one more subjective power level thing.

Ezekieru wrote:

So the errata applied a change to the Deer Animal Barbarian to now get a 1d10 Piercing unarmed attack with the Grapple trait instead of the 1d8 with the Charge trait. It's supposed to put it in line with other 1d10 unarmed attacks. But then you look at the Specialization Ability on page 86:

"...The frog’s tongue attack and deer’s antler attack gain reach 10 feet."

So now the Deer by RAW has a 1d10 Piercing attack with Reach 10, something none of the other Animal's unarmed attacks have.

Was this an honest mistake? Or am I missing something here?

Ironically, after so many entries omitted for being power-level opinions, I'm including this one despite this because it seems very likely that they forgot about the Reach when writing the errata. If it had been printed in its post-errata form, It would have been subject to the same subjective clause as the others.

Speaking of which, even though I'm not including the subjective power-level stuff, feel free to keep posting them in here; I'm sure they're very useful for Lyz and the rest of the design team


Have a look at how the rage rules and the various barbarian instincts mangle the expression "additional damage". Some of the instincts add damage from level 1 and some from level 7 when they get their weapon specialization damage. Is the instinct damage additional to the rage or additional to the specialization damage, or just additional? From looking at the numbers I determined it replaced the rage damage, but its not clear. I'd be amazed if it doesn't confuse someone in your group on their first read of it.

1 to 50 of 72 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / CRB Typos / Mistakes / Etc Post Errata 1.0 All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.