Errata Part 2 Discussion Thread


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 308 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
shroudb wrote:

most people have been using the maneuvers with finesse weapons to use Dex (myself included)

but tbf Mark had said quite a bit ago that he didn't agree with that reading and it was on the errata list, so it didn't came as a surpise to me.

now if it is a change for the better or for worse only time will tell at this point, but for sure their intention was to restrict maneuvers to Str.

Given that atheltics is the only Str based skill, i'm personally not that upset that they want to keep it strictly Strength based.

What was the reasoning on why his reading was "good"?

It's not like these weapons allowed blanket every single maneuver, they allowed specific maneuvers and only in combination with Finesse.

____________________________

As for printing feats to solve a problem that didn't exist for a great deal of tables, yeah I guess. If you had released the Skill Feat with the errata, then I'd have probably said nothing, but now what? We wait til some random book comes out that solves our problems.

So the dextrous monk can actually be good at using maneuvers or the whip/spiked chain can be less than a waste of space in the equipment section?

Because I know when I picture a Swashbuckler using their Rapier to Disarm someone, I imagine them ripping it out of their hands with the strength of Hulk and not a quick twisting of the blade to jostle it loose from their grip (you know, like the iconic duel between Wesley and Inigo...)

judging by their change the "problem" did exist. In the sense that they viewed using Dex for Athletics an unitentional concequence when they intended Finesse to be only for straight up strikes and not for everything with the attack trait.

p.s. i'm not agreeing with them being 100% correct. I'm just playing the devils advocate here, that effectively finesse did make a straight up stat change for the major use of the only strength based skill in the game.

something (stat swaps) that they have stated a lot of times that they want to limit as much as possible


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Just a reminder that IRL it does take strength to pull disarms and trips. Even with finesse weapons. Movies/Demonstrations make it look a lot easier than it is.

Still, the game is not one that uses both attributes for it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
shroudb wrote:
judging by their change the "problem" did exist. In the sense that they viewed using Dex for Athletics an unitentional concequence when they intended Finesse to be only for straight up strikes and not for everything with the attack trait.

Ah, thank you for pointing this out. I'd been scratching my head on how this got confused in the first place, as I'd assumed the strict interpretation the whole while. Not to say it was illogical, I just didn't know what the logic was.

Treating the skill check as an attack roll does seem like a reasonable enough interpretation.


12 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The issue of it being a significant nerf to finesse maneuver weapons is annoying.

But I'm really not a fan of the way it brings back some weird PF1isms, where "rolling to attack" and "attack roll" are completely distinct from each other. It's obtuse in a way that PF2 isn't supposed to be.

There are also a handful of spells and abilities that mention both Attacks and Attack Rolls kind of interchangeable and I'm not entirely sure how Trip/Grapple/etc. are intended to interact with them now.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:
shroudb wrote:

most people have been using the maneuvers with finesse weapons to use Dex (myself included)

but tbf Mark had said quite a bit ago that he didn't agree with that reading and it was on the errata list, so it didn't came as a surpise to me.

now if it is a change for the better or for worse only time will tell at this point, but for sure their intention was to restrict maneuvers to Str.

Given that atheltics is the only Str based skill, i'm personally not that upset that they want to keep it strictly Strength based.

What was the reasoning on why his reading was "good"?

It's not like these weapons allowed blanket every single maneuver, they allowed specific maneuvers and only in combination with Finesse.

____________________________

As for printing feats to solve a problem that didn't exist for a great deal of tables, yeah I guess. If you had released the Skill Feat with the errata, then I'd have probably said nothing, but now what? We wait til some random book comes out that solves our problems.

So the dextrous monk can actually be good at using maneuvers or the whip/spiked chain can be less than a waste of space in the equipment section?

Because I know when I picture a Swashbuckler using their Rapier to Disarm someone, I imagine them ripping it out of their hands with the strength of Hulk and not a quick twisting of the blade to jostle it loose from their grip (you know, like the iconic duel between Wesley and Inigo...)

judging by their change the "problem" did exist. In the sense that they viewed using Dex for Athletics an unitentional concequence when they intended Finesse to be only for straight up strikes and not for everything with the attack trait.

So this perceived "problem" was causing what exactly?

Like who in their right mind would say that any of the current weapons with regards to maneuvers were "overpowered"?

What "weird consequences" did it have?

They still get weapon bonuses to the check. Athletics is still the primary proficiency used. DEX based builds still deal less damage than STR builds and they are worse at maneuvers (they were before, now they're abysmal).

Literally the only thing that changed was every single finesse weapon in the game with a maneuver trait (and some Stances) got nerfed by 10%-30% efficacy. And a 10-30% efficacy drop is a "don't use it at all" drop in Pathfinder math.

Especially since every maneuver has an extremely negative Critical Failure effect.

I can't speak for everyone but at no point at my tables was I like "The Whip/Spiked Chain/Sickle/Rapier sure are overpowered!!"

Like seriously, I've seen no complaints about DEX being too good still.

What about all the other nonsense this change creates? How "easy" can I explain this to players?

__________

"Oh no you see, it says attacks, but Rapier Disarms aren't actually attacks, they're checks.

"Yes, I know they have the attack trait, but that's how it is.

"Yes, I realize it doesn't make much sense to use STR to disarm someone with a Rapier

"Why use the weapon over your free hand? Oh I uh, I guess you can drop it instead of falling prone. What's that? How does that help? UH not sure, both of them are unfortunate!

"Sure you won't succeed on Athletics checks like ever, but maybe you should still try them? You don't like critical failures? Yeah that's a good point.

"You know, I'll just house rule this back to the way we played before. This causes more problems and solves none."


5 people marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:
something (stat swaps) that they have stated a lot of times that they want to limit as much as possible

Wut?

CRB PG. 233 "Key Ability" wrote:
Each skill is tied to a key ability. You add your modifier for this ability to checks and DCs when using that skill. For example, skulking about the shadows of a city at night with Stealth uses your Dexterity modifier, navigating the myriad personalities and power plays of court politics with Society uses your Intelligence modifier, and so on. The key ability for each skill is listed on Table 4–1: Skills, Key Abilities, and Actions on page 235 and also appears in parentheses following the skill’s name in the descriptions on the following pages. If the GM deems it appropriate for a certain situation, however, they might have you use a different ability modifier for a skill check or when determining your skill DC.

The GM has always had the ability to allow/disallow a character to use whatever stat they deem appropriate for a given situation. Sure, the intended stat for maneuvers tends to be Strength. But there are plenty of situations that would justify a character using Dexterity for said check.

And hey, if nothing else, that rule Still applies to using a finesse/trip/disarm/etc... weapon to make a maneuver using Dex.


beowulf99 wrote:


And hey, if nothing else, that rule Still applies to using a finesse/trip/disarm/etc... weapon to make a maneuver using Dex.

Good.

Nuking this nonsense out of existence at my tables. Trip and Disarm can keep DEX status with weapons that have the appropriate traits.

Grapple and Shove I have no issues losing the DEX, but neither of those traits existed on Finesse weapons anyways so it didn't matter.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
beowulf99 wrote:


And hey, if nothing else, that rule Still applies to using a finesse/trip/disarm/etc... weapon to make a maneuver using Dex.

Good.

Nuking this nonsense out of existence at my tables. Trip and Disarm can keep DEX status with weapons that have the appropriate traits.

Grapple and Shove I have no issues losing the DEX, but neither of those traits existed on Finesse weapons anyways so it didn't matter.

i do not think there was ever a question that if you are disatisfied with a rule, in your own table you can nuke it, even if such text didn't exist.

hell, in my own tables the alchemist has a full page of houserules and the current "errata" didn't address ANY of the major alchemist's concerns that i have, so my houserules still superseed Paizo's rules there.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Squiggit wrote:

The issue of it being a significant nerf to finesse maneuver weapons is annoying.

But I'm really not a fan of the way it brings back some weird PF1isms, where "rolling to attack" and "attack roll" are completely distinct from each other. It's obtuse in a way that PF2 isn't supposed to be.

There are also a handful of spells and abilities that mention both Attacks and Attack Rolls kind of interchangeable and I'm not entirely sure how Trip/Grapple/etc. are intended to interact with them now.

I've been bouncing around the various rule sections in AoN this morning, and from what I can guess: Attack rolls are only Ranged or Melee weapon or unarmed attacks, or Spell Attacks. Other actions can still be attacks, but have their own rolls that work off slightly different rules, but still add to and apply the MAP.

I have opinions on that, seems like an awfully unintuitive hair split that adds little except confusion to the terms, but that's what I think is intended.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:
beowulf99 wrote:


And hey, if nothing else, that rule Still applies to using a finesse/trip/disarm/etc... weapon to make a maneuver using Dex.

Good.

Nuking this nonsense out of existence at my tables. Trip and Disarm can keep DEX status with weapons that have the appropriate traits.

Grapple and Shove I have no issues losing the DEX, but neither of those traits existed on Finesse weapons anyways so it didn't matter.

i do not think there was ever a question that if you are disatisfied with a rule, in your own table you can nuke it, even if such text didn't exist.

hell, in my own tables the alchemist has a full page of houserules and the current "errata" didn't address ANY of the major alchemist's concerns that i have, so my houserules still superseed Paizo's rules there.

I play RAW as much as I can.

It might seem petty, but I needed Beowulf's little find to "canonize" it in my head.

Still think it's utterly ridiculous, but at least I can stomach it myself.

It is a bit annoying that now that when discussing logistics/rules online for these situations, I'll have to know I'm "wrong".


13 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Squiggit wrote:

The issue of it being a significant nerf to finesse maneuver weapons is annoying.

But I'm really not a fan of the way it brings back some weird PF1isms, where "rolling to attack" and "attack roll" are completely distinct from each other. It's obtuse in a way that PF2 isn't supposed to be.

There are also a handful of spells and abilities that mention both Attacks and Attack Rolls kind of interchangeable and I'm not entirely sure how Trip/Grapple/etc. are intended to interact with them now.

I've been bouncing around the various rule sections in AoN this morning, and from what I can guess: Attack rolls are only Ranged or Melee weapon or unarmed attacks, or Spell Attacks. Other actions can still be attacks, but have their own rolls that work off slightly different rules, but still add to and apply the MAP.

I have opinions on that, seems like an awfully unintuitive hair split that adds little except confusion to the terms, but that's what I think is intended.

Not having the attack trait key to a check being an attack roll is an unfortunate blow to PF2's elegancy.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
masda_gib wrote:
It also really means you can't make a DEX-maneuver character by using Finesse Maneuver weapons (which might be good, making STR more important).

The Swashbuckler really needs a patch with a class feat(ure) that lets you disarm or trip based on finesse, now.


WatersLethe wrote:

These alchemist changes are pretty interesting!

Also, it's sad that they removed all property runes from staves, not just shifting. Those missing elemental damage effects are going to hurt anyone building around staves.

I think the alchemist changes should help out a lot. Giving default medium armor availability for those who want to do more melee with poisons or mutagens without having to jump through hoops to get it.

Boost at low level so you can make enough bombs to use a reasonable amount of. Between this stuff and what was in the advanced players guide I think alchemists are at least a lot better placed to do what their class fantasy wants them to do. Also ditching the feat tax to make your DC scale is both overdue and a no brainer and very welcome.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm still not convinced about how MAP interacts with combat maneuvers. Is there a clarification on the RAW that doesn't require a lawyer studying 3 different explanations across the book? This is VERY confusing.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

The Athletic Strategist Investigator feat just became really valuable. It's now the only way to make a low-Str character that is good at maneuvers.

And they can still make good use of the finesse trait for whips and spiked chains since it lets them fully use Devise a Stratagem and Studied Strike.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

"Sometimes a skill action can be an attack, and in these cases, the skill check might take a multiple attack penalty, as described on page 446."

Specific beats general, right? So this passage must mean that those skill actions with the attack trait must apply and contribute to MAP or else this passage from page 449 means nothing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Staves: This seemed like an inelegant way to change it. They could have just gotten rid of the paragraph about runes and etchings and just said they work like all other Specific Magic Weapons. It’s also an odd ruling in general personally; so i can only guess they didn’t like the idea of Shifting Staves enough to nix all property runes in general. Though there’s still always Divine Ally for that niche.

Shields: Forge Warden was a good change. Arrow-Catcher was a bad change on a number of levels. It got a HP and Hardness buff, which was good; but the One Minute frequency was a bit of a nerf, and bumping the HP to 60 just further mucks up how they expect shields to work.


Coldermoss wrote:

"Sometimes a skill action can be an attack, and in these cases, the skill check might take a multiple attack penalty, as described on page 446."

Specific beats general, right? So this passage must mean that those skill actions with the attack trait must apply and contribute to MAP or else this passage from page 449 means nothing.

They Might be affected by MAP, as described on page 446.

Page 446 wrote:
The second time you use an attack action during your turn, you take a –5 penalty to your attack roll. The third time you attack, and on any subsequent attacks, you take a –10 penalty to your attack roll.

So attack rolls take a -5 penalty. The errata just said they are no longer considered to be Attack rolls. They are actions with the "attack" trait, or "attack actions". Page 446 would need to be re-written to say "A -5 penalty on your check to perform an attack action".

Skill check might take a multiple attack penalty, but I can't find the cirucmstances where it does.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

Design Manager quote from another thread

Mark Seifter wrote:
Multiple attack penalty applies. The CRB says "Striking multiple times in a turn has diminishing returns. The multiple attack penalty (detailed on page 446) applies to each attack after the first, whether those attacks are Strikes, special attacks like the Grapple action of the Athletics skill, or spell attack rolls." We're looking to push an update soon to explain this in the errata entry in question.


i think that the 1st quote already covers it fully though:

"a skill action can be an attack, in these cases it might take a MAP penalty as described in 446" (specific rule)

and then in 446 it describes what is the MAP and how it applies for attack rolls (the generic rules)

the specific rule says that the skill suffers the penalty "as the generic rule"

so, the skill, even though it is not an attack roll, it suffer the MAP "as it is desribed in page 446"

i do not see any conflicts there


3 people marked this as a favorite.
CrystalSeas wrote:

Design Manager quote from another thread

Mark Seifter wrote:
Multiple attack penalty applies. The CRB says "Striking multiple times in a turn has diminishing returns. The multiple attack penalty (detailed on page 446) applies to each attack after the first, whether those attacks are Strikes, special attacks like the Grapple action of the Athletics skill, or spell attack rolls." We're looking to push an update soon to explain this in the errata entry in question.

I see a new errata, but not this clarification anywhere in there. If anything, it became more confusing. This is not what it says in the new text.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
ChibiNyan wrote:
CrystalSeas wrote:

Design Manager quote from another thread

Mark Seifter wrote:
Multiple attack penalty applies. The CRB says "Striking multiple times in a turn has diminishing returns. The multiple attack penalty (detailed on page 446) applies to each attack after the first, whether those attacks are Strikes, special attacks like the Grapple action of the Athletics skill, or spell attack rolls." We're looking to push an update soon to explain this in the errata entry in question.
I see a new errata, but not this clarification anywhere in there. If anything, it became more confusing. This is not what it says in the new text.

I linked to Mark's post. He just posted a few minutes ago.

Design Manager quote from another thread


3 people marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
CrystalSeas wrote:

Design Manager quote from another thread

Mark Seifter wrote:
Multiple attack penalty applies. The CRB says "Striking multiple times in a turn has diminishing returns. The multiple attack penalty (detailed on page 446) applies to each attack after the first, whether those attacks are Strikes, special attacks like the Grapple action of the Athletics skill, or spell attack rolls." We're looking to push an update soon to explain this in the errata entry in question.
I see a new errata, but not this clarification anywhere in there. If anything, it became more confusing. This is not what it says in the new text.

It's errata errata... :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
Coldermoss wrote:

"Sometimes a skill action can be an attack, and in these cases, the skill check might take a multiple attack penalty, as described on page 446."

Specific beats general, right? So this passage must mean that those skill actions with the attack trait must apply and contribute to MAP or else this passage from page 449 means nothing.

They Might be affected by MAP, as described on page 446.

Page 446 wrote:
The second time you use an attack action during your turn, you take a –5 penalty to your attack roll. The third time you attack, and on any subsequent attacks, you take a –10 penalty to your attack roll.

So attack rolls take a -5 penalty. The errata just said they are no longer considered to be Attack rolls. They are actions with the "attack" trait, or "attack actions". Page 446 would need to be re-written to say "A -5 penalty on your check to perform an attack action".

Skill check might take a multiple attack penalty, but I can't find the cirucmstances where it does.

They say it "might" take the penalty because attacks in general might not take the penalty, especially in the case that its your first attack of the turn. It's pretty clear intent, and I don't even have a law degree.


Coldermoss wrote:
They say it "might" take the penalty because attacks in general might not take the penalty, especially in the case that its your first attack of the turn.

Does the section on attack rolls also have "might" in it as those too 'might' be used on a first attack?


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber

Least disruptive fix would probably be to change the two instances of "attack roll" in that paragraph to just "roll".

So

446 wrote:
The more attacks you make beyond your first in a single turn, the less accurate you become, represented by the multiple attack penalty. The second time you use an attack action during your turn, you take a –5 penalty to your attack roll. The third time you attack, and on any subsequent attacks, you take a –10 penalty to your attack roll. Every check that has the attack trait counts toward your multiple attack penalty, including Strikes, spell attack rolls, certain skill actions like Shove, and many others.
Becomes
446 wrote:
The more attacks you make beyond your first in a single turn, the less accurate you become, represented by the multiple attack penalty. The second time you use an attack action during your turn, you take a –5 penalty to your roll. The third time you attack, and on any subsequent attacks, you take a –10 penalty to your roll. Every check that has the attack trait counts toward your multiple attack penalty, including Strikes, spell attack rolls, certain skill actions like Shove, and many others.

That way no matter what roll you are using for the attack action, it applies, and the wording becomes consistent with the other places where they talk about MAP.

Though I'd prefer they go the other way and make an additional category of attack rolls for skill checks with the attack trait.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Coldermoss wrote:
They say it "might" take the penalty because attacks in general might not take the penalty, especially in the case that its your first attack of the turn.
Does the section on attack rolls also have "might" in it as those too 'might' be used on a first attack?

It doesn't actually matter whether or not the language is mirrored exactly, because the intent is still clear. Paizo doesn't make a habit of printing rules that do nothing, at least on purpose.


Coldermoss wrote:
graystone wrote:
Coldermoss wrote:
They say it "might" take the penalty because attacks in general might not take the penalty, especially in the case that its your first attack of the turn.
Does the section on attack rolls also have "might" in it as those too 'might' be used on a first attack?
It doesn't actually matter whether or not the language is mirrored exactly, because the intent is still clear. Paizo doesn't make a habit of printing rules that do nothing, at least on purpose.

I was asking because I don't have a new printing and find the FAQ page a nightmare to read because if the colors/shade of it because I'm colorblind: I was asking for a fact check, not making a point.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

What's this about cantrip damage? I don't remember reading anything about that.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
graystone wrote:
Coldermoss wrote:
graystone wrote:
Coldermoss wrote:
They say it "might" take the penalty because attacks in general might not take the penalty, especially in the case that its your first attack of the turn.
Does the section on attack rolls also have "might" in it as those too 'might' be used on a first attack?
It doesn't actually matter whether or not the language is mirrored exactly, because the intent is still clear. Paizo doesn't make a habit of printing rules that do nothing, at least on purpose.
I was asking because I don't have a new printing and find the FAQ page a nightmare to read because if the colors/shade of it because I'm colorblind: I was asking for a fact check, not making a point.

No, that section appears to be unchanged.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I don't recall an adjustment to cantrip damage either. But if they got a stealth buff of some kind, +2d4 damage is an average of 5 extra, which is most of Greater Weapon Specialization with Master weapons (y'know, the primary martial "haha damage go up" feature). It's not nothing. ¯\_('v')_/¯

And if it's referring to the adjustment to 10th level slots somehow, I'm pretty sure that doesn't affect cantrip scaling in any way. In fact, cantrips didn't change at all — Mark confirmed that the thing about spellcasters and highest slot level was supposed to just be a clarification/RAW oversight closing.


AnimatedPaper wrote:
No, that section appears to be unchanged.

Thanks! :)


Ravingdork wrote:
What's this about cantrip damage? I don't remember reading anything about that.

Maybe it existed in the last errata, I don't know. They heighten to half your level now to the maximum level spell slot you can cast. Which is 8th level for multiclass casters if you buy up to the maximum level. Not sure if that drops if you take only a caster level up to 3rd level spells or something. Not even sure what it does it you don't take any multiclass caster boosts.

The damage on cantrips was so low, that none of us ever bothered to think about it. We heightened them to half level up to 10th as a few d4 or d6 was negligible compared to what spell slots and martials were doing.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Maybe it existed in the last errata, I don't know. They heighten to half your level now to the maximum level spell slot you can cast. Which is 8th level for multiclass casters if you buy up to the maximum level. Not sure if that drops if you take only a caster level up to 3rd level spells or something. Not even sure what it does it you don't take any multiclass caster boosts.

The errata doesn't read that way to me at all.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Unless I misunderstood you, Deriven, that's incorrect! A thread made today in Rules Discussion already went into that, and Mark Seifter confirmed that cantrips work the way most people already thought they did, i.e like focus spell auto-heightening, spell level equal to half character level rounded up. The text change in the errata is intended to seal up super obscure wording that made multiclass casters have weaker cantrips by RAW. Apparently. I don't know enough about that issue to say how well it does that or how it compares to the original text.

I repeat: cantrips automatically scale to the highest spell level of an equivalent-level full caster, without paying attention to what level of spells you can cast, like most people already thought! There were no changes to cantrips. And again, sorry if I misunderstood what you were saying, but I figured this was worth sharing here anyway.


Ravingdork wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
Maybe it existed in the last errata, I don't know. They heighten to half your level now to the maximum level spell slot you can cast. Which is 8th level for multiclass casters if you buy up to the maximum level. Not sure if that drops if you take only a caster level up to 3rd level spells or something. Not even sure what it does it you don't take any multiclass caster boosts.
The errata doesn't read that way to me at all.

Class Chapter (all spellcasting classes): Change the definition of cantrips to say "A cantrip is automatically heightened to half your level rounded up, which equals the highest-level of <Classname> spell slot you have. " filling in the appropriate class name. This removes the ambiguities around the cantrip level of a non-spellcaster vs a multiclass spellcaster.

How do you read highest level "Classname" spell slot you have?


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Alfa/Polaris wrote:

Unless I misunderstood you, Deriven, that's incorrect! A thread made today in Rules Discussion already went into that, and Mark Seifter confirmed that cantrips work the way most people already thought they did, i.e like focus spell auto-heightening, spell level equal to half character level rounded up. The text change in the errata is intended to seal up super obscure wording that made multiclass casters have weaker cantrips by RAW. Apparently. I don't know enough about that issue to say how well it does that or how it compares to the original text.

I repeat: cantrips automatically scale to the highest spell level of an equivalent-level full caster, without paying attention to what level of spells you can cast, like most people already thought! There were no changes to cantrips. And again, sorry if I misunderstood what you were saying, but I figured this was worth sharing here anyway.

It wasn't ambiguous before. Sheesh. Ok. Good to hear.

The language they put in is worse since multiclass casters have a certain level of spell slots they max out at according to the multiclass feats they take.

Why not just keep it super simple? "Cantrips heighten to half your level rounded up." Done. If I was the editor at Paizo, I'd be losing my fricking mind and would probably run out of the door screaming and ripping my hair out.


13 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Tone aside, I have to agree with Deriven, I'm not sure the change fixes any ambiguities and when I first read it it definitely came across as creating a new hard cap on cantrip heightening.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Deriven Firelion wrote:
How do you read highest level "Classname" spell slot you have?

The sentence "A cantrip is automatically heightened to half your level rounded up, which equals the highest-level of <Classname> spell slot you have" seems internally contradictory to me. A cantrip that automatically heightens to half your level, rounded up, is not always going to be equal to the highest level of spell slot you have. Reading it is like reading 2+2=33. It is factually wrong and doesn't make sense as written. That's how I read it.


Ravingdork wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
How do you read highest level "Classname" spell slot you have?
The sentence "A cantrip is automatically heightened to half your level rounded up, which equals the highest-level of <Classname> spell slot you have" seems internally contradictory to me. A cantrip that automatically heightens to half your level, rounded up, is not always going to be equal to the highest level of spell slot you have. Reading it is like reading 2+2=33. It is factually wrong and doesn't make sense as written. That's how I read it.

Well, you and me both. Mark clarified it, so it works as it has been working. So good.


Quote:
Page 446: Attack Rolls. There was some confusion as to whether skill checks with the attack trait (such as Grapple or Trip) are also attack rolls at the same time. They are not. To make this clear, add this sentence to the beginning of the definition of attack roll "When you use a Strike action or make a spell attack, you attempt a check called an attack roll."

So do we know if maneuvers are now much, much better? If no MAP on maneuvers, it would make maneuver monks much more worthwhile and escaping much better.

I for one would welcome this change given maneuvers don't do damage and the whole point of using them is the effect. And escaping if you fail that first roll is a huge pain with the MAP penalty.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Been clarified that maneuvers are still intended to interact with MAP normally, suffering from it and advancing it.

The net result of this change is that stuff that modifies attack rolls (like inspire courage, true strike, the finesse trait, etc.) no longer work on maneuvers.

It also creates some new interactions with various things that reference both attacks and attack rolls (like mirror image).

Basically it's just meant to nerf things like wolf style monks and whip users, along with the ability to buff up maneuver attacks.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:

Been clarified that maneuvers are still intended to interact with MAP normally, suffering from it and advancing it.

The net result of this change is that stuff that modifies attack rolls (like inspire courage, true strike, the finesse trait, etc.) no longer work on maneuvers.

It also creates some new interactions with various things that reference both attacks and attack rolls (like mirror image).

Basically it's just meant to nerf wolf style monks and whip users.

Was it necessary to nerf maneuvers? They were already fairly bad. Wow.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Shove, trip, Disarm etc was always meant to suffer from MAP, and we have always read the rules that way. So that part is nothing new.

Why they changed the language regarding attacks and attack rolls I don't know. It's likely not because maneuvers were too good, and needed nerfing. That these bonuses to maneuvers were removed is likely a sideeffect to the change made for some other reason.

Trip and shove are good, but only if you have a special attack (class feat) that grants them as part of doing something else (a Strike). Making "stand alone" maneuvers we dropped many levels ago, i.e. taking the actual Shove and Trip actions (and Disarm which is an obvious trap).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Deriven Firelion wrote:
How do you read highest level "Classname" spell slot you have?
The sentence "A cantrip is automatically heightened to half your level rounded up, which equals the highest-level of <Classname> spell slot you have" seems internally contradictory to me. A cantrip that automatically heightens to half your level, rounded up, is not always going to be equal to the highest level of spell slot you have. Reading it is like reading 2+2=33. It is factually wrong and doesn't make sense as written. That's how I read it.

The book seems to use somewhat different wording than the errata does.

Errata wrote:
A cantrip is automatically heightened to half your level rounded up, which equals the highest-level of <Classname> spell slot you have.

-----

CRB, p. 96 wrote:
A cantrip is automatically heightened to half your level rounded up—this is usually equal to the highest level of bard spell slot you have.
CRB, p. 119 wrote:
A cantrip is always automatically heightened to half your level rounded up—this is usually equal to the highest level of cleric spell slot you have.
CRB, p. 130 wrote:
A cantrip is always automatically heightened to half your level rounded up—this is usually equal to the highest level of druid spell slot you have.
CRB, p. 192 wrote:
A cantrip is always automatically heightened to half your level rounded up—this is usually equal to the highest level of sorcerer spell slot you have.
CRB, p. 204 wrote:
A cantrip is always automatically heightened to half your level rounded up—this is usually equal to the highest level of wizard spell slot you have.

51 to 100 of 308 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Errata Part 2 Discussion Thread All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.