| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One logical way to see the attack-roll-change is that only rolls against AC are now attack rolls. Anything targeting saves is not.
AC has slightly different math than saves, so it would make sense to differentiate. All attack roll buffs now only work against AC. Effects requiring saves and also now maneuvers can't benefit from them. And I think save DCs are a bit lower than AC.
...so it might make sense I guess. Targets AC = attack roll, targets save = not attack roll.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Look, they just chose the wrong wording for Multiple Attack Penalty and Attack trait.
Just do mental replace of Attack trait with "Unbalancing" and "Multiple Attack Penalty" with "Unbalancing Penalty".
It works the same otherwise.
First usage of a round : no penalty.
Second: -5
Third and further: -10
Agile trait reduces the penalties to -4 and -8.
Done.
All they're trying to do is clarify that various rules that reference "attack rolls" (lower attack) do not reference rolls for abilities with "Attack" (uppercase) trait, but rather things that also specify "attack rolls", such as Strike.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Although not listed in the errata, the Druid Dedication has been changed. It now makes it clear that you are bound by the general Druidic anathema, and not just by the Order anathema. So no teaching others the Druidic language.
Also no metal armor or shields if you MC into Druid. They even changed the picture on that page so the character is wearing leather armor instead of metal.
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Although not listed in the errata, the Druid Dedication has been changed. It now makes it clear that you are bound by the general Druidic anathema, and not just by the Order anathema. So no teaching others the Druidic language.
Also no metal armor or shields if you MC into Druid. They even changed the picture on that page so the character is wearing leather armor instead of metal.
Wow. Paizo, you really, really, really have to learn how to communicate better.
This is a major change for one of my characters and I'd have completely missed it except for this post.
Gisher, thanks for pointing this out.
But I really, really, really should not have to troll through message boards to find this!!!
I think it was this thread where I saw a lot of talk about shifting runes on staves. Can someone explain to me what the problem was with that?
Quicksilver changed from ‘Ranged Attack Rolls’ to ‘Dex-Based Attack Rolls’. Taking away any bonus to Ranged Spell Attacks in place for Finesse fighting styles.
replace the third sentence with “Normally these are the only items a companion can use. Other items may qualify, at the GM’s discretion, but an animal can never Activate an Item.” This makes the rules clearer than before, and allows the GM to opt into adding more items.
This is a nice clarification. This was my initial interpretation, but was unsure after multiple readings.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A shame that Quicksilver no longer applies to ranged Investigators when using Devise a Stratagem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
About the finesse weapons not being able to trip/whatever with dexterity: there's still a niche for Spiked Chain and such, in that you typically still want strength when using finesse weapons for damage purposes, so by using a spiked chain on a character you want to max dexterity, you can still get your +1 to accuracy (over a strength secondary), but then use that secondary strength to trip and disarm and such.
It doesn't make sense from a "I want to build a character who is the best at trips and disarms, but dumps strength" but it absolutely does from the perspective of "I want a character who maxes out their Dexterity, but can still trip or disarm reasonably well"
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
About the finesse weapons not being able to trip/whatever with dexterity: there's still a niche for Spiked Chain and such, in that you typically still want strength when using finesse weapons for damage purposes, so by using a spiked chain on a character you want to max dexterity, you can still get your +1 to accuracy (over a strength secondary), but then use that secondary strength to trip and disarm and such.
It doesn't make sense from a "I want to build a character who is the best at trips and disarms, but dumps strength" but it absolutely does from the perspective of "I want a character who maxes out their Dexterity, but can still trip or disarm reasonably well"
Spending an action to trip instead of strike was pretty hard to justify before. Doing it "reasonably well" is most likely a waste of an action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spending an action to trip instead of strike was pretty hard to justify before. Doing it "reasonably well" is most likely a waste of an action.
I feel like you've not seen what being prone does when your party has ranged attackers (who benefit from the flat footed unless the prone character Takes Cover) or someone with AOO's.
For characters who aren't dealing massive damage with each Strike, its often worth tripping someone on their main action...
Especially since being 'reasonably good' at Athletics actions is a relatively small investment, though it just got a bit bigger (because now it may eat one of your four attribute bumps to get Str to 18).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it was this thread where I saw a lot of talk about shifting runes on staves. Can someone explain to me what the problem was with that?
The big question was whether you could still activate the staff's spells while it was in the form of another weapon.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Spending an action to trip instead of strike was pretty hard to justify before. Doing it "reasonably well" is most likely a waste of an action.About the finesse weapons not being able to trip/whatever with dexterity: there's still a niche for Spiked Chain and such, in that you typically still want strength when using finesse weapons for damage purposes, so by using a spiked chain on a character you want to max dexterity, you can still get your +1 to accuracy (over a strength secondary), but then use that secondary strength to trip and disarm and such.
It doesn't make sense from a "I want to build a character who is the best at trips and disarms, but dumps strength" but it absolutely does from the perspective of "I want a character who maxes out their Dexterity, but can still trip or disarm reasonably well"
I actually disagree. Giving -2 to AC against all attacks (including allies that can't normally flank like casters and archers) and forcing them to spend an action to stand up are all great benefits. It gets even better if you have someone with Attack of Opportunity or Stand Still in the party, giving them an easy MAPless attack.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually disagree. Giving -2 to AC against all attacks (including allies that can't normally flank like casters and archers) and forcing them to spend an action to stand up are all great benefits. It gets even better if you have someone with Attack of Opportunity or Stand Still in the party, giving them an easy MAPless attack.Spending an action to trip instead of strike was pretty hard to justify before. Doing it "reasonably well" is most likely a waste of an action.About the finesse weapons not being able to trip/whatever with dexterity: there's still a niche for Spiked Chain and such, in that you typically still want strength when using finesse weapons for damage purposes, so by using a spiked chain on a character you want to max dexterity, you can still get your +1 to accuracy (over a strength secondary), but then use that secondary strength to trip and disarm and such.
It doesn't make sense from a "I want to build a character who is the best at trips and disarms, but dumps strength" but it absolutely does from the perspective of "I want a character who maxes out their Dexterity, but can still trip or disarm reasonably well"
Those are all good effects but they only happen if you actually succeed in tripping and are highly dependent upon initiative order. If you are more likely to hit than trip you are better off striking, this just shifts the balance to be more situations where you are better off striking.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Quicksilver changed from ‘Ranged Attack Rolls’ to ‘Dex-Based Attack Rolls’. Taking away any bonus to Ranged Spell Attacks in place for Finesse fighting styles.
replace the third sentence with “Normally these are the only items a companion can use. Other items may qualify, at the GM’s discretion, but an animal can never Activate an Item.” This makes the rules clearer than before, and allows the GM to opt into adding more items.This is a nice clarification. This was my initial interpretation, but was unsure after multiple readings.quicksilver didn't apply to spell attacks even before.
"ranged spell attack rolls" aren't "ranged attack rolls"
. Attack rolls take a variety of forms and are often highly variable based on the weapon you are using for the attack, but there are three main types: melee attack rolls, ranged attack rolls, and spell attack rolls.so, a "ranged spell attack" isn't a ranged attack, but a spell attack (done in range).
that's even further clarified in the same page as it goes on how ranged attacks use Dex as it's governing stat and spell attacks use the casting stat.
Hmm. . . I’ll see your general rule interpretation, and raise you three specific rules that state otherwise.
A spell attack roll is like other attack rolls, so any bonuses or penalties that apply to all your attack rolls should be included in your calculation. For instance, the +1 status bonus from the bless spell would benefit your spell ray just like it could an arrow. However, note that the spell attack roll doesn’t gain any bonuses or penalties that apply specifically to weapon attacks or unarmed attacks. The multiple attack penalty applies to spell attacks, so it’s usually a bad idea to cast a spell that has a spell attack roll if you’ve already made an attack that turn.
States Ranged Spell Attack Rolls are considered the same as all other Ranged Attack Rolls for purposes of Bonuses and Penalties; with the exception that the bonus or penalty specifically call out Weapon (See Point Blank Shot Stance as an example)
If you have the ability to cast spells, you’ll have a proficiency rank for your spell attack rolls, so you’ll always add a proficiency bonus. Like your ability modifier, this proficiency rank may vary from one spell to another if you have spells from multiple sources. Spell attack rolls can benefit from circumstance bonuses and status bonuses, though item bonuses to spell attack rolls are rare. Penalties affect spell attack rolls just like any other attack roll—including your multiple attack penalty.
Only states that item bonuses to Spell Attacks are rare, but not non-existent. Also, Spell Attack Rolls would indeed benefit from them.
Some spells require you to succeed at a spell attack roll to affect the target. This is usually because they require you to precisely aim a ray or otherwise make an accurate attack. A spell attack roll is compared to the target’s AC. Spell attack rolls benefit from any bonuses or penalties to attack rolls, including your multiple attack penalty, but not any special benefits or penalties that apply only to weapon or unarmed attacks. Spell attacks don’t deal any damage beyond what’s listed in the spell description.
Stating that Ranged/Melee Spell Attacks are, by the rules, to be considered the same as Ranged/Melee Weapon or Unarmed Attacks, with the exception of more specific requirement/s in the wording. (See Point Blank Shot Stance as an example)
In Conclusion, with Quicksilver previously being ’Ranged Attack Rolls’, and not specifying what kind of Ranged Attack Roll, Ranged Spell Attack Rolls benefited from it 100% via RAW.
I think it was this thread where I saw a lot of talk about shifting runes on staves. Can someone explain to me what the problem was with that?The big question was whether you could still activate the staff's spells while it was in the form of another weapon.
To expand on this a little bit; it was also the paragraph that goes on to explain that etching runes doesn’t alter spellcasting and that a Magical Staff works like a Simple Weapon Staff. Which, with the Errata, boils down to a whole lot of unique wording to eventually say, they are intended to work like Specific Magic Weapons when interacting with Runes.
I agree with Shroud on this. Ranged Attack Roll is a defined thing, specifically stated to be separate from Spell Attacks.
Mind, I do understand your logic Pumpkin, and WANT to agree, but I think RAW comes down on Shroud's side.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with Shroud on this. Ranged Attack Roll is a defined thing, specifically stated to be separate from Spell Attacks.
Mind, I do understand your logic Pumpkin, and WANT to agree, but I think RAW comes down on Shroud's side.
Part of the confusion on both this and the maneuver thing was weather or not you assumed that the types of checks were mutually exclusive. The text never says that a check can't be both a spell attack and a ranged attack nor does it say that check cant be an attack roll and a skill check. Based on the fact that they were all just categories of check I assumed it was like the tag system used elsewhere in the system where you can mix as appropriate. I was wrong there.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with Shroud on this. Ranged Attack Roll is a defined thing, specifically stated to be separate from Spell Attacks.
Mind, I do understand your logic Pumpkin, and WANT to agree, but I think RAW comes down on Shroud's side.
Inevitably that’s just where i disagree; not to say i don’t understand where Shroud is coming from as well, i just find it as more a RAI ruling over a RAW one. In the end this is most likely why the change to QS Mutagen was changed either way, and it did end up in a clear buff for Finesse fighting styles, so it’s not a bad change. I just felt it was enough of one to state the difference.
_______________________
Healer’s Blessing got a tad buff, but Angelic Halo:
Page 403: Angelic halo should scale based on the level of the heal spell, not based on angelic halo's level. Remove the heightened entry and instead, replace the status bonus to healing from the spell with "Allies in your halo’s emanation who are healed by a heal spell gain a status bonus to Hit Points regained equal to double the heal spell’s level."
Angelic Halo just got a straight Nerf. I can understand that they probably didn’t want Halo stacking with Blessing for Uber Healz, but this seems like A really bad choice. I’d prefer they did this to Healer’s Blessing, since Cleric has Divine Font.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
About the finesse weapons not being able to trip/whatever with dexterity: there's still a niche for Spiked Chain and such, in that you typically still want strength when using finesse weapons for damage purposes, so by using a spiked chain on a character you want to max dexterity, you can still get your +1 to accuracy (over a strength secondary), but then use that secondary strength to trip and disarm and such.
It doesn't make sense from a "I want to build a character who is the best at trips and disarms, but dumps strength" but it absolutely does from the perspective of "I want a character who maxes out their Dexterity, but can still trip or disarm reasonably well"
Uh it’s 100% more effective to just go Meteor Hammer now with STR or another finesse weapon entirely. The only reason not to use meteor hammer is if you’re a Swashbuckler who can’t, and even then, I’d argue going any other finesse weapon is hand and fist better.
A one handed short sword has agile and allows you to use all the maneuvers, not just two, with your other hand open at the cost of 1 average damage and a bunch of other more valuable traits.
It literally loses, as an uncommon two handed weapon, to a one handed martial weapon that several classes already have access to.
It’s literally a joke of a weapon.
...
but it does say in the rules that:
there are 3 types of attacks: melee, ranged, and spell.and then goes on and has a seperate paragraph/section for each of those and how they work and etc.
so it does seperate them right in the beginning.
Saying that there are multiple types is not the same as saying they are mutually exclusive. The existance of the errata itself and all the people asking questions about it here and on other forms should be evidence enough that it was not perfectly clear in the first printing.
No argument that it was not perfectly clear, but it does call them out as separate and mutually exclusive.
Attack rolls take a variety of forms and are often highly variable based on the weapon you are using for the attack, but there are three main types: melee attack rolls, ranged attack rolls, and spell attack rolls. Spell attack rolls work a little bit differently, so they are explained separately on the next page.
The problem is that ranged is both a weapon category (and so determining what type of attack roll your weapon attack falls into) and a range modifier for your spell attack roll.
That's what I meant when I said I wanted to agree with Pumpkin; I want to think the ranged modifier tosses it into a general ranged category that Ranged Attack rolls also happen to fall into, but I don't think it is supported.
As someone else said, this is what comes from hard coding your terminology but then not cleaning up terms that can be used in multiple contexts.
Can you highlight where in that quote it says they are mutually exclusive? I just see it defining three types.
Attack rolls take a variety of forms and are often highly variable based on the weapon you are using for the attack, but there are three main types: melee attack rolls, ranged attack rolls, and spell attack rolls. Spell attack rolls work a little bit differently, so they are explained separately on the next page.
It is pretty clear that a spell attack roll is not a ranged attack roll for the purposes of determining what penalties, bonuses, and ability modifiers apply to it (which is what this discussion is specifically about), even if it happens to also be a ranged spell attack.
Edit: I can conceive of situations where there could be a penalty to attacks at range, which would cover both ranged spell attacks and ranged attack rolls, but the Quicksilver mutagen is don't think is one of them.
It is pretty clear that a spell attack roll is not a ranged attack roll for the purposes of determining what penalties, bonuses, and ability modifiers apply to it (which is what this discussion is specifically about), even if it happens to also be a ranged spell attack.Attack rolls take a variety of forms and are often highly variable based on the weapon you are using for the attack, but there are three main types: melee attack rolls, ranged attack rolls, and spell attack rolls. Spell attack rolls work a little bit differently, so they are explained separately on the next page.
I guess I just disagree with you then. That is not a clear statement that they are mutually exclusive.
I guess I just disagree with you then. That is not a clear statement that they are mutually exclusive.It is pretty clear that a spell attack roll is not a ranged attack roll for the purposes of determining what penalties, bonuses, and ability modifiers apply to it (which is what this discussion is specifically about), even if it happens to also be a ranged spell attack.Attack rolls take a variety of forms and are often highly variable based on the weapon you are using for the attack, but there are three main types: melee attack rolls, ranged attack rolls, and spell attack rolls. Spell attack rolls work a little bit differently, so they are explained separately on the next page.
Exactly what language would convey that to you? I'm genuinely curious.
Can you highlight where in that quote it says they are mutually exclusive? I just see it defining three types.it also lists them as 3 seperate rolls with different formulas in their sections.
so, if you are using the spell attack forumla you are doing a spell attack.
if you are using the ranged attack formula, you are doing a ranged attack.since there is no way to combine the 2 formulas (since they use different stats) i cannot see how you can combine the two types of attack.
it's exactly how you cannot have a "ranged melee attack roll"
The first sentence indicates that they are highly variable and that these are the main types. It does not then follow that the three types absolutely define all possibilities.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I never read it working that way itself, but I can see why it might be unintuitive that a Ranged Spell Attack isn't a ranged attack.
Poor Investigator getting stuck in the crossfire of this clarification though.
Poor Investigator getting stuck in the crossfire of this clarification though.
What affects them?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly what language would convey that to you? I'm genuinely curious.I guess I just disagree with you then. That is not a clear statement that they are mutually exclusive.It is pretty clear that a spell attack roll is not a ranged attack roll for the purposes of determining what penalties, bonuses, and ability modifiers apply to it (which is what this discussion is specifically about), even if it happens to also be a ranged spell attack.Attack rolls take a variety of forms and are often highly variable based on the weapon you are using for the attack, but there are three main types: melee attack rolls, ranged attack rolls, and spell attack rolls. Spell attack rolls work a little bit differently, so they are explained separately on the next page.
Either a direct statement "a check can only be one of these types" or a statement defining the types without all the qualifiers of things like "three main types" indicating there are other types or the intro qualifier of high variability which again indicates that not everything is covered in the text that follows. When they write everything with a bunch of qualifiers they avoid making a definitive statement. I think based off of all the evidence that you are right but I don't think that that is clearly written in the first printing RAW.
Clarification, I don't think these three are all the types of attack rolls possible. In fact, you are correct that the language makes it clear that other types are possible (which is part of why I think they could have added a 4th type for skill or variable ability checks).
I just think that these three are mutually exclusive from a rules stand point, even if the language is not as clear as it could have been, due in part to melee and range being modifiers of spell attacks as well as their own attack roll categories.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Poor Investigator getting stuck in the crossfire of this clarification though.What affects them?
Devise a Stratagem uses Int to attack, so a ranged investigator can no longer benefit from quicksilver mutagens (and melee investigators don't get the new benefit either).
Devise a Stratagem uses Int to attack, so a ranged investigator can no longer benefit from quicksilver mutagens (and melee investigators don't get the new benefit either).Poor Investigator getting stuck in the crossfire of this clarification though.What affects them?
Ah... Ok. Never use mutagens so I didn't connect it. After looking at it again, it doesn't seem like too big a deal. Where a lot of people going Alchemical Sciences and using quicksilver mutagens?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly think it's extremely obvious that a ranged spell attack is different from a ranged attack--everyone I've played with or introduced to the game picked that up immediately. I don't mean to say that to be rude-- I just mean that I'm not sure why they would need to clarify it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No argument that it was not perfectly clear. . .
As someone else said, this is what comes from hard coding your terminology but then not cleaning up terms that can be used in multiple contexts.
I definitely agree with this. Not just in this particular instance either.
There are two specific issues i have with treating Ranged Attacks as weapon-first assumptions. The first is, it's a general interpretation. As Bardarok says, there is no specific wording that excludes the bonus in this instance; it is just assumed that they are exclusive with no bleed-over. Personally, i can not accept a handwaved interpretation as a hard-and-fast ruling; otherwise the rules mean little to nothing from table to table.
The second issue i have, is that, with only an assumption that Ranged Attacks default to Weapon Attacks and an actual rule that states that:
capital letters for emphasis
"Spell attack rolls benefit from ANY BONUSES or PENALTIES to attack rolls. . . but not any special benefits or penalties that apply ONLY to WEAPON or UNARMED attacks."
It states this rule twice in the spells section. This means there is a specific rule that is contradicting a general assumption/interpretation. That's just plain inconsistency if you are correct. Not to mention the rule that states Specific trumps General when rules contradict each other.
I feel sick.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
there are no inconsistencies though:
any bonuses or penalty to "attack rolls" apply. If you are Blessed, you do get the bonus, since bless gives bonus to "attack rolls".
those are different than bonuses to "ranged attack rolls" though.
That's an assumption since there's no definitive ruling to the contrary.
Matter-of-fact, under attack rolls, it refers to Spell Attacks as a variable weapon for attack rolls.
When you use a Strike action or any other attack action, you attempt a check called an attack roll. Attack rolls take a variety of forms and are often highly variable based on the weapon you are using for the attack, but there are three main types: melee attack rolls, ranged attack rolls, and spell attack rolls. Spell attack rolls work a little bit differently, so they are explained separately on the next page.
i get that it may not be as clear, since you obviously read it elsewise, but it makes no mention at all of it counting as a ranged attack roll.
Under the section of spells it clearly states that a Spell Attack roll is like any other attack roll.
A spell attack roll is like other attack rolls, so any bonuses or penalties that apply to all your attack rolls should be included in your calculation.
There's no mention that spells don't gain the bonuses when appropriate. There actually is wording that says they do.
if anything it says that spell attack rolls are a different type of atttack roll and work differently than both ranged and melee attack rolls.
While there are some distinct differences between the rolls, Bonuses and Penalties are called out specifically as not being one of those differences.
also, it's not "assumed" to be differnt.
they are clearly spelled out to be different.
There is no wording stating that a Ranged Attack Roll is default assumed to be a weapon. Ranged Unarmed Attacks are a thing, and was one of the correct interpretations for QS Mutagen. I believe your interpretation would strip Unarmed from qualifying as a default assumption.
That seems to me to not be consistent.
the only way that's possible it would have to have a copletely separate type of attack roll, that's the "ranged spell attack roll that isn't a spell attack roll, nor a ranged atack roll, but the two of them combined"
To be fair, if Spells didn't use the terms Ranged and Melee in their descriptors i would very much agree with you; but Spells do use Ranged and Melee in their descriptors.
since we know, that RAW, Ragned attack rolls are different than spell attack rolls (two different types using 2 different formulas) and the only way that the bonuses would apply it would have to have a 4th type of attack roll that counts as both (while being neither)
If you're going to continue to ignore the two separate and distinct paragraphs that say Spells gain the exact same Bonuses and Penalties as every other Attack Roll then i'm not sure who you're trying to convince.
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I made a passing statement that you did not agree with. Cool, to each their own. Your case is flimsy for the very specific reasons that i have stated, and they have not been addressed aside from with more assumptions rather than very specific wording.
I never even found it as that much of an issue. This line of logic actually exists because of how the rules are laid out.
I'm much more interested in continuing on discussing the errata though personally speaking.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Although not listed in the errata, the Druid Dedication has been changed. It now makes it clear that you are bound by the general Druidic anathema, and not just by the Order anathema. So no teaching others the Druidic language.
Also no metal armor or shields if you MC into Druid. They even changed the picture on that page so the character is wearing leather armor instead of metal.
Wow. Paizo, you really, really, really have to learn how to communicate better.
This is a major change for one of my characters and I'd have completely missed it except for this post.
Gisher, thanks for pointing this out.
But I really, really, really should not have to troll through message boards to find this!!!
Discussion on whether or not some of us agree or disagree with the rules changes aside, this kind of thing is what I'm most concerned about. This came with a noticeable art change and it's not on the errata list? What else was missed? And how is it that not everything on the list is in the book?
Paizo, y'all are awesome, and I love the games and adventures you make. Y'all also need to have a serious internal discussion about QA with how visible (or lack thereof) this is.
Woo alchemist buffs!
Also could someone explain to me the logic of Divine Font no longer heightening to 10th level?
I'm not seeing it on my reading.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Woo alchemist buffs!
Also could someone explain to me the logic of Divine Font no longer heightening to 10th level?
I'm not seeing it on my reading.
Technically, Divine Font gives bonus spell slots of the highest level of spell you can cast (just restricted to a specific spell). The new wording of the abilities that give 10th level spells specifically says “You can’t use this spell slot for abilities that let you cast spells without expending spell slots or that give you more spell slots.”
So, you can't use it to determine what level of spells you can cast with Divine Font, since it says you can't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hm... I see. I wonder if that's an intentional change? It seems more like the errata is meant to say "nothing can give you free casts of 10th level spells or additional 'open' 10th level slots". I wonder if the devs overlooked the Divine Font interaction, or if it's a purposeful change?
It's a small nerf, in any case.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hard to argue a 10th level casting of heal or harm isn't an extra 10th level spell slot though, so I would assume it is intended.
Hopefully we're misreading it and you're correct, because I dislike it immensely.