Errata Part 2 Discussion Thread


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 308 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.

It's also a nerf to any of the options which link the Divine Font pool to counteract effects. Channeled Succor takes a non-insignificant hit at 19th and 20th level.

Previously, you could counteract effects of 21st and 22nd level on a success with your 10th level Font, and countered everything of 18th level and lower pretty much automatically.

Now, you need a critical success to counter an effect of 21st level, and still need to roll a success to counteract threats of 17th and 18th level.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think that if all they wanted to do was kill finesse maneuvers and the other stuff like benefiting from Bless was caught in the crossfire (presumptuous, I know, but I'd like to believe this is the case) it might have been better to define "skill attack rolls" as its own thing, and errata finesse to apply specifically to melee attack rolls. Then things that apply to all attack rolls still affect combat maneuvers, it ensures the difference between a strike and a skill check with your weapon are rigidly defined, opens design space for new types of skill attack rolls without having to go through this same song and dance again, and most importantly it would preserve the paradigm of an attack being an attack.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pumpkinhead11 wrote:

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.

I mean, it does specifically say "bonuses or penalties that apply to all attack rolls."

Which clearly states that if the bonus applies to only specific attack rolls, or specific types of attack roll, it doesn't then apply to spell attack rolls.

E.g. bless applies to all attack rolls, so it'd apply to spells too. But the quicksilver mutagen specifically said ranged attack rolls. Since it specifically and only applied to ranged attack rolls, and not "all attack rolls", then it doesn't apply to spell attacks at all, even if the spell attack is done at range.

Also, it does specific that "spell attack rolls work a little bit differently". They're specifically different than the other two types of attack roll, which means there's no reason that a bonus that is specific to one of those types would then also apply to spell attack rolls. Only bonuses to "all attack rolls" apply, not specific types.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The errata to Cloud Jump doesn’t actually fix the rules confusion over how Cloud Jump works.

It can still be read as either:

A) Tripling the distance of your long jump after you successfully make a legal long jump (I.e calculating your long jump to your leap speed limit)

Or

B) Your leap speed limit can’t be overridden without spending additional actions and all that Cloud Jump effectively does (without spending additional actions) is reduce the DC needed for the Long Jump to 1/3rd of what it would otherwise be.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
I think that if all they wanted to do was kill finesse maneuvers and the other stuff like benefiting from Bless was caught in the crossfire (presumptuous, I know, but I'd like to believe this is the case) it might have been better to define "skill attack rolls" as its own thing, and errata finesse to apply specifically to melee attack rolls. Then things that apply to all attack rolls still affect combat maneuvers, it ensures the difference between a strike and a skill check with your weapon are rigidly defined, opens design space for new types of skill attack rolls without having to go through this same song and dance again, and most importantly it would preserve the paradigm of an attack being an attack.

Then they should have given any weapons with those traits a pass and dropped a new Skill Feat/General Feat/Class Feat for Monks/Swashbucklers.

Whip, Spiked Chain, Sickle, and Wolf Stance were all just considerably nerfed and Gymnast Swashbucklers and DEX based Monks got the shaft.

In fact, here's one little piece of evidence that suggests it was NOT always meant to be read that way:

What the heck is the point of having Wolf Stance with a Trip trait anyways?

You already have the free hands to make Athletics checks, so being able to do it with your Strikes when you're flanking literally does nothing but add handwraps (and armbands of athleticism are a thing so..)

Check out this totally not DEX-based Disarm check between two Swashbucklers.

eye roll


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Just wondering if they'll put this in pdf format at some time?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Bardarok wrote:
The-Magic-Sword wrote:

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.

If strength is your secondary, its a 5-10% difference (factoring in crits)... at only half of the game's levels. Its almost certainly still worth using.

I've noticed that when talking optimization and tight math, we really tend to mentally widen minute differences such that anything but everything is just worthless.


tuffnoogies wrote:
Just wondering if they'll put this in pdf format at some time?

You mean the Errata by itself? Because you can just go to Paizo and down load the rule book updated with the errata if you bought it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gortle wrote:
tuffnoogies wrote:
Just wondering if they'll put this in pdf format at some time?
You mean the Errata by itself? Because you can just go to Paizo and down load the rule book updated with the errata if you bought it.

You can download your physical book again?!!!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean calling it a 5% difference is misleading. It’s 10% minimum since minimum is +1 and that’s 10%. And I’d argue it’s more than that because a Maneuver has a failure and a critical failure condition that usually is punishing on the same level which means it’s closer to 12.5% insert perceived value if you consider getting a critical failure at least as bad as it is good to get a success (and in the case of Disarm, equal to getting a critical success)

And that’s if you can afford the 16 in STR, which is arguable at best. The whole point of Finesse is to allow you to offset not being able to get STR, and due to how Primary abilities work it, affects all points of the game.

You’ve not only just said DEX based maneuvers can’t be done, you just said there’s no way to get max bonus to maneuvers if your primary stat is DEX. That’s a big deal in itself, but then it also requires you to advance STR every time you are able as well just to stay on par. Again, a big deal.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
I mean calling it a 5% difference is misleading. It’s 10% minimum and technically it’s more than that because a Maneuver has a failure and a critical failure condition that usually sucks which means it’s closer to 12.5% if you consider getting a critical failure at least as bad as it is good to get a success (and in the case of Disarm, equal to a critical success.

A +1 or -1 basically never effects both the likelihood of a crit success and crit failure on the same roll. With a DC of 20, for example, adding a +1 to a starting +8 or less will effect the odds of critical failure but not of critical success, and adding it to a +10 or higher it effects the odds of critical success but not of critical failure. Going from +9 to +10 effects neither.

It usually is a 10% difference, but it's occasionally lower and never higher.


I guess I was more pointing out that if you critically fail a strike, generally, there is no consequences, where as trip for instance knocks you prone, which is the inverse of the success metric.

So the math of course never changes, but because the effects have inversely proportional results on the targets, lending credence to the value being correlated to that.

Unless you’re saying that the math accounts for varying results like I’m talking about, which I doubt because it was more of an off the cuff concept of “this critical failure is inversely equal to the success metric of the act”, which would be hard to quantify but I guess not impossible.

I shouldn’t have put an exact percentage, just reiterated that unlike other effects where the failure is usually still a good effect, maneuvers you are actually punished for failing much harder than other acts.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

You're not usually punished for failure, only critical failure. Which means that hail mary maneuver attempts are a bad idea in a way that hail mary attacks are not, but doesn't really have much effect on maneuvers with decent odds of success.

So my point is, if you have a 50% chance or higher on the maneuver, the math isn't any different than an attack. If you have more like a 40% chance it's a tad riskier, if you have lower than that it gets much riskier.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Gortle wrote:
tuffnoogies wrote:
Just wondering if they'll put this in pdf format at some time?
You mean the Errata by itself? Because you can just go to Paizo and down load the rule book updated with the errata if you bought it.

That'll work. I didn't know the CRB had be updated.


Deadmanwalking wrote:

You're not usually punished for failure, only critical failure. Which means that hail mary maneuver attempts are a bad idea in a way that hail mary attacks are not, but doesn't really have much effect on maneuvers with decent odds of success.

So my point is, if you have a 50% chance or higher on the maneuver, the math isn't any different than an attack. If you have more like a 40% chance it's a tad riskier, if you have lower than that it gets much riskier.

Yeah I hear you.

Regardless, it’s not 5% ever and it’s a really punishing 10% if you can afford to evenly increase STR. It was a nerf and a pretty solid one, if only just for putting max bonus out of reach (poor gymnast).


Old_Man_Robot wrote:

The errata to Cloud Jump doesn’t actually fix the rules confusion over how Cloud Jump works.

It can still be read as either:

A) Tripling the distance of your long jump after you successfully make a legal long jump (I.e calculating your long jump to your leap speed limit)

Or

B) Your leap speed limit can’t be overridden without spending additional actions and all that Cloud Jump effectively does (without spending additional actions) is reduce the DC needed for the Long Jump to 1/3rd of what it would otherwise be.

Hmm, well let's take a close look at exactly what the Errata changes, and parse that.

Cloud Jump Original Text wrote:

Your unparalleled athletic skill allows you to jump impossible distances. Triple the distance you Long Jump (so you could jump 60 feet on a successful DC 20 check). When you High Jump, use the calculation for a Long Jump but don’t triple the distance.

When you Long Jump or High Jump, you can also increase the number of actions you use (up to the number of actions you have remaining in your turn) to jump even further. For each extra action, add your Speed to the maximum distance you jump.

Now apply the errata'd second paragraph.

Errata Applied Cloud Jump wrote:

Your unparalleled athletic skill allows you to jump impossible distances. Triple the distance you Long Jump (so you could jump 60 feet on a successful DC 20 check). When you High Jump, use the calculation for a Long Jump but don’t triple the distance.

You can jump a distance greater than your Speed by spending additional actions when you Long Jump or High Jump. For each additional action spent, add your Speed to the limit on how far you can Leap.

I can see why you could still read paragraph one as stating that you CAN jump 60 feet without spending additional actions. But when you read the feat as a whole, it becomes clear that the "speed limit" on leaps still apply, and the only method the feat gives you to increase that limit is spending additional actions.

And if you were to interpret it other wise, what would the second paragraph even mean?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Can we all appreciate the Healer’s Blessing change? Base additional healing from 1 to 2. Praise be the even number blessings; begone cursed odd numbers.

Seriously though, this was so satisfying to read. I always found it odd starting off at 1 then scaling by 2 for this particular spell.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I appreciated just how minute that nitpick was. I didn't appreciate the change to Angelic Halo quite as much — the divine Sorcerer bloodlines already have so many problems on the whole, and toning down a hyperfocus on healing for Angelic isn't laudable when it's replaced with nothing to broaden it.

Dark Archive

beowulf99 wrote:

And if you were to interpret it other wise, what would the second paragraph even mean?

We’ve had this thread and there is no need to rehash it here.

But my reading remains that Cloud Jump triples the distance of the Long Jump after you have made calculated your jump DC using the leap speed limit. It being baked into the long jump action, regardless of if you have Cloud Jump or not. Paragraph one effects the outcome, not the action itself.

The second paragraph allows you to spend an additional action to modify the Long Jump action by attempting a DC which exceeds the limit baked into it. This effects the action but not necessarily the outcome, unless you pass the check.

_______

I agree that the errata missed the mark on what it actually needed to clarify though.

The effective DC reduction version of the feat still feels like a strange interpretation to me, as, if it’s goal was to lower the effective DC, why not just do and say that?

Secondly, if cloud jump only worked on actions derived from the 2nd paragraph, it wouldn’t “triple the distance”, it would only double. As a base long jump is two actions, leaving only one to extend the speed by. There is a feat which would allow you get two actions to spend, but it’s not a requirement of Cloud Jump, so it feels wrong to say they were referring it in their math.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Alfa/Polaris wrote:
I appreciated just how minute that nitpick was. I didn't appreciate the change to Angelic Halo quite as much — the divine Sorcerer bloodlines already have so many problems on the whole, and toning down a hyperfocus on healing for Angelic isn't laudable when it's replaced with nothing to broaden it.

It's definitely a little frustrating. Angelic Sorcerer vs Cleric already felt kind kind of a hard sell (and anecdotally, divine sorcerers in general have felt unsatisfying for my players). This change feels like it just piles on by taking away their standout gimmick in being able to meaningfully power up undercasted heals.

Horizon Hunters

I didn't read all 170 posts before, but anyone already talked about mountain stance that now is a item bonus, so your monk can't have magic items that gives AC?


Samir Sardinha wrote:
I didn't read all 170 posts before, but anyone already talked about mountain stance that now is a item bonus, so your monk can't have magic items that gives AC?

mountain staance specifically stacks with +item bonus from armor runes

Horizon Hunters

shroudb wrote:
Samir Sardinha wrote:
I didn't read all 170 posts before, but anyone already talked about mountain stance that now is a item bonus, so your monk can't have magic items that gives AC?
mountain staance specifically stacks with +item bonus from armor runes

Thanks, I missed that part.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Samir Sardinha wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Samir Sardinha wrote:
I didn't read all 170 posts before, but anyone already talked about mountain stance that now is a item bonus, so your monk can't have magic items that gives AC?
mountain staance specifically stacks with +item bonus from armor runes
Thanks, I missed that part.

it's the same with the barbarian animal skin change. They did it to avoid the non-deliberate stacking with drakeheart mutagen, but as a whole it should be a net (slight) buff since status boosts to AC are easier to find than non-armor item bonus boosts (which was only drakeheart)


shroudb wrote:
Samir Sardinha wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Samir Sardinha wrote:
I didn't read all 170 posts before, but anyone already talked about mountain stance that now is a item bonus, so your monk can't have magic items that gives AC?
mountain staance specifically stacks with +item bonus from armor runes
Thanks, I missed that part.
it's the same with the barbarian animal skin change. They did it to avoid the non-deliberate stacking with drakeheart mutagen, but as a whole it should be a net (slight) buff since status boosts to AC are easier to find than non-armor item bonus boosts (which was only drakeheart)

Off the top of my head, the only status bonus to AC that I can think of is the Wizard focus spell, Protective Ward. What are some of the others?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gisher wrote:
Off the top of my head, the only status bonus to AC that I can think of is the Wizard focus spell, Protective Ward. What are some of the others?

Forbidding Ward, Protection and Circle of Protection, Defensive Recovery (Cleric Feat).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Inspire Defense as well.


Thanks!


There's also Scales of the Dragon if you want to go Dragon Disciple.

Personally, I think a monk trained by a green dragon would be pretty awesome.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
PlantThings wrote:

Can we all appreciate the Healer’s Blessing change? Base additional healing from 1 to 2. Praise be the even number blessings; begone cursed odd numbers.

Seriously though, this was so satisfying to read. I always found it odd starting off at 1 then scaling by 2 for this particular spell.

Personally it's difficult to be satisfied with Healer's Blessing, which is an opt-in ability, getting buffed; while Angelic Halo, which isn't an opt-in ability, got nerfed hard.

Healing buffs are nice to see though.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I didn't even notice that Healer's Blessing scales in the same way Halo used to.

That makes the sorcerer nerf feel even worse somehow.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Archives of Nethys is now updated with the errata!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One little thing I noticed in AoN that I'm not sure if it was intentional:

Animal Skin has been buffed.

It used to offer a +1 and then +2 status bonus. From 6th-12th level, having Expert unarmoured defense meant you mathed out at +2 AC over other Barbarians, and you were at +1 from 13th level and up.

Now, it offers a +2 and then +3 item bonus. This puts you at +3 over the norm up 'til 12th level, and then +2 ahead. It means that you're effectively in heavy armour while raging.

To be clear, I don't think this is broken- it's only +1 AC over what they used to have, and they're still behind Champions and Monks- but it is surprising to see an outright buff as part of the errata.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The old Animal Skin removed the AC penalty from rage. The new Animal Skin doesn't. It comes out to the exact same AC as before.


TheGentlemanDM wrote:

One little thing I noticed in AoN that I'm not sure if it was intentional:

Animal Skin has been buffed.

It used to offer a +1 and then +2 status bonus. From 6th-12th level, having Expert unarmoured defense meant you mathed out at +2 AC over other Barbarians, and you were at +1 from 13th level and up.

Now, it offers a +2 and then +3 item bonus. This puts you at +3 over the norm up 'til 12th level, and then +2 ahead. It means that you're effectively in heavy armour while raging.

To be clear, I don't think this is broken- it's only +1 AC over what they used to have, and they're still behind Champions and Monks- but it is surprising to see an outright buff as part of the errata.

It no longer removes the rage AC plenty , so it ends up being the same I believe.


TheGentlemanDM wrote:

One little thing I noticed in AoN that I'm not sure if it was intentional:

Animal Skin has been buffed.

It used to offer a +1 and then +2 status bonus. From 6th-12th level, having Expert unarmoured defense meant you mathed out at +2 AC over other Barbarians, and you were at +1 from 13th level and up.

Now, it offers a +2 and then +3 item bonus. This puts you at +3 over the norm up 'til 12th level, and then +2 ahead. It means that you're effectively in heavy armour while raging.

To be clear, I don't think this is broken- it's only +1 AC over what they used to have, and they're still behind Champions and Monks- but it is surprising to see an outright buff as part of the errata.

*runs quick mental math*

I don't see it listed in the FAQ, but that does appear to be an accurate change. I'm not sure it's actually an increase, though. The original gave you a +1 status bonus *instead* of taking the -1 penalty, while the new version gives you a +2 item bonus, but you still take the -1 penalty from raging.


Pumpkinhead11 wrote:

Personally it's difficult to be satisfied with Healer's Blessing, which is an opt-in ability, getting buffed; while Angelic Halo, which isn't an opt-in ability, got nerfed hard.

Healing buffs are nice to see though.

I just enjoyed it for the numerical streamlining.

Angelic Halo, Healer's Blessing and similar focus spells that do nothing on their own should naturally have chunky numbers and powerful effects if they're going to play into that design. It's quite a shame for Angelic Halo since it exemplified that idea before the errata.


Red Metal wrote:
The old Animal Skin removed the AC penalty from rage. The new Animal Skin doesn't. It comes out to the exact same AC as before.

Yeah, I missed that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TheGentlemanDM wrote:
Red Metal wrote:
The old Animal Skin removed the AC penalty from rage. The new Animal Skin doesn't. It comes out to the exact same AC as before.
Yeah, I missed that.

Still a little buff, as it's better to have it as an item bonus which adds the standard item bonusses, instead of having it as a status bonus and missing out in Status bonus increases like CoP and Inspire Def. Makes the animal barb (and the mountain stance monk) better than they were.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You can still use Craft to "earn income" the same as using any other earn income skill though.

So if you are in a settlement where you can buy everything you ever dreamt of, you simply use that option and you are exactly the same as any other character.

The "actually crafting an item" option is more specialised in that it offers you the opportunity to aquire an item when you wouldn't have access to it.

Traveling for weeks or even more to go to a big enough settlement and then traveling all the distance back again is simpl not a realistic approach in the majority of occasions.

Yes, you are losing money this way, but you are gaining access.

There are some major flaws in the crafting system, particularly for consumables and ammunition (taking 4 days to craft 10 arrows lol) but for the generic purposes of crafting a permanent item, the 4 days of no earn income isn't something bad imo.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:

You can still use Craft to "earn income" the same as using any other earn income skill though.

So if you are in a settlement where you can buy everything you ever dreamt of, you simply use that option and you are exactly the same as any other character.

The "actually crafting an item" option is more specialised in that it offers you the opportunity to aquire an item when you wouldn't have access to it.

Traveling for weeks or even more to go to a big enough settlement and then traveling all the distance back again is simpl not a realistic approach in the majority of occasions.

Yes, you are losing money this way, but you are gaining access.

There are some major flaws in the crafting system, particularly for consumables and ammunition (taking 4 days to craft 10 arrows lol) but for the generic purposes of crafting a permanent item, the 4 days of no earn income isn't something bad imo.

I feel like you may have accidentally posted this in the wrong thread...


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pawns, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
shroudb wrote:

The "actually crafting an item" option is more specialised in that it offers you the opportunity to aquire an item when you wouldn't have access to it.

Traveling for weeks or even more to go to a big enough settlement and then traveling all the distance back again is simpl not a realistic approach in the majority of occasions.

Yes, you are losing money this way, but you are gaining access.

There are some major flaws in the crafting system, particularly for consumables and ammunition (taking 4 days to craft 10 arrows lol) but for the generic purposes of crafting a permanent item, the 4 days of no earn income isn't something bad imo.

The only issue with this argument is that if you don't have access to a particular item, you probably don't have access to its respective formula.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
beowulf99 wrote:
shroudb wrote:

You can still use Craft to "earn income" the same as using any other earn income skill though.

So if you are in a settlement where you can buy everything you ever dreamt of, you simply use that option and you are exactly the same as any other character.

The "actually crafting an item" option is more specialised in that it offers you the opportunity to aquire an item when you wouldn't have access to it.

Traveling for weeks or even more to go to a big enough settlement and then traveling all the distance back again is simpl not a realistic approach in the majority of occasions.

Yes, you are losing money this way, but you are gaining access.

There are some major flaws in the crafting system, particularly for consumables and ammunition (taking 4 days to craft 10 arrows lol) but for the generic purposes of crafting a permanent item, the 4 days of no earn income isn't something bad imo.

I feel like you may have accidentally posted this in the wrong thread...

whoops ^^

(and yes :D)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You can’t use Dex to modify maneuvers with finesse weapons? Aw man. That makes the Witch prehensile hair even worse - as if it wasn’t basically a waste already. At least with Dex as maneuver I could use it to trip with some success in a bind, and Dex was still a relevant stat.

So wait you can’t even Disarm with a Rapier using Dex? How does that make sense at all?

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Liegence wrote:

You can’t use Dex to modify maneuvers with finesse weapons? Aw man. That makes the Witch prehensile hair even worse - as if it wasn’t basically a waste already. At least with Dex as maneuver I could use it to trip with some success in a bind, and Dex was still a relevant stat.

So wait you can’t even Disarm with a Rapier using Dex? How does that make sense at all?

I think that actions with the attack trait in which a player rolls a d20 were never meant to be interpreted as attack rolls. Many people, myself included, thought they were and that finesse weapons allowed DEX for maneuvers if the weapon also had the appropriate trait. Which is more-or-less how it worked in 1E.

Scarab Sages

4 people marked this as a favorite.
NECR0G1ANT wrote:
Liegence wrote:

You can’t use Dex to modify maneuvers with finesse weapons? Aw man. That makes the Witch prehensile hair even worse - as if it wasn’t basically a waste already. At least with Dex as maneuver I could use it to trip with some success in a bind, and Dex was still a relevant stat.

So wait you can’t even Disarm with a Rapier using Dex? How does that make sense at all?

I think that actions with the attack trait in which a player rolls a d20 were never meant to be interpreted as attack rolls. Many people, myself included, thought they were and that finesse weapons allowed DEX for maneuvers if the weapon also had the appropriate trait. Which is more-or-less how it worked in 1E.

Yeah, but an attack that isn't and Attack was a poor way to describe it.


Ravingdork wrote:
shroudb wrote:

The "actually crafting an item" option is more specialised in that it offers you the opportunity to aquire an item when you wouldn't have access to it.

Traveling for weeks or even more to go to a big enough settlement and then traveling all the distance back again is simpl not a realistic approach in the majority of occasions.

Yes, you are losing money this way, but you are gaining access.

There are some major flaws in the crafting system, particularly for consumables and ammunition (taking 4 days to craft 10 arrows lol) but for the generic purposes of crafting a permanent item, the 4 days of no earn income isn't something bad imo.

The only issue with this argument is that if you don't have access to a particular item, you probably don't have access to its respective formula.

That's not necessarily true. If you get a single copy of the consumable, you can possibly reverse engineer the formula. This doesn't necessarily mean you normally have access to either.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

While the boosts to Alchemist that we did get are nice, I'd still greatly appreciate it if they actually got decent proficiencies with bombs...

It's extremely aggravating that they're the class most heavily focused on them and yet they can't get above Expert... while Champions, Barbarians, Investigators, Swashbucklers, and especially Fighters not only get Expert proficiency with bombs earlier, but they get Master (or Legendary for Fighters) as well. As it stands, Alchemists are the only class that doesn't get any attack proficiencies above Expert; every other class gets at least Master with either spell attack rolls or with weapons.

Even if Master+ proficiency with bombs was something specific to the Bomber research field, that would be fine (maybe do something similar with weapon/unarmed attacks for the Mutagenist as well?).


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Liegence wrote:

You can’t use Dex to modify maneuvers with finesse weapons? Aw man. That makes the Witch prehensile hair even worse - as if it wasn’t basically a waste already. At least with Dex as maneuver I could use it to trip with some success in a bind, and Dex was still a relevant stat.

So wait you can’t even Disarm with a Rapier using Dex? How does that make sense at all?

Back in the playtest days I defended prehensile hair because getting reach maneuvers as a third action seemed pretty good. Guess I was wrong about that!


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Well, you were right at the time. No way to predict the future.

I know the feeling though. One of my players ran a Magus whose build was designed around using a shifting staff as her primary weapon. Final impressions of the class would have been pretty different if we had known that wasn't supposed to be a thing at the time.

151 to 200 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.