Dhampir adventurers and undead everywhere really want to know!
AoN says yes, but my hardcopy and PDF of the Core Rulebook make no mention of that trait, nor does the errata appear to.
I second this. I primarily use AoN, so I assumed that elixir's of life would be needed for Dhampirs, but looking at the core rulebook and errata I don't see anything to indicate that healing potions have the positive trait. I would love some clarification on this.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Reported this apparent error to AoN and someone there pointed out to me that the 2nd printing of the Core Rulebook DOES have the Positive trait listed.
Seems very sloppy to me, Paizo. Why isn't this change mentioned in the online errata document?
Edit: Someone on the AoN Discord had this to say on the matter:
I hope Paizo fixes the inconsistencies soon. Stealth errata is only going to breed confusion and resentment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's all good in theory, and works most of the time, but with cases like this it's certainly not ideal. For example, if someone who used the first printing was building a dhampir in my game they would have no reason to think that they need to look up whether potions have the positive trait, because as far as they're concerned they don't. Now, that part would happen regardless of if this was in an errata or not, but it's still waaaaay better as a GM to have something official to point to saying that not having the positive trait is an error, i.e., an errata. I mean, I can point to the website and say that's the version we're using going forward, but that's not really satisfying if there's no explanation as to why it's different IMO.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For example, if someone who used the first printing was building a dhampir in my game they would have no reason to think that they need to look up whether potions have the positive trait, because as far as they're concerned they don't.
And this is exactly what happened in this case. I was helping a fellow player with their dhampir concept and noted he had bought a bunch of healing potions listed on his character sheet.
I didn't think anything of it (and why would I?) until I came across this
wonderful video by Dave and was confused as to why he didn't mention healing potions as a viable option. That led me to checking AoN, seeing the error in the traits there, and reporting said error to AoN, Pathbuilder, and a number of other rules services, and later having to course correct all of it when a reliable source informed me of the Stealth errata.
Needless to say, all that confusion and headache--which could easily have mislead thousands of players and GMs as different information services struggle to stay up to date with conflicting info--could have been easily avoided by having the errata and rules consistent in the first place.
|
We are at a time with a more-than-zero level of confusion on what the official rules are because of stealth rule changes and inconsistencies between various sources. Example: for some reason Roll20 still insists an adventurer's pack is 2 bulk even though that was corrected a year ago in the first errata.
I mean, roll20's never been a good system for PF2 anyway. I think we can all agree about that. And that's coming from someone in 2 roll20 games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, roll20's never been a good system for PF2 anyway. I think we can all agree about that. And that's coming from someone in 2 roll20 games.
They have a small staff and so have difficulty keeping up with all the changes Paizo makes (particularly when you consider that it's not just Pathfinder they're trying to keep up with).
I think they do quite well considering.
I'm not trying to rag on them or anything, but objectively speaking Roll20's PF2 integration is very lackluster. Anyone who's played a game on Foundry knows what I'm talking about. Or better yet, just played a DnD 5e game with someone who owns the books on Roll20. That's not to say that PF2 should be a priority for Roll20, even. I was just pointing out that it's not as good as it could be.