| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've put together a list of all the significant areas of rules problems and confusion, that I have found from my own play and on the forums.
Its all my opinion but hopefully it is helpful to you anyway.
Feedback welcome.
Great list. Thanks for consolidating what frequently comes up on the forums. Next step is putting this in front of Paizo every opportunity.
Weapon spec damage doesn't affect battle forms. They all to my knowledge specify you are Trained in their attacks. Weapon spec is expert and higher.
I don't agree the martial hack to battle forms needs a restriction. They will be casting lower level versions. They get great attack bonuses, but their damage and AC will not be on level. That seems to be a significant enough drawback.
Concerning Combat Reflexes, wouldn't specific beat general in this case?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Concerning Combat Reflexes, wouldn't specific beat general in this case?
Eveyone ignores it which is correct. It is blindingly obvious it is supposed to work, or the power just does nothing. On that basis and Paizos standing advice, it is fine.
But gaining a reaction happpens at the start of the turn, using happens during the rest of the round. So gaining and using are separate things.
Combat reflex says you gain a second reaction. Then it tells you how you can use the reaction. It just never says you can use more than one. So specifically it does nothing.
I never noticed this myself. But it has been raised several times on this forum. And they are correct. Technically it is an issue.
Concerning Combat Reflexes, wouldn't specific beat general in this case?
Yeah, it doesn't say "You can only use one reaction per round." If it was meant to limit you to one it would have said that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, it doesn't say "You can only use one reaction per round." If it was meant to limit you to one it would have said that.Concerning Combat Reflexes, wouldn't specific beat general in this case?
In most circumstances the use of only in that sentence is meaningless because it is implied.
Like pretty much the rest of the rule book, they describe what a rule does and don't explicitly exclude what it does not do.
All they need to do is delete the sentence "You can use one reaction per round." It is descriptive text which is often indirectly true, but is not needed as a rule of the game. Because they already say you only gain one reaction and you lose it if you don't use it by your next turn.
Or they could replace it with "You normally only have one reaction per round." Which is soft enough that it doesn't stop Combat Reflexes from working.
Yes you are right it is explicit there too.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't actually written mine out, but I do have a similar list in my head. It is rather vague though (because I haven't bothered to write it out).
One of my big ones that I don't see on your list is the definition of Your Spell List. Your spellcasting tradition's spell list is well specified. But your spell list is used when deciding if you can cast a spell from a scroll, wand, or other such spellcasting item (or whether you can craft the item). But since it is never defined, it is unclear what is on that list. Spells at a higher level than you can cast? Non-common spells for classes like Druid and Cleric that don't have to learn their spells? Innate spells you have acquired? Even some tradition poaching feats (notably the Witch *Lesson feats) don't say that they add the spell to your spell list, but others (Oracle Divine Access for example) do.
I haven't actually written mine out, but I do have a similar list in my head. It is rather vague though (because I haven't bothered to write it out).
One of my big ones that I don't see on your list is the definition of Your Spell List. Your spellcasting tradition's spell list is well specified. But your spell list is used when deciding if you can cast a spell from a scroll, wand, or other such spellcasting item (or whether you can craft the item). But since it is never defined, it is unclear what is on that list. Spells at a higher level than you can cast? Non-common spells for classes like Druid and Cleric that don't have to learn their spells? Innate spells you have acquired? Even some tradition poaching feats (notably the Witch *Lesson feats) don't say that they add the spell to your spell list, but others (Oracle Divine Access for example) do.
So even though a spell counts and is cast as your tradition (possible via some certain feats), it may not be on your spell list. Which matter for scrolls and staves.
Yes its a bit technical and many people I suspect miss it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that Combat Reflexes does not address the specific limitation that is on p11 of the CRB "... each character can use up to one reaction during a round." It could very well have been meant as an additional reaction OPTION. Thus, if you had another type of reaction (say a Champion), you would choose between the two.Yeah, it doesn't say "You can only use one reaction per round." If it was meant to limit you to one it would have said that.Concerning Combat Reflexes, wouldn't specific beat general in this case?
The "Basics of Play" section is not rules. It is a descriptive overview. Page 9 said that a nat 20 is a critical success, when we know that is only often the case. The actual rules are more specific and don't limit reactions to 1/round.
The "Basics of Play" section is not rules. It is a descriptive overview. Page 9 said that a nat 20 is a critical success, when we know that is only often the case. The actual rules are more specific and don't limit reactions to 1/round.
I get that rules and language often start with a general case and straight away move into details. By and large though I don't accept any of the "flavour text" arguments. It is all rules, unless it says it is not.
But this occurred twice and page 472 is not a descriptive overview. Besides it is trivial to express it in natural language in a way that is not a problem.
p11 of the CRB "... each character can use up to one reaction during a round."
to say "... each character has one reaction to use during a round."
It is simpler and correct.
It is clear as day. Why deny it? It was just an oversight. They should fix it. Move on.
This is a great resource thanks for compiling it. Are you also collecting suggested resolutions to problems you've collected?
I often do. I have already added breithauptclan's point.
It's my hope that paizo would adopt a git style repository for the pf2 rules. For those unfamiliar that is basically a website where code is kept and individuals can raise issues with or submit fixes to said code which can then be accepted or rejected while allowing discussions to take place, and the discussions is tied to each code change or issue. Makes it easy to keep discussions focused on specific things and all changes are logged so its easy to roll back things.
Yes. Maybe a bit technical for the average person. The average roleplayer might be able to do it though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. Maybe a bit technical for the average person. The average roleplayer might be able to do it though.
Imo for more casually interested people there would be people like the easy tool dev who would make a tool to catelogue and filter/organise the data from the repository.
It would be ideal.
Then again, fully serious here, it might be a bit much for paizo's technical team if the FAQ page really needed to split the errata for the crb into part 1 and part 2 because of website restrictions...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm confused about this part:
The Size of Animal Companions is within reason should be up to the owner. If you want the animal to be large so you can ride it from level 1 then it can be. If you don’t want to increase the size of the animal companion, when you take extra feats that do that, you don’t have to. The current game rules enforce you to make your animal companion two sizes larger than yourself if you want to ride it. Not one, two. Try and take a Mature Animal Companion and see what happens.I was under the impression you can ride an AC one size larger than you.
You or an ally can ride your animal companion as long as it is at least one size larger than the rider.If your companion is Medium or smaller, it grows by one size.What am I missing?
If you get you mount at level 1 it is one size larger than you.
Then it grows up when you take the Mature Animal Companion FeatAnd sometimes again.
It is just frustrating. It should stay the size you choose. I don't want to build this story around my mount and then have my mount grow and be to big to do what I want anymore.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm confused about this part:
The Size of Animal Companions is within reason should be up to the owner. If you want the animal to be large so you can ride it from level 1 then it can be. If you don’t want to increase the size of the animal companion, when you take extra feats that do that, you don’t have to. The current game rules enforce you to make your animal companion two sizes larger than yourself if you want to ride it. Not one, two. Try and take a Mature Animal Companion and see what happens.I was under the impression you can ride an AC one size larger than you.
You or an ally can ride your animal companion as long as it is at least one size larger than the rider.If your companion is Medium or smaller, it grows by one size.What am I missing?If you get you mount at level 1 it is one size larger than you.
Then it grows up when you take the Mature Animal Companion Feat
And sometimes again.It is just frustrating. It should stay the size you choose. I don't want to build this story around my mount and then have my mount grow and be to big to do what I want anymore.
This is only a problem for small or smaller creatures. For medium creatures, the mount maxes out at size large
"If your companion is Medium or smaller, it grows by one size."