Advanced Player's Guide 2nd Printing PDF

[spectrevk]

I just got an email that the new printing of the Advanced Player's Guide had been updated on PDF, but when I try to download it from my library on the site I only get a 151 byte zip file, containing an invalid PDF.

[Ezekieru]

Dang, they skipped all the way to the 22nd printing?

No wonder it took 2 years!
*BA DUM TISH*

[Gisher]

The Single File version shows up as 151 bytes, and the File Per Chapter version shows up as 191 bytes. Paizo is aware of the problem.

[Gortle]

Any errata yet?

[Gisher]

The Dragon Disciple's feat, Scales of the Dragon, has changed from a +2 status bonus with a +2 Dex cap to a +2 item bonus with a +3 Dex cap and it stacks with the item bonus from Runes. So pretty similar to the CRB change to Mountain Stance.

[keftiu]

Seems like it’s working for folks now.

[Gisher]

Eldritch Archer Dedication no longer gives you an extra cantrip if you have pre-existing spell slots. Everyone gets just one cantrip from the tradition you choose when selecting the feat,

[Gisher]

The Daikyu now has a reload of "0" rather than "–" and it now has the propulsive trait.

[Gisher]

The familiar ability, Independent, has this added "This doesn’t work with valet or similar abilities that require a command, if you’re capable of riding your familiar, or similar situations."

[Ched Greyfell]

Is there somewhere where just the errata is listed? So we can see what all changed.

[Gisher]

Ched Greyfell wrote:

Is there somewhere where just the errata is listed? So we can see what all changed.

I haven't seen it on the FAQ page yet. I've just been jumping around.

[Gisher]

The Armor Specialist feat from the Sentinel archetype is no longer a Skill Feat.

[Lucas Yew]

Ched Greyfell wrote:

Is there somewhere where just the errata is listed? So we can see what all changed.

The new FAQs page now lists all errata for PF2, wih a caveat: it does not distinguish which errata is applicable for whatevereth printing. This could be a real problem if a 3rd or later printing happens later on...

[keftiu]

Gisher wrote:

The Daikyu now has a reload of "0" rather than "–" and it now has the propulsive trait.

That's fun; you take a Composite Longbow and trade out losing Deadly d10 for not having to deal with Volley at all. I don't know if it's a great trade (is Volley a big deal? I don't feel like I've ever heard about it), but at least the Daikyu has an identity now.

[Gisher]

The Dragon Disciple Dedication has this line added: "You become trained in arcane spell DCs and arcane spell attack rolls."

[DomHeroEllis]

keftiu wrote:

Gisher wrote:

The Daikyu now has a reload of "0" rather than "–" and it now has the propulsive trait.

That's fun; you take a Composite Longbow and trade out losing Deadly d10 for not having to deal with Volley at all. I don't know if it's a great trade (is Volley a big deal? I don't feel like I've ever heard about it), but at least the Daikyu has an identity now.

It is +2 damage bonus if you have Point Blank Shot, which could be nice.

[Gisher]

keftiu wrote:

Gisher wrote:

The Daikyu now has a reload of "0" rather than "–" and it now has the propulsive trait.

That's fun; you take a Composite Longbow and trade out losing Deadly d10 for not having to deal with Volley at all. I don't know if it's a great trade (is Volley a big deal? I don't feel like I've ever heard about it), but at least the Daikyu has an identity now.

Avoiding volley without needing access to point-blank shot seems nice, but I'm not clear how you get access to a Daikyu. It's weird that it still lacks the monk trait. I thought it was intended for use with Monastic Archer Stance. (It's also weird that this line is still in the description despite the fact that the game doesn't have any rules for facing: "Using a daikyu while mounted limits its ring range to your left side.")

[Creative Burst]

Gisher wrote:

keftiu wrote:

Gisher wrote:

The Daikyu now has a reload of "0" rather than "–" and it now has the propulsive trait.

That's fun; you take a Composite Longbow and trade out losing Deadly d10 for not having to deal with Volley at all. I don't know if it's a great trade (is Volley a big deal? I don't feel like I've ever heard about it), but at least the Daikyu has an identity now.

Avoiding volley without needing access to point-blank shot seems nice, but I'm not clear how you get access to a Daikyu. It's weird that it still lacks the monk trait. I thought it was intended for use with Monastic Archer Stance. (It's also weird that this line is still in the description despite the fact that the game doesn't have any rules for facing: "Using a daikyu while mounted limits its ring range to your left side.")

It uncommon because it sense it a real world Japanese weapon and would be from Tian Xia not the Inner Sea.

[The Gleeful Grognard]

Well... looks like people asking questions about witch familiar from dedications will persist... even though paizo gave an answer online. Not worth putting in the book apparently.

Also no changes to witch hex immunity, which was never hinted at... but a shame as it would have gone a long way to quell swingy luck and dissatisfaction over just how much worse they are than bardic cantrips overall (ofc they would still be worse, but still).

Here's hoping there are other interesting changes with how long they held this errata back for a reprint.

[Blave]

With no changes to hexes, it will be very hard to convice future players that rarity is not a measure of power. *Looks at Clinging Ice and Buzzing Bites*

And giving Witches Cackle at level 1 instead of Phase Familiar seems like such an obvious thing to do...

[The Raven Black]

Errata always come with reprints.

[The Raven Black]

I do not expect a rewrite of a class to come through errata.

In an Unchained book down the line maybe, or PF3.

[Gortle]

A list of errata on reddit

[Gisher]

Gortle wrote:

A list of errata on reddit

I see bolas are now uncommon. :(

[Squiggit]

Hm, kind of expected more Witch stuff.

At the very least expected Clinging Ice to change with what they printed in Monsters of Myth.

[HumbleGamer]

Gisher wrote:

The Dragon Disciple's feat, Scales of the Dragon, has changed from a +2 status bonus with a +2 Dex cap to a +2 item bonus with a +3 Dex cap and it stacks with the item bonus from Runes. So pretty similar to the CRB change to Mountain Stance.

Expected ( and still a pretty solid feat ).

Quote:

Dhampir trait no longer calls dhampir immortal.

it's something.

[richienvh]

Gotta admit I was expecting more. I don't know, I guess Paizo is not so willing to change much or these classes/feats/rules work the way the design team intends them to and we're missing something. Hoped that we had some other way to get errata other than waiting for new printings.

I have hopes that Paizo eventually does a book with Class Archetypes for every class to allow some of those issues to be addressed in a way that is more controlled. Perhaps then players will be able to exchange proficiencies and or class features for more viability on some builds.

[The Raven Black]

Based on the precedent of shadow signet for spell attacks, I expect Paizo to fix such issues by adding feats or items PCs can choose later on rather than forcing a rebuild.

[Novem]

Gortle wrote:

A list of errata on reddit

I guess I should've expected it but I'm shocked with how light a touch Paizo approached this with and even more shocked that most of the changes are nerfs. To me, this screams that Paizo seriously needs to change their errata process. Binding changes to physical reprints means this is a once in years opportunity to make substantial changes and there are so many character options in this book that could've used buffs. In a modern era where I'm so used to the games I play getting constant changes, I get a bit of it is just me having the wrong expectations. But those games getting constant changes also makes them better, more polished and well-rounded. I can't help but wish that if Paizo weren't going to approach this with that modern video game patching mindset that they would at least take their reprint changes much more seriously. The game would be much better if they did.

[The Raven Black]

That would be best as part of a new book, à la PF1 Unchained, or even a new edition, than an errata though.

[SuperBidi]

Novem wrote:

Gortle wrote:

A list of errata on reddit

I guess I should've expected it but I'm shocked with how light a touch Paizo approached this with and even more shocked that most of the changes are nerfs. To me, this screams that Paizo seriously needs to change their errata process. Binding changes to physical reprints means this is a once in years opportunity to make substantial changes and there are so many character options in this book that could've used buffs. In a modern era where I'm so used to the games I play getting constant changes, I get a bit of it is just me having the wrong expectations. But those games getting constant changes also makes them better, more polished and well-rounded. I can't help but wish that if Paizo weren't going to approach this with that modern video game patching mindset that they would at least take their reprint changes much more seriously. The game would be much better if they did.

I'm not sure the constant patching process you see in video games would be desirable in a pen & paper game. In video games, you don't have to learn the rules. If every year a new version of the rules is released, it means that a lot of people will have to be in touch, especially those who use books (as books can't be patched). It would be a complete mess for them.

I already had a discussion around a table because people were using pre and post patch material, and it gets really messy (the GM told me I was unable to Battle Medicine because I needed a Bandolier to put my tools in...).
So I understand why Paizo only intervenes to correct issues and not to patch classes outside of very big patches like the Unchained books were. I don't say it's the "best" solution, as I'm unable to determine what is the best course of action in this case, but they have good reasons to process like that.

[Novem]

The Raven Black wrote:

That would be best as part of a new book, à la PF1 Unchained, or even a new edition, than an errata though.

I disagree. Games like this are better when the maximum number of character options are viable and competitive, and people shouldn't be required to purchase entire new books just for the content they already bought to receive the support to bring it up to that standard. Especially because doing something like that would splinter the community between different versions of the same game, which isn't necessary because none of the content in the APG which could use changes (like Witches and Warrior Bard) needs such enormous changes that it requires an entire new book to do.

Moreover, so much of the game is played through interaction with digital these days, either through VTTs or character sheet apps like Pathbuilder. When I'm looking up a rule or a character option it's almost always easier to do an AoN search than it is to actually try and flip through the book. Considering the games increasing dependence on digital, binding the book's capability to receive updates to physical reprints is already kind of silly (but hey gotta make sure those people who bought physical books don't get left out, I get it). The fact that they don't take advantage of the reprints to make bigger changes despite having much greater access to the community and an easier way of distributing said changes though is ridiculous and IMO bad for the game.

[Novem]

SuperBidi wrote:

Novem wrote:

Gortle wrote:

A list of errata on reddit

I guess I should've expected it but I'm shocked with how light a touch Paizo approached this with and even more shocked that most of the changes are nerfs. To me, this screams that Paizo seriously needs to change their errata process. Binding changes to physical reprints means this is a once in years opportunity to make substantial changes and there are so many character options in this book that could've used buffs. In a modern era where I'm so used to the games I play getting constant changes, I get a bit of it is just me having the wrong expectations. But those games getting constant changes also makes them better, more polished and well-rounded. I can't help but wish that if Paizo weren't going to approach this with that modern video game patching mindset that they would at least take their reprint changes much more seriously. The game would be much better if they did.

I'm not sure the constant patching process you see in video games would be desirable in a pen & paper game. In video games, you don't have to learn the rules. If every year a new version of the rules is released, it means that a lot of people will have to be in touch, especially those who use books (as books can't be patched). It would be a complete mess for them.

I already had a discussion around a table because people were using pre and post patch material, and it gets really messy (the GM told me I was unable to Battle Medicine because I needed a Bandolier to put my tools in...).
So I understand why Paizo only intervenes to correct issues and not to patch classes outside of very big patches like the Unchained books were. I don't say it's the "best" solution, as I'm unable to determine what is the best course of action in this case, but they have good reasons to process like that.

I'd understand this take if we weren't talking about character options. I'm not asking Paizo to change fundamental parts of the game here (though I wouldn't argue with a complete overhaul of the Crafting system), but making changes that are only likely to affect one player and putting those changes into highly visible areas of the game isn't likely to cause all that much confusion.

Of course, I'm not asking for them to change the timing on their Errata drops (though again I wouldn't argue against it) and I get their reasoning, what I want most is just for them to take these opportunities to rework old content more seriously. Particularly for such a big thing like an entire Class (The Witch) to be so weak is really bad for the health of the game. It just pushes players into stronger classes with similar thematics and that's super lame. Leaving stuff to languish like this makes the game less versatile to what players want to play. So if there's going to be so few opportunities to make changes, I think Paizo needs to be more conscious of the problems the game has and put more effort as well as resources into make changes that address those problems. I know it doesn't directly make them money, but like any modern live service game will tell you, it's important to the long-term success of your game that its fundamentals are up to snuff. That Paizo doesn't seem to understand or acknowledge that is very frustrating to me.

By the way, as far as that Bandolier example, that's really less of a rules concern or a concern with errata than it is your GM being a little anal about the details. I have never played in a game where Bandoliers are required and it doesn't really matter if they're required by RAW or not. It's such a little thing that it's not worth being particularly obsessed over regardless of what the rules on it are.

[Saedar]

Novem wrote:

By the way, as far as that Bandolier example, that's really less of a rules concern or a concern with errata than it is your GM being a little anal about the details. I have never played in a game where Bandoliers are required and it doesn't really matter if they're required by RAW or not. It's such a little thing that it's not worth being particularly obsessed over regardless of what the rules on it are.

This right here is kind of the point. It isn't as important to release patches in the same way because there are humans at the table who can just decide to do something different.

Aside from that, you are comparing apples to the Titanic. Major game studios have dozens to hundreds of full-time employees they can dedicate to that kind of work. The scale that Paizo operates on just isn't the same.

Don't work yourself up just because the thing you want is wildly unrealistic and out of scale.

[The Raven Black]

Long-term success first needs long-term survival.

How do you want Paizo to get the money they won't make because they would be doing big patches on existing products for free instead of creating new content that they actually sell for money ?

Not sure online ads would work.

[SuperBidi]

Novem wrote:

Of course, I'm not asking for them to change the timing on their Errata drops (though again I wouldn't argue against it) and I get their reasoning, what I want most is just for them to take these opportunities to rework old content more seriously. Particularly for such a big thing like an entire Class (The Witch) to be so weak is really bad for the health of the game. It just pushes players into stronger classes with similar thematics and that's super lame. Leaving stuff to languish like this makes the game less versatile to what players want to play. So if there's going to be so few opportunities to make changes, I think Paizo needs to be more conscious of the problems the game has and put more effort as well as resources into make changes that address those problems. I know it doesn't directly make them money, but like any modern live service game will tell you, it's important to the long-term success of your game that its fundamentals are up to snuff. That Paizo doesn't seem to understand or acknowledge that is very frustrating to me.

Around me, Witch has a lot of success, more success than some more efficient classes.

But more importantly, if you increase the power level of the Witch, what will be the next bad class in need of improvement? Balancing is a never ending process (and I've worked in the video game industry, so I'm sure about that).

Right now, the Witch it playable, it fills its intended purpose. If you prefer the Bard, then fine play a Bard. But there's nothing like an unplayable Witch. So I don't think the Witch needs an "errata". An Unchained version, why not. But it's a very different process, it's a complete class overhaul.

As I said above: Paizo choice is conservative, but that doesn't mean it's bad.

[Novem]

Saedar wrote:

Novem wrote:

By the way, as far as that Bandolier example, that's really less of a rules concern or a concern with errata than it is your GM being a little anal about the details. I have never played in a game where Bandoliers are required and it doesn't really matter if they're required by RAW or not. It's such a little thing that it's not worth being particularly obsessed over regardless of what the rules on it are.

This right here is kind of the point. It isn't as important to release patches in the same way because there are humans at the table who can just decide to do something different.

Aside from that, you are comparing apples to the Titanic. Major game studios have dozens to hundreds of full-time employees they can dedicate to that kind of work. The scale that Paizo operates on just isn't the same.

Don't work yourself up just because the thing you want is wildly unrealistic and out of scale.

Maintenance of existing content is a form of long-term profit generation regardless of what industry you're in. It's important for the health of the overall game. I'm not being unrealistic, there are indie studios much smaller than Paizo who do much more regular maintenance on their products. What I want is neither "wildly unrealistic" nor "out of scale", and it's ridiculous of you to pretend that it is. If anyone is "comparing apples to the Titanic" here, it's you comparing bandolier changes to the functionality of an entire class.

Not to mention, you're also making the Titanic out of apples, by pretending that changing a few words to make something more playable is that far beyond the scope of their existing process for errata. Like it doesn't take a giant hit to wordcount to remove the temporary immunity from Witch Hex cantrips and give them a free basic lesson at first level. It's not a huge investment to slap Divine Access onto Oracles as a 1st level class feature. It's not a crazy change to make it so Martial Performance says that the Bard gains a higher circumstance bonus to their attacks from their own Inspire Courage than their allies do. There are many ways to quickly and easily solve the problems with these pieces of content so they remain competitive, Paizo just chose not to focus on implementing these types of easy but very effective solutions. Which is particularly frustrating when they have such easy access to the community to workshop these types of ideas.

Ultimately, I would argue that the problem with the errata process isn't even particularly with funding, just the philosophy Paizo approaches it with.

[Novem]

The Raven Black wrote:

Long-term success first needs long-term survival.

How do you want Paizo to get the money they won't make because they would be doing big patches on existing products for free instead of creating new content that they actually sell for money ?

Not sure online ads would work.

Ensuring the health of your product is important to the sustainability of your product's ability to generate profit. Or do you think game companies focus so much on patches because they're just that nice? No, they want their game to have a positive reputation so that it keeps selling to new people, bringing in customers to purchase future content and invest big on collecting older content. Just because patches like this aren't a direct form of profit generation doesn't mean they don't generate revenue. Hell, hearing there was errata coming out is what got me to even buy the PDF for the APG, whereas I'd been relying on the physical I bought when it came out. A unique situation of course and not one that's probably very common, but the point is that patches themselves drive sales of existing products for a variety of reasons.

[Novem]

SuperBidi wrote:

Novem wrote:

Of course, I'm not asking for them to change the timing on their Errata drops (though again I wouldn't argue against it) and I get their reasoning, what I want most is just for them to take these opportunities to rework old content more seriously. Particularly for such a big thing like an entire Class (The Witch) to be so weak is really bad for the health of the game. It just pushes players into stronger classes with similar thematics and that's super lame. Leaving stuff to languish like this makes the game less versatile to what players want to play. So if there's going to be so few opportunities to make changes, I think Paizo needs to be more conscious of the problems the game has and put more effort as well as resources into make changes that address those problems. I know it doesn't directly make them money, but like any modern live service game will tell you, it's important to the long-term success of your game that its fundamentals are up to snuff. That Paizo doesn't seem to understand or acknowledge that is very frustrating to me.

Around me, Witch has a lot of success, more success than some more efficient classes.

But more importantly, if you increase the power level of the Witch, what will be the next bad class in need of improvement? Balancing is a never ending process (and I've worked in the video game industry, so I'm sure about that).

Right now, the Witch it playable, it fills its intended purpose. If you prefer the Bard, then fine play a Bard. But there's nothing like an unplayable Witch. So I don't think the Witch needs an "errata". An Unchained version, why not. But it's a very different process, it's a complete class overhaul.

As I said above: Paizo choice is conservative, but that doesn't mean it's bad.

I disagree. One of the most important parts of this game and the reason I play it and try to bring new people into it is that it's a game that rarely forces you to compromise your mechanical power in order to live up to your roleplaying fantasy. If a player wants to play Witch, it shouldn't simply be a bad choice like the Witch is currently because Paizo vastly overvalues the strength of familiars. And it wouldn't take much to put them into a healthier spot, which is also why your concern about the never-ending process of balancing is kind of irrelevant in this case. Because no one thinks the Bard as it exists is weak, they wouldn't stop playing it just because the Witch was powerful. And it doesn't take a huge overhaul to fix the Witches problems, they just need a bone. Refusing to throw it isn't just conservative, it is bad for the game to refuse to maintain languishing content.

[AlastarOG]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO WHY DID YOU HAVE TO KILL LORD DOGERTON!!!!

**Tiny sprite size fists hammering the ground**

HE WAS A GOOD BOY!!! WHY CAN'T HE BE INDEPENDENT ANYMORE!!

HE WAS A GOOD BOOOYYY!!!

[Kyrone]

AlastarOG wrote:

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO WHY DID YOU HAVE TO KILL LORD DOGERTON!!!!

**Tiny sprite size fists hammering the ground**

HE WAS A GOOD BOY!!! WHY CAN'T HE BE INDEPENDENT ANYMORE!!

HE WAS A GOOD BOOOYYY!!!

And now he is a more obedient dog lol.

[AlastarOG]

Too obedient for the liking of Ser Juniper Muzzlemash !!

It changes very little anyways, I commanded him almost every round to gain that massive 1 action 80 ft. move burst. (Fast movement: land power) but it sucks I won't be able to relocate on rounds where I used my 3rd action for something else.

I just enjoy sprite drama.

[The Raven Black]

AlastarOG wrote:

Too obedient for the liking of Ser Juniper Muzzlemash !!

It changes very little anyways, I commanded him almost every round to gain that massive 1 action 80 ft. move burst. (Fast movement: land power) but it sucks I won't be able to relocate on rounds where I used my 3rd action for something else.

I just enjoy sprite drama.

If you don't command him should he not just rush out of harm's way ?

[The Raven Black]

Novem wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Long-term success first needs long-term survival.

How do you want Paizo to get the money they won't make because they would be doing big patches on existing products for free instead of creating new content that they actually sell for money ?

Not sure online ads would work.

Ensuring the health of your product is important to the sustainability of your product's ability to generate profit. Or do you think game companies focus so much on patches because they're just that nice? No, they want their game to have a positive reputation so that it keeps selling to new people, bringing in customers to purchase future content and invest big on collecting older content. Just because patches like this aren't a direct form of profit generation doesn't mean they don't generate revenue. Hell, hearing there was errata coming out is what got me to even buy the PDF for the APG, whereas I'd been relying on the physical I bought when it came out. A unique situation of course and not one that's probably very common, but the point is that patches themselves drive sales of existing products for a variety of reasons.

So how should Paizo make money to compensate for the free work ?

Sell their customers's data ?

[ottdmk]

Is it wrong that I find the lack of a fix for the Major Ghost Charge annoying? Couldn't they have squeezed in "+3 Item Bonus to Strikes" somewhere in there?

[The Raven Black]

Annoying indeed.

[AlastarOG]

The Raven Black wrote:

AlastarOG wrote:

Too obedient for the liking of Ser Juniper Muzzlemash !!

It changes very little anyways, I commanded him almost every round to gain that massive 1 action 80 ft. move burst. (Fast movement: land power) but it sucks I won't be able to relocate on rounds where I used my 3rd action for something else.

I just enjoy sprite drama.

If you don't command him should he not just rush out of harm's way ?

Does he? I assumed he just stayed in place being a familiar?

[Gisher]

Creative Burst wrote:

Gisher wrote:

keftiu wrote:

Gisher wrote:

The Daikyu now has a reload of "0" rather than "–" and it now has the propulsive trait.

That's fun; you take a Composite Longbow and trade out losing Deadly d10 for not having to deal with Volley at all. I don't know if it's a great trade (is Volley a big deal? I don't feel like I've ever heard about it), but at least the Daikyu has an identity now.

Avoiding volley without needing access to point-blank shot seems nice, but I'm not clear how you get access to a Daikyu. It's weird that it still lacks the monk trait. I thought it was intended for use with Monastic Archer Stance. (It's also weird that this line is still in the description despite the fact that the game doesn't have any rules for facing: "Using a daikyu while mounted limits its ring range to your left side.")

It uncommon because it sense it a real world Japanese weapon and would be from Tian Xia not the Inner Sea.

Yeah, but I really thought it was intended for the monk stance. It does appear that there is a way to get access for those playing PFS.

[Gisher]

HumbleGamer wrote:

Gisher wrote:

The Dragon Disciple's feat, Scales of the Dragon, has changed from a +2 status bonus with a +2 Dex cap to a +2 item bonus with a +3 Dex cap and it stacks with the item bonus from Runes. So pretty similar to the CRB change to Mountain Stance.

Expected ( and still a pretty solid feat ).

...

Much improved from my point of view. After Mountain Stance changed, it was clear Scales weren't going to remain a Status bonus and the +4 total was weird. The increase in the Dex cap puts it in line with other options.