| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As the title says, I just downloaded the new 3rd printing PDF of the Core Rulebook, but the official page for the book doesn't show a new list of errata. Hopefully we'll get some errata soon!
The errata ( (3rd printing)) is already posted.
Indeed! https://paizo.com/pathfinder/faq
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So. Horses no longer boost damage from spells, but you still don't actually have to be riding it.
And still no clarification on how long commands to a minion last when not in combat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, no more getting flanking bonus with a whip and then firing crossbows, firearms, or spells at the target.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The speed boost to Pest Form is nice.
Also,
Page 451, 621: There are a lot of questions about persistent damage. Check the CRB FAQ for more information, but the one thing that we're adding in errata is explicitly stating " Like normal damage, it can be doubled or halved based on the results of an attack roll or saving throw."
Is there a separate CRB FAQ that I am not aware of? I thought that is what this page is. So currently it feels like a very circular reference.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Noooo my horse adjacent sorcerer build is now officially defunct!
But yeah I agree with a lot of this:
Meteor swarm is officially not super good against huge creatures.
Horse support is clarified.
Scare to death gets the nerf it deserves.
Nimble AC are not the go to choice anymore.
Still reading
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
They have made some major clarifications and changes.
Battle forms are now limited in their strikes not attacks. So wild shaped Druid gorillas can now shove and grapple. Something I have been complaining about since the start, and everyone did anyway. So thankyou.
Resolving the animal companion AC by errata to lower the AC of Nimble Animal Companions is not what I would have done. I think that has really stuffed them up. I expect a lot of complaints on this.
Leshy Rogues can now sneak attack with their seedpods
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wizard Archetype would let you pick Universalist instead of choosing a School - just like a full Wizard, yes? Otherwise Hand of the Apprentice and Uiversal Versatility are unreachable.
They can take common spells from all sources like always.
They just suggest limiting the spell list if you want.
I'm also slightly confused on how clerics and druids are going to be doing their casting now. Can they just pick their spells from anywhere or are they still limited to the CRB, or wha?
Same as AlastarOG said. I don't think this is actually a change for these two classes - just a clarification.
Cleric and Druid automatically know all of the common spells of their tradition. From any source books that the GM is allowing in the game. They have to gain access and Learn a Spell to be able to use any Uncommon/Rare spells.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, no Wishing for rituals now explicit. Shame, but understandable.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bummer for drifters that can't benefit from flanking with their suggested point-blank gameplay. Stab and blast is good enough already I suppose.
The difficulty with their errata here is that they said it was "ambiguous". No it wasn't. It was clear. Just not what they wanted.
I find it difficult to deal with incorrect information like this in a polite manner.| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I never really understood why Paizo has such a habit of trying to gaslight people with their errata, but they've been doing it since PF1.
Most of the changes seem nice overall, though I'm a little surprised that their solution to savage companions having bad AC was to just nerf all the other companions.
... Wasn't Paizo talking about making some additional changes to the Alchemist a few weeks ago? I don't see any mention of them in the FAQ document.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Though I wonder how this will impact indomitable companions.
As far as I can tell, it won't affect Indomitable. It already doesn't change their unarmored proficiency.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Animal companion nerfs hurt....but hey, the choice between a trex and a raptor is an actual choice now. I'm all for not feeling kneecapped for picking a strength companion over a dex one. You son of a gun, IM IN!!!
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing should definitely be clarified.
Page 151: The Knockdown feat's wording made it ambiguous whether you were actually Tripping, which left it uncertain whether you apply any special effects and requirements related to the Trip action. To make it clear, change it to say "If you do and your Strike hits, instead of rolling a check for your Trip attempt, you automatically apply the critical success effect of a Trip."
Improved Knockdown is on page 151, but Knockdown is the feat that's listed as being changed. This would be a serious upgrade to Knockdown if that's the feat that should indeed be changed, and make Improved Knockdown pretty obsolete.
For some reason, both PDFs for the 2nd and 3rd prints both have their first chapter's main text show up as bold in at least both the macOS and iOS...
So if we buy a hardcopy from Paizo, will it be the 3rd printing?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Though I wonder how this will impact indomitable companions.As far as I can tell, it won't affect Indomitable. It already doesn't change their unarmored proficiency.
It's like that have different teams of people at Paizo that aren't talking to each other. Nimble was OK. They errated Indomitable to bring it up to that level. The others like Savage were too low. So they nerf Nimble leaving Indomitable!
It still doesn't fix that they are now no Animal Companions from level 14 with an AC close to martial characters. I get that they should be a couple of points behind, but once it gets much worse than an AC difference of 2 the animal companion is just there to get critically hit. I'll have to dig out the numbers again.
Bummer for drifters that can't benefit from flanking with their suggested point-blank gameplay. Stab and blast is good enough already I suppose.The difficulty with their errata here is that they said it was "ambiguous". No it wasn't. It was clear. Just not what they wanted.
I find it difficult to deal with incorrect information like this in a polite manner.
It was definitely ambigious because if you thought about it other game mechanics weren't designed around that concept applying to ranged attacks.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It was definitely ambigious because if you thought about it other game mechanics weren't designed around that concept applying to ranged attacks.Bummer for drifters that can't benefit from flanking with their suggested point-blank gameplay. Stab and blast is good enough already I suppose.The difficulty with their errata here is that they said it was "ambiguous". No it wasn't. It was clear. Just not what they wanted.
I find it difficult to deal with incorrect information like this in a polite manner.
How do you tell that? Flatfooted and Prone give you penalties against ranged attacks. Which mechanic are you referring too?
Intent has nothing to do with ambiguity. But I'm not even sure about intent.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
It was definitely ambigious because if you thought about it other game mechanics weren't designed around that concept applying to ranged attacks.Bummer for drifters that can't benefit from flanking with their suggested point-blank gameplay. Stab and blast is good enough already I suppose.The difficulty with their errata here is that they said it was "ambiguous". No it wasn't. It was clear. Just not what they wanted.
I find it difficult to deal with incorrect information like this in a polite manner.
That'd be ambiguous RAI, not RAW. RAW it was pretty straight forward how it worked mechanically.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For some reason, both PDFs for the 2nd and 3rd prints both have their first chapter's main text show up as bold in at least both the macOS and iOS...
That's been a thing since the 2nd printing. I and several others have pointed it out multiple times, and it's been noted by Paizo staff... but it's still there. No idea why.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It was definitely ambigious because if you thought about it other game mechanics weren't designed around that concept applying to ranged attacks.Bummer for drifters that can't benefit from flanking with their suggested point-blank gameplay. Stab and blast is good enough already I suppose.The difficulty with their errata here is that they said it was "ambiguous". No it wasn't. It was clear. Just not what they wanted.
I find it difficult to deal with incorrect information like this in a polite manner.How do you tell that? Flatfooted and Prone give you penalties against ranged attacks. Which mechanic are you referring too?
Intent has nothing to do with ambiguity. But I'm not even sure about intent.
Produce Flame springs to mind. I can't think of any mechanical significance to this bit if you could flank at range: Make a spell attack roll against your target’s AC. This is normally a ranged attack, but you can also make a melee attack against a creature in your unarmed reach.
I agree with you this wasn't ambiguous, though, just unintended. I liked the unintended result, personally, as having two guns pointed at me from either side should in fact be harder to dodge than two right next to each other.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I'm glad Scare to Death isn't as auto-picky as it used to beIt still is, and for the same reason it was before- there are very few skill feats worth taking for most characters.
Few skill feats worth it? I have a level 12 Poppet Rogue at the moment in a Ruby Phoenix game. So lots of skill feats, and I'm still agonizing over a couple I want but can't afford.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I never really understood why Paizo has such a habit of trying to gaslight people with their errata, but they've been doing it since PF1.
Oy, don't remind me. The whole claim that "characters and creatures could never stealth cast with their spell-like abilities" in PF1 even though their stealth casting errata "fix" broke numerous characters and creatures that then could not function properly unless stealth casting with spell-like abilities (or spells without components) was assumed to be possible.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I never really understood why Paizo has such a habit of trying to gaslight people with their errata, but they've been doing it since PF1.
Most of the changes seem nice overall, though I'm a little surprised that their solution to savage companions having bad AC was to just nerf all the other companions.
... Wasn't Paizo talking about making some additional changes to the Alchemist a few weeks ago? I don't see any mention of them in the FAQ document.
I don’t understand what this comment means here? Not disagreeing necessarily but how does “gaslighting” fit in this context ? Perhaps it is just too early to read this
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don’t understand what this comment means here? Not disagreeing necessarily but how does “gaslighting” fit in this context ? Perhaps it is just too early to read thisYeah, I never really understood why Paizo has such a habit of trying to gaslight people with their errata, but they've been doing it since PF1.
Most of the changes seem nice overall, though I'm a little surprised that their solution to savage companions having bad AC was to just nerf all the other companions.
... Wasn't Paizo talking about making some additional changes to the Alchemist a few weeks ago? I don't see any mention of them in the FAQ document.
Yeah, considering how much "vigorous" debate there's been over if ranged attacks can provide flanking in melee range on this forum alone, it's pretty wack to misuse a term like gaslighting when it's obviously something that has been unclear to a lot of people.
| 17 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's no misuse. Telling someone that they're confused, and you're merely clarifying how something works when you've clearly changed something fundamentally is pretty much textbook (doubly so when we've already had comments from Paizo developers on the subject and the potential need for a change).
At the absolute best it's kind of condescending and at the worst downright manipulative. If it were a one off on a slightly contentious topic like this, the use of problematic language would probably be easy to write off as suggested, but it's something Paizo has track record of doing, both in PF2 and PF1 (it's not even the only example in this errata document).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Knockdown change is hard to read in the FAQ. It is a change to the Improved Knowdown Feat not the Knockdown Feat. It now reads:
You can dash your foe to the ground with a single blow. When
you use Knockdown, instead of making a Strike followed by
a Trip, you can attempt a single Strike. If you do and your
Strike hits, instead of rolling a check for your Trip attempt,
you automatically apply the critical success effect of a Trip. If
you used a two-handed melee weapon for the Strike, you can
use the weapon’s damage die size instead of the regular die
size for the damage from a critical Trip.
I find the original wording perfectly OK. But whatever.
You can dash your foe to the ground with a single blow. When
you use Knockdown, instead of making a Strike followed by a
Trip, you can attempt a single Strike. If you do and your Strike
hits, you also apply the critical success effect of a Trip. If you
used a two-handed melee weapon for the Strike, you can use
the weapon’s damage die size instead of the regular die size
for the damage from a critical Trip.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hi, anyone know if there's a "patch notes" list of what has changed in the 3rd printing?
edit:
NVM - turns out that Paizo and I use the word errata differently...
Please avoid turn this personal and aggressive/offensive/toxic in some way.
Many people here, including myself, never considered the Flanking rule ambiguous. For us they was clear about allow flanking and there was no rules preventing you from benefit from this using range or non-melee spell attacks.
But I agree that call the errata as a "gaslit" is too much. Now we know that Paizo designers never intended that this rule works benefiting non-melee attacks in anyway now they put this by RAW is officially not allowing it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Knockdown change is hard to read in the FAQ. It is a change to the Improved Knowdown Feat not the Knockdown Feat. It now reads:
You can dash your foe to the ground with a single blow. When
you use Knockdown, instead of making a Strike followed by
a Trip, you can attempt a single Strike. If you do and your
Strike hits, instead of rolling a check for your Trip attempt,
you automatically apply the critical success effect of a Trip. If
you used a two-handed melee weapon for the Strike, you can
use the weapon’s damage die size instead of the regular die
size for the damage from a critical Trip.I find the original wording perfectly OK. But whatever.
You can dash your foe to the ground with a single blow. When
you use Knockdown, instead of making a Strike followed by a
Trip, you can attempt a single Strike. If you do and your Strike
hits, you also apply the critical success effect of a Trip. If you
used a two-handed melee weapon for the Strike, you can use
the weapon’s damage die size instead of the regular die size
for the damage from a critical Trip.
Actually, this might be a nerf. By the original wording, you bypass a trip attempt entirely and apply the trip result to the initial attack. This had the bonus effect of not incrementing MAP for the trip. Now though, there is a distinct trip which instead has a fixed outcome. There's still no actual roll, but now it might increment MAP because there is a discrete second attack happening.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alright, I will try to avoid using that term due to its apparant history and associations.
Nevertheless, Paizo has been known to change how the rules worked and then claim after the fact that "it always worked that way" despite a plethora of evidence in their own articles, in the rules text, and in their own correspondence contradicting any such notion.
The worst case that I can recall being the aforementioned "Stealth casting" changes that were made well into PF1's history, though there were other examples of blatant manipulation of public awareness as well.
And that's all I'll say on the matter as I recognize it to be off topic.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh hey Synaptic Pulse confirmed to only affect enemies.
Cool I won that argument from years ago. :P XD
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I'm glad Scare to Death isn't as auto-picky as it used to be while still being useful.Probably true (never got to it myself), but they should have also changed the name of the feat to 'Scare a lot' for example. Or "Better Demoralize' (it is better, right?) Because I just don't believe in two critical fails/successes with Incapacitate.
Agree that the name is now misleading (especially as someone who has got a lot of mileage out of this feat to date)