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).
Thanks. I understand where this was coming from now. I read this at like 6am and was only really looking out for scare to death as my group raised this in our chat as two of us use it
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are a lot of good things in there. Let's not forget that. I also appreciate that errata and changes happen at all.
One thing that I think would be useful in the future is to separate out error corrections from actual changes.
For example, changing the Champion feat to match the Quick Shield Block of Fighter feat is an errata style change. Similarly, additional examples would fall into this category - such as the example that Assurance can be used on downtime activities.
Actual changes or patches would be things like: Changing Scare to Death to make the death effect only happen on double criticals. Increasing the speed of Pest Form. Those are noticeably and meaningfully different than what the rules said before. Also for things where it was intended that it always worked that way, but the rules didn't actually say that - such as the change to flanking, or adding the Animal trait to standard Animal Companions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They dedicated an entire bit to explaining summoned minions, and yet still didn't clarify whether minions can be quickened or slowed.
I think the RAI is: It barely matters. A Minion can only take 2 actions per turn. So it usually doesn't matter whether it has 3 (without Conditions), 4 (quickened) or 2 actions (slowed 1).
So basically a Minion gets 3 actions per turn as everyone else and can modify that number by the quickened/slowed/stunned conditions. But since it can only ever use two actions when commanded, the conditions don't matter unless you go into slowed 2+ or stunned 2+ territory.
That's how I'll rum it, anyway.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Welp I went back and crunched the numbers and nimble companions AC going down by two doesn't even the playing field all that much (imo). My endgame ranger has 44 AC and my endgame savage trex has 38. The endgame nimble companion has 42 AC after this change (down from 44). A 40 percent swing in damage recieved is still too much for me to stomach. But hey, maybe the axtra damage from the strength route evens it all out. I wouldn't like that trade but others might. Indomitable closes the gap by two but you lose out on to hit for attempting parity.......nimble my pets remain
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now the question is "do melee spell attacks benefit from flanking?"
That has been made unclear. I imagine most of us will say yes, but there is an argument to be made for no.
The update to Boundless Reprisals (Fighter 20 feat) is interesting. No more spamming Champion's Reactions (which I admit seemed like an unintended synergy)! :sob:
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
They dedicated an entire bit to explaining summoned minions, and yet still didn't clarify whether minions can be quickened or slowed.I think the RAI is: It barely matters. A Minion can only take 2 actions per turn. So it usually doesn't matter whether it has 3 (without Conditions), 4 (quickened) or 2 actions (slowed 1).
So basically a Minion gets 3 actions per turn as everyone else and can modify that number by the quickened/slowed/stunned conditions. But since it can only ever use two actions when commanded, the conditions don't matter unless you go into slowed 2+ or stunned 2+ territory.
That's how I'll rum it, anyway.
I've encountered all manner of variation on how GMs run it, so I can't critique you, but I'll point out that makes summoned Zombies much more effective than I would imagine the Designers intended.
Welp I went back and crunched the numbers and nimble companions AC going down by two doesn't even the playing field all that much (imo). My endgame ranger has 44 AC and my endgame savage trex has 38. The endgame nimble companion has 42 AC after this change (down from 44). A 40 percent swing in damage recieved is still too much for me to stomach. But hey, maybe the axtra damage from the strength route evens it all out. I wouldn't like that trade but others might. Indomitable closes the gap by two but you lose out on to hit for attempting parity.......nimble my pets remain
In practice this closes the Animal Companion to Summon Spells. For example a Black Scorpion has same AC of a Savage Trex but with considerably more HP + Black Scorpion Venom + Rapid Stinging or an Animated Colossus that have series of immunities (death effects, disease, doomed, drained, fatigued, healing, mental, necromancy, nonlethal attacks, paralyzed, poison, sickened, unconscious), AC 39, Hardness 15, Grab while attack and also have more HP than a Savage Companion or an Adult Gold Dragon that also has 38 AC but have 150% of HP of an Animal Companion, can Breath, can Fly and has Draconic Frenzy.
The nimble companion don't have much more AC than these creatures making then more "competitive". (But yes I know that these creatures requires a lvl 10 spell but you also don't need to worry if they will die and will not spend action to heal them like you need to do with an Animal Companion that receives a critical hit).
| 1 person 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
I want to be hopeful and take the AC stuff as a preliminary change due to Treasure Vault. I really hope we get items to boost AC AC further there as a way to bring both Nimble and Savage up to pre-errata Nimble standards.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that, with the changes made to Scare to Death, it makes more sense to apply the Incapacitation trait to the Fortitude save rather than to the entire feat, same as they did with the feat's Death trait. Having it on the entire trait makes a Critical Success impossible against a boss, so having it apply to the Fortitude save as well is redundant. As it is now, though, it makes Scare to Death actually worse against higher level enemies than standard Demoralize, since skill feats like Intimidating Glare, Intimidating Prowess, and Terrifying Resistance all specifically only work with Coerce/Demoralize, and the entire action can be wasted if something gets a Critical Success against the Fortitude save.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also like that ghostly weapon is no longer DOA! It being a level 3 spell meant you could only get it starting at level 5, which is a full level after everyone's already got their striking runes. You'd have to be deliberately carrying around non-magical weapons in case of ghosts, and if you had reason to expect them, you would probably just get a ghost touch rune anyway.
Errata: "Specific magic armor and weapons say you can't etch a property rune, but you also can't remove a property rune or transfer a property rune to or from a specific armor or weapon."
Does/doesn't this leave room for upgrading a property rune that's present?
Fundamental Runes: "...though etching a stronger rune can upgrade an existing rune to the more powerful version (as described in each rune’s entry). As you level up, you typically alternate between increasing an item’s potency rune and its striking or resilient rune when you can afford to."
Note the change in verb in the errata:
Can't etch X; also can't remove or transfer Y.
Upgrading an existing rune consists of etching a stronger rune (Y).
Then the final sentence clarifies that this is about increasing an item's potency rune, not replacing it (which would fall into the disallowed remove/transfer category).
Which is to say I interpret this as it's fine to upgrade the fundamental runes on specific magic arms and armor; you just can't shift runes to or from a different item. So you couldn't use looted runes for this, nor loot runes from specific magic weapons/armor either.
(Not only does this seem the rigorous reading, but it also keeps from undermining the continued value of specific magic armor/weapons. Who'd ever use one as their signature weapon/armor?)
I want to be hopeful and take the AC stuff as a preliminary change due to Treasure Vault. I really hope we get items to boost AC AC further there as a way to bring both Nimble and Savage up to pre-errata Nimble standards.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
Like has been stated in the past with item bonuses to spell attack rolls, math fixing items that could make the Animal Companions "more viable" don't have much of a place outside of the CRB - or at least the "core books" of Bestiaries, CRB, and APG.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like has been stated in the past with item bonuses to spell attack rolls, math fixing items that could make the Animal Companions "more viable" don't have much of a place outside of the CRB - or at least the "core books" of Bestiaries, CRB, and APG.I want to be hopeful and take the AC stuff as a preliminary change due to Treasure Vault. I really hope we get items to boost AC AC further there as a way to bring both Nimble and Savage up to pre-errata Nimble standards.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
Shadow signet ?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even with the nerf Nimble Animal companions ends with 42AC that is the same as caster full of runes at lvl 20 instead of 44, effectively it will have the same AC as a martial until lvl 19 that is when those get master in armor.
It also avoids the weird thing that Animal Companions had higher AC than players on mid game.
Like has been stated in the past with item bonuses to spell attack rolls, math fixing items that could make the Animal Companions "more viable" don't have much of a place outside of the CRB - or at least the "core books" of Bestiaries, CRB, and APG.I want to be hopeful and take the AC stuff as a preliminary change due to Treasure Vault. I really hope we get items to boost AC AC further there as a way to bring both Nimble and Savage up to pre-errata Nimble standards.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
I don't think it is that far fetched to think they no longer thing that seeing they actually nerfed the portion of AC that were actually viable at high levels.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even with the nerf Nimble Animal companions ends with 42AC that is the same as caster full of runes at lvl 20 instead of 44, effectively it will have the same AC as a martial until lvl 19 that is when those get master in armor.
It also avoids the weird thing that Animal Companions had higher AC than players on mid game.
Yea...savage companions get 5 more damage (with one less to hit) and are large. I'm not convinced that's worth 4 AC. Maybe 1 or 2
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I, for one, am glad that the color scheme of the robe of the archmagi has been updated.
Yea...savage companions get 5 more damage (with one less to hit) and are large. I'm not convinced that's worth 4 AC. Maybe 1 or 2Even with the nerf Nimble Animal companions ends with 42AC that is the same as caster full of runes at lvl 20 instead of 44, effectively it will have the same AC as a martial until lvl 19 that is when those get master in armor.
It also avoids the weird thing that Animal Companions had higher AC than players on mid game.
The easy fix is to remove the expert in armor from specific specializations and just put it as a feature of specialized companions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hold up, didn't Scare to Death also get buffed in a sense? The critical success result now frightens and causes fleeing even on a critical success save.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hold up, didn't Scare to Death also get buffed in a sense? The critical success result now frightens and causes fleeing even on a critical success save.
Well it was rather odd before I guess, that on a success the enemy would be frightened and on a critical success they could turn out to be not frightened.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hold up, didn't Scare to Death also get buffed in a sense? The critical success result now frightens and causes fleeing even on a critical success save.
If you get a Critical Success on your check and they get a Critical Success on their save, nothing happens.
If you get a Critical Success on your check and they get a Success on their save, then they run away.
But the whole thing has Incapacitation, so best of luck to ya'.
|
|
Actually, batimpact is right. On any result other than a Critical Failure, they are Frightened 2 and Fleeing for 1 round, so they don't negate the entire thing if they Critically Succeed on their Fortitude save. I missed that.
That said, it's still kind of a bummer, since the only thing that gets you over Terrified Retreat is that it affects enemies that are the same level as you instead of only ones that are below your level. And since you can't apply Intimidating Glare or Intimidating Prowess, you're much less likely to get a Critical Success anyway. They also don't apply the Frightened condition until after they make the save.
Hold up, didn't Scare to Death also get buffed in a sense? The critical success result now frightens and causes fleeing even on a critical success save.Well it was rather odd before I guess, that on a success the enemy would be frightened and on a critical success they could turn out to be not frightened.
It happened to me once and it was hilarious in retrospect. At the time though, we went from super pumped at the crucial critical to super bummed nothing happened. I always regretted not going for Demoralize instead.
|
|
It's got all these weird effects of it being its own action. A Braggart Swashbuckler also doesn't gain Panache for using Scare to Death, even if they kill something with it, nor do they get to apply any of their Panache bonuses to the check. The plus side is that enemies have separate immunities to each, so you can effectively Demoralize somebody twice in a single encounter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, batimpact is right. On any result other than a Critical Failure, they are Frightened 2 and Fleeing for 1 round, so they don't negate the entire thing if they Critically Succeed on their Fortitude save. I missed that.
That's not correct I'm afraid. A Critical Success on their SAVE means nothing happens.
The total results are as follows:
Critically Failed Intimidate Check - Nothing happens.
Failed Intimidate Check - Target is Frightened 1.
Successful Intimidate Check - Target is Frightened 2.
Critical Success with Intimidate Check AND Target Critically Succeeds on Their Save - Nothing happens.
Critical Success with Intimidate Check AND Target Succeeds on Their Save - Target is Frightened 2 and Fleeing for 1 Round.
Critical Success with Intimidate Check AND Target Fails Their Save - Target dies.
Critical Success with Intimidate Check AND target Critically Fails Their Save - Target dies.
EDIT: Never mind. I'm reading the AoN entry thinking it had the errata applied already. It does not, even though the errata does seem to appear elsewhere. They're probably still rolling it out. I'm quoting old rules it seems. Ignore me.
| 8 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.
Reminds me of the playtest when one of the devs said that eliminating bonus spell slots was actually doing spellcasters a favor by making their lives simpler. Uh...then why didn't you raise the baseline spell slots for a more or less neutral effect?
Look, pick my pocket if you can get away with it, but don't ask me to thank you for it.
| 2 people 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.
I, on the other hand, ONLY believe in two critical fails/successes if incapacitate is involved.
For scare to death:
Well overall Scare to death did not synergise with any other intimidate skill feats really, and I think that's on purpose since its much better.
Demoralize has incredible synergy with skill feats and ancestry feats, scare to death has great potential for a single action, but yeah, it has its flaws.
You can use both in coordination though, and if you fail demoralize you can then pick up scare to death since they're not immune.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The good thing is that now a skill isn't better than actual magic so that's a plus. Except I wish that they had buffed magic not nerfed scare to death.
Remember, enemies/NPC would get the same level of offense/auto-kill in return, and they often are high enough to ignore Incapacitation. :-O
Imagine a party facing two at-level enemies spamming the original version of Scare to Death (or whatever buffed magic you're envisaging). Not a fun experience IMO.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As someone who likes Intimidation, I approve of the Scare to Death change. Removing the death trait makes it more useable, and if the use critically succeeds at their check there is no longer any chance for nothing to happen.
I think RAI was that StD is better Demoralize, except against higher-level foes because incapacitation StD doesn't have the same support. But you wanted both because the target would gain temporary immunity.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nimble losing -2 AC is rough but still workable. They end up -2 or -1 behind light/medium armor martials once the PC gets master armor proficiency and are on par until then.
I really wish savage at least got to get expert barding with this though. They would still be 2-3 AC behind Nimble which is getting below caster AC. As is they are still at least 4 AC below nimble which the errata seems to imply they aren't anymore? How they are now, being stuck at trained AC with only +6 from barding + Dex (38 AC at level 20 vs 44 for a martial PC) means nearly any attack that would hit a PC will crit and everything but what would be a crit miss will hit a Savage companion.
I was unhappy with the scare to death changes when first reading them given I have a level 19 Ruffian with close to max intimidate
However I used the new version yesterday on a level 17 graveknight - which is now possible due to the removal of the death effect. It had just done loads of damage to the swashbuckler but instead had to run on it’s turn triggering 3 AOOs and dying horribly
In four levels I don’t think I have bothered to use it on a higher level foe - just like I wouldn’t really with phantasmal killer. So the comments in that area of the discussion don’t bother me
I was also concerned that the death part would never work in the new format but my group pointed out that they were pretty sure many people I used it against in the past have indeed crit failed. A combo of never really using it without a debuff being applied (such as standard demoralise) and targeting a level -2 or -3 enemy. At the kind of level we are talking about it is still a one action to effectively deal triple digit hit point damage. It’s satisfying to see foundry flash up with -180 or something like that . The graveknight crit failed the first time as well (obviously to no impact in this case)
And I appear to have undervalued to fleeing part - to the extent I haven’t taken the intimidate skill feat that allows me to do that - i usually prefer the enemy where I or an ally can kill them. But I might reassess
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's still a problem with that skill: a target that is immune to death effects would rather critical fail the fortitude roll (resulting in no effect) than pass it (resulting in it fleeing). It doesn't make much sense.
No big loss to our groups. We never assumed ranged flanking in the first place.
(You dirty, dirty minmaxers you.) /jest
Shadow signet ?Like has been stated in the past with item bonuses to spell attack rolls, math fixing items that could make the Animal Companions "more viable" don't have much of a place outside of the CRB - or at least the "core books" of Bestiaries, CRB, and APG.I want to be hopeful and take the AC stuff as a preliminary change due to Treasure Vault. I really hope we get items to boost AC AC further there as a way to bring both Nimble and Savage up to pre-errata Nimble standards.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
I think we'll see some great companion items that make animal companions stronger, more versatile, and able to spend more money on. But I don't think we'll see anything that boosts Animal Companion AC - at least not by more than 1.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think in general when reading the commentary Paizo embeds into the FAQ that you should view it as targeting the collective community rather than an individual -- "There was confusion"..."There was ambiguity", and "we clarify" -- is in general saying that they acknowledge that multiple readings existed and that they failed initially to make it clear which reading was intended. Its not saying "you [poster X] were confused/wrong". Or if you want to still read it as an individual focus, think of it like "[We're sorry we] confused you, here's what we meant."
At least to me, when read as a "collective" it doesn't feel insulting/dismissive. But when read as a personal/singular target it does.
The commentary really just sounds like they didn't want to write the same "We weren't as clear as we would have liked, here's the intent" on every line and looked for other ways of expressing the same idea (some better/some worse).