Dark Archive errata thread


Rules Discussion

51 to 100 of 227 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

More of a FAQ than an errata, but since they seem to be the same things these days...

Ok, I have a question on swapping implements. "you can quickly switch it with another implement you’re wearing to use an action from the implement you’re switching to.": what exactly is "an action from the implement"? Is it limited to the actions from the implement section, like a weapons Implement’s Interruption reaction? Or is it any action, like a Strike with the Weapon implement? If I have a Book and a Lantern implement and I make a Recall Info check, can I swap in both implements on the check [assuming Recall in an "action from the implement]? Or can you swap them at all without 2 full interact action [stow and draw] as they don't have specific action listed?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:

More of a FAQ than an errata, but since they seem to be the same things these days...

Ok, I have a question on swapping implements. "you can quickly switch it with another implement you’re wearing to use an action from the implement you’re switching to.": what exactly is "an action from the implement"? Is it limited to the actions from the implement section, like a weapons Implement’s Interruption reaction? Or is it any action, like a Strike with the Weapon implement? If I have a Book and a Lantern implement and I make a Recall Info check, can I swap in both implements on the check [assuming Recall in an "action from the implement]? Or can you swap them at all without 2 full interact action [stow and draw] as they don't have specific action listed?

The wording in that Second Implement ability consistently refers to the implement's action in a possessive context

"While you're holding an implement in one hand, you can quickly switch it with another implement you're wearing to use an action from the implement you're switching to. To do so, you can Interact as a free action immediately before executing the implement's action. This allows you to meet requirements of having an implement in hand to use its action. For example, if you had your lantern implement in one hand, a weapon in the other, and a chalice implement you were wearing, you could swap your lantern for your chalice to use its reaction."

I think the weapon's Implement's Interruption reaction qualifies, but maybe not normal strikes with the weapon since that's not "the implement's action", merely an action you can make with a weapon, but I could see other GMs allowing it. I don't think swapping both implements in would be okay re: your book & lantern example (if a GM allowed swapping them in to benefit from the bonus to begin with - which I wouldn't argue against because otherwise those implements are feelsbad re: swapping), because you would be making two free actions on one trigger, the same Recall Knowledge check


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Baarogue wrote:
The wording in that Second Implement ability consistently refers to the implement's action in a possessive context

I can see it being read that way but that means that you can NEVER quickly swap a lantern, regalia or tome as they have no new action attached to them. This could be correct but feels... odd so I wanted to add it to the list especially as a casual read "the implement's action" as a swing with a sword, shining a lantern or reading a tome as that action. We'll have to see if we get any reply what they intended it to mean.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Baarogue wrote:
The wording in that Second Implement ability consistently refers to the implement's action in a possessive context
I can see it being read that way but that means that you can NEVER quickly swap a lantern, regalia or tome as they have no new action attached to them. This could be correct but feels... odd so I wanted to add it to the list especially as a casual read "the implement's action" as a swing with a sword, shining a lantern or reading a tome as that action. We'll have to see if we get any reply what they intended it to mean.

the tome does get an action at level 7 but that's just me being pedantic lol. I get you about those imps feeling left out in the cold unless a GM allows swapping for "associated actions" like the recall knowledge because the imp specifically mentions giving it a bonus. I would still balk at allowing swapping a weapon in for everyday strikes

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I read "the implement's action" and "an action from the implement" as an action that the implement specifically provides.

Otherwise, they could have written "an action with the implement".

So, Implement as a source for the action. Not Implement merely as means to the action.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

In the description for Second Implement on page 34, the example says you can swap from your lantern to your chalice as a free action "to use its reaction" but the Chalice does not have a reaction.

The playtest version of this text referenced the Amulet instead, which does have a reaction (the text is identical except for switching amulet with chalice).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Does the Thaumaturge feat "Paired Link" allow you to use the Chalice's action to give temp hp to your paired ally at 30 ft?

The chalice sip/drink does not list a range (only says adjacent) but I don't see any other Thaumaturge actions with a range of touch either so it seems strange that this feat just only works with spells when it also lists Thaumaturge abilities.

As a GM I would rule it does work for the Chalice and "Root to Life" (the mental image of a Thaumturge drinking the chalice but it healing their ally 30 ft away is cool and still not overly powerful since you are only paired with one ally.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

[duplicated from my original post in the wrong area of the forums]

The Oscillating Wave conscious mind for the Psychic class - The Conservation of Energy feature says that for the first granted spell or psi cantrip in an encounter, you must choose if you're adding or removing energy, then implies (though doesn't outright state) that for all further granted spells or psi cantrips you alternate between adding and removing.

Quote:

Adding Energy: The ability gains the fire trait, any damage it deals is fire damage, and any resistance it grants is to cold damage. It loses any traits matching damage types it no longer deals.

Removing Energy: The ability gains the cold trait, any damage it deals is cold damage, and any resistance it grants is to fire damage. It loses any traits matching damage types it no longer deals. Fiery body grants ray of frost instead of produce flame when cast this way.

All well and good, except most of the unique psi cantrips involve both fire and cold. For example:

Quote:

THERMAL STASIS CANTRIP 1

Cast [one-action] verbal Range 60 feet; Targets 1 creature Duration until the start of your next turn The same abilities that let you raise or lower thermal energy also let you keep it at a safe medium. The target gains resistance 2 against fire damage and resistance 2 against cold damage.
Heightened (+1) Each resistance increases by 2.

Why does the heightened entry refer to "each resistance" when it's impossible for the cantrip to provide both resistances, since the psychic needs to either be adding or removing energy, meaning it will be providing resistance 2 to either fire or cold damage (and further than that it's providing it twice, which is redundant anyway!)

Another example:

Quote:

REDISTRIBUTE POTENTIAL CANTRIP 5

Cast [two-actions] somatic, verbal Range 60 feet; Area 2 adjacent 5-foot squares Saving Throw basic Fortitude Energy attempts to balance out, but with your magic, you can shunt all the energy in one area to another. Creatures in either area take 4d4 damage with a basic Fortitude save. Choose one of the squares to steal heat, dealing cold damage, and the other to concentrate the stolen heat, dealing fire damage. A creature that fails its save also becomes clumsy 1 from numbness if it’s in the area of stolen heat or enfeebled 1 from heat stroke if it’s in the area of concentrated heat; these conditions last until the start of your next turn. If a creature is large enough to be in both squares, you choose only one of the areas for it to attempt its save against; it’s unaffected by the other area.

Again, why refer to a large creature being in both areas, when the cantrip can't have both fire and cold at the same time due to the requirements of conservation of energy?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cordell Kintner wrote:

On the topic of Oscillating Wave:

Technically, you only have to remove energy after adding it. Nothing stops you from constantly removing energy, meaning you can just cast Cold spells over and over.

This bears revisiting, because it's almost correct and neither the way you're reading it nor the way it's written is what they intended.

Conservation of Energy wrote:

Energy can't be created or destroyed, only transferred or changed. Whenever you use your magic to add or remove energy, you must then balance it with the opposing force. The first time in an encounter that you cast a granted spell from your conscious mind or a psi cantrip, decide whether you're adding energy or removing it. Once you add energy, you must remove energy the next time you cast one of these spells. When you Refocus, you restore yourself to a neutral state, allowing you to once again freely choose wehre you add or remove energy on your next spell.

The italicized line is clearly what they want to happen - you cast fire/cold first, then alternate thereafter. But that's not what the rules that follow actually do.

Instead:

1. Choose add energy (fire) or remove (cold).
2. IF you chose add (fire) you must then remove energy (cold).
3. Wjhen you refocus, you're freely to choose your next spell.

But nothing in 2 compells you to do fire if you first do cold! If you decide to remove energy, you don't have to add energy next. And nothing allows let alone compels you to change the elements of a spell except in the specific and nonrepeatable example of starting with fire and then removing cold once, or starting with cold but then having, apparently, to do the regular damage of the base spell thereafter.

Obviously the intent at the beginning and end of Conservation of Energy is that that you swap every time. But the rules in between don't support it. (And we still have the issue of how to handle the two dual energy cantrips.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Since Conservation of Energy reads like it's mandatory ("...decide whether you're adding energy or removing it."), I'm of a mind that Redistribute Potential makes both area hot, or both areas cold, thus destroying any flavor the cantrip has.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The Curse Maelstrom does not have text to specify what the DC of its abilities are, with the only mention of the DC being for innate spells and not any of the other abilities.
Also, the Counter Curse uses the higher of your class DC and spell DC for the counteract modifier, but that should probably be DC - 10 (unless you are meant to guarantee success?).


Pathfinder PF Special Edition Subscriber

Morass of Ages has the wrong page number in the spell index. Says 105 should be 182.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Level 20 psychic feat Unlimited Potential refers to prepared spells but psychic is a spontaneous caster


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I was reading around and noticed that on page 79, Read Psychometric Resonance deals 1d6 psychic damage, which should say mental damage.

Also, the next feat, Skeptic's Defense, can make a creature stupefied for 1 round. This should include a value, i.e., stupefied 1 for 1 round.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

This is a pretty major one. Page 19, under Conservation of Energy, the text reads "Once you add energy, you must remove energy the next time you cast one of these spells." The feature includes no such wording for the opposite direction, so as written, you can remove energy as much as you want back to back, but you can add energy no more than once before you must remove energy again. This is fixed by simply adding "and vice versa."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
SaveVersus wrote:
Since Conservation of Energy reads like it's mandatory ("...decide whether you're adding energy or removing it."), I'm of a mind that Redistribute Potential makes both area hot, or both areas cold, thus destroying any flavor the cantrip has.

The same problem is shared with Thermal Stasis, which obviously is not the intent of either spell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
JonIsPatented wrote:
This is a pretty major one. Page 19, under Conservation of Energy, the text reads "Once you add energy, you must remove energy the next time you cast one of these spells." The feature includes no such wording for the opposite direction, so as written, you can remove energy as much as you want back to back, but you can add energy no more than once before you must remove energy again. This is fixed by simply adding "and vice versa."

To add onto this, the wording of the feature never states that you can choose when to add or remove energy at any point beyond the first time you cast during the encounter (with the intent obviously being that it alternates constantly so you never choose beyond the first time), but because of the problem I stated above, after those first 1 or 2 spells, you no longer are bound by this cycle according to a RAW reading. Once you add energy, you must remove it next time, but the text doesn't say you must add after removing, so after removing energy, you are free to cast normally, apparently.

Unless this is the intention, and I really hope that it's not, this wording should be fixed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The rules for Oscillating Wave don't exist in a vacuum.
I think any reasonable person would read that section and determine you can add or remove energy, your choice, then flip flop from there. The sentences around "Once you add energy..." seem to indicate such.

It IS badly written though.

What I don't know how to fix are Thermal Stasis and Redistribute Potential... unless you make Oscillating Wave optional, so you can cast them vanilla.

I dont know if that breaks OW though. Like, is flip flopping supposed to be beneficial, or a hindrance?

I also don't know how to fix Unlimited Potential. Maybe once a day, and instead of "prepared spell" you don't expend the slot??

Horizon Hunters

JonIsPatented wrote:
This is a pretty major one. Page 19, under Conservation of Energy, the text reads "Once you add energy, you must remove energy the next time you cast one of these spells." The feature includes no such wording for the opposite direction, so as written, you can remove energy as much as you want back to back, but you can add energy no more than once before you must remove energy again. This is fixed by simply adding "and vice versa."

I pointed that out here already. Are we just going to keep repeating ourselves in this thread?


The pointless homebrew paragraph in yours put it at risk of just being dismissed as crankery, I thought noting it separately had a lot of value.


Thaumaturge's 10th level feat: Share Weakness doesn't list a range on it. Adjacent or 30 feet or something similar to overdrive ally?


Chronoskimmer Archetype - The Reset the Past (level 14 feat) is missing some sort of frequency limitation (on AoN at least) or the like. Currently, this gives you infinite uses for everything, which doesn't seem intended.

Edit: disregard. This is an error on AoN, it is actually 1/day.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

They just posted an errata fixing most of the Oscillating Wave Issues

"Page 19: The oscillating wave psychic’s unique psi cantrips (thermal stasis, entropic wheel, and redistribute potential) are not intended to interact with their conservation of energy class feature, as they manipulate cold and fire at the same time. Similarly, psi cantrips from other conscious minds (for instance, ones gained through the Parallel Breakthrough feat) shouldn’t interact with conservation of energy. Modify the text in the Conservation of Energy section from “The first time in an encounter that you cast a granted spell from your conscious mind or a psi cantrip” to “The first time in an encounter that you cast a granted spell or standard psi cantrip from your conscious mind.”

Pages 34–35: The thaumaturge should increase in proficiency with unarmed attacks as they grow in level. The weapon expertise class feature should read “You’ve learned the secret ways your weapons work most effectively. Your proficiency ranks for unarmed attacks, simple weapons, and martial weapons increase to expert.” The weapon mastery class feature should read “You fully understand your weapons. Your proficiency ranks for unarmed attacks, simple weapons, and martial weapons increase to master.”

Page 48: The feats granting spellcasting benefits in the psychic multiclass archetype have some unintended discrepancies from corresponding feats in other multiclass archetypes.

First, Master Psychic Spellcasting should be an 18th-level feat, rather than a 12th-level feat.
Second, Expert Psychic Spellcasting should have a Prerequisite listing of “Basic Psychic Spellcasting, master in Occultism” and Master Psychic Spellcasting should have a Prerequisite listing of “Expert Psychic Spellcasting, legendary in Occultism.”"

All that being said, Oscillating Wave has a new issue now. No way to switch elements for one action, which is what Thermal Stasis seemed to be designed for. So if you run across a fire immune enemy, you can hit it with ice once, but then you have to hit it with fire...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

They just posted an errata fixing most of the Oscillating Wave Issues

"Page 19: The oscillating wave psychic’s unique psi cantrips (thermal stasis, entropic wheel, and redistribute potential) are not intended to interact with their conservation of energy class feature, as they manipulate cold and fire at the same time. Similarly, psi cantrips from other conscious minds (for instance, ones gained through the Parallel Breakthrough feat) shouldn’t interact with conservation of energy. Modify the text in the Conservation of Energy section from “The first time in an encounter that you cast a granted spell from your conscious mind or a psi cantrip” to “The first time in an encounter that you cast a granted spell or standard psi cantrip from your conscious mind.”

Pages 34–35: The thaumaturge should increase in proficiency with unarmed attacks as they grow in level. The weapon expertise class feature should read “You’ve learned the secret ways your weapons work most effectively. Your proficiency ranks for unarmed attacks, simple weapons, and martial weapons increase to expert.” The weapon mastery class feature should read “You fully understand your weapons. Your proficiency ranks for unarmed attacks, simple weapons, and martial weapons increase to master.”

Page 48: The feats granting spellcasting benefits in the psychic multiclass archetype have some unintended discrepancies from corresponding feats in other multiclass archetypes.

First, Master Psychic Spellcasting should be an 18th-level feat, rather than a 12th-level feat.
Second, Expert Psychic Spellcasting should have a Prerequisite listing of “Basic Psychic Spellcasting, master in Occultism” and Master Psychic Spellcasting should have a Prerequisite listing of “Expert Psychic Spellcasting, legendary in Occultism.”"

All that being said, Oscillating Wave has a new issue now. No way to switch elements for one action, which is what Thermal Stasis seemed to be designed for. So if you run across a fire immune enemy, you can hit it with ice once,...

Here is the Errata page for those not familiar with it.

I'm really pleased to see Paizo's fast response in posting these corrections! :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I wouldn't say that fixes most of the Oscillating Wave issues. You still have this problem:

Quote:

The first time in an encounter that you cast a granted spell

from your conscious mind or a psi cantrip, decide whether
you’re adding energy or removing it. Once you add energy,
you must remove energy the next time you cast one of these
spells.

Nothing about this allows you to do anything special after the first round if you remove energy (you just cast spells normally with their normal energy type), and nothing allows you to do anything special after the second round if you first add energy (fire first round, cold second round, then you do the base energy of all spells).

Not intended, but what the rules require.

The Thermal Statis not interacting at all with Conservation of Energy is indeed very bad. The only thing you have going for you against an immune creature is the hope that it has a corresponding weakness that your Entropic Wheel is triggering, and if you have psi blast and are in psyche (or have any similar mindshift psyche ability available) you can trigger it a second time in one round with that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Suspended Retribution spell.

Quote:
If the target takes the triggering action, the portent of doom activates—the sword strikes down, the noose loops around the target’s neck, the skull bares its fangs—and the target takes 70 mental damage with a basic Reflex save. The target instinctively knows which action will trigger the omen and can ward off the omen by spending a total of 3 actions, which have the concentrate trait, to pray, make signs against doom, or similar apotropaic actions. These actions need not be consecutive. After the creature spends the actions, the spell ends.

The spell has a duration of 1 minute. As currently written, the only way to end it early is to spend the three actions - doing the triggering action does NOT end the spell, so a target would be subject to 70 damage for up to 10 rounds if it didn't avoid the forbidden action. And if it is effectively compelled to spend the three actions rather than perpetually avoid the forbidden action or take very high damage every round, this can be spammed as a two action no save (let alone no incapacitation) spell to lock down a boss.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Xenocrat wrote:
The Thermal Statis not interacting at all with Conservation of Energy is indeed very bad. The only thing you have going for you against an immune creature is the hope that it has a corresponding weakness that your Entropic Wheel is triggering, and if you have psi blast and are in psyche (or have any similar mindshift psyche ability available) you can trigger it a second time in one round with that.

I am 90% sure that thermal stasis was meant too. Otherwise it is just a very situational cantrip that was given as the unique psi cantrip as level one. Would love if some dev could comment if I am off base here hah.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
CaffeinatedNinja wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
The Thermal Statis not interacting at all with Conservation of Energy is indeed very bad. The only thing you have going for you against an immune creature is the hope that it has a corresponding weakness that your Entropic Wheel is triggering, and if you have psi blast and are in psyche (or have any similar mindshift psyche ability available) you can trigger it a second time in one round with that.
I am 90% sure that thermal stasis was meant too. Otherwise it is just a very situational cantrip that was given as the unique psi cantrip as level one. Would love if some dev could comment if I am off base here hah.

I'm 100% sure it's meant to protect your allies from your splash damage. It gives both resistances so it doesn't just work half the time.


Really small thing, but is the intent that thaums won't be gaining new implements in any future products? I'm asking because their list of implements on p. 32 doesn't have the usual text "... or any other implements to which you gain access." Compared to other errata targets this is a fairly small thing, but it stuck out to me because Paizo are usually more overt about future-proofing where they can.


Having to double post since I've timed out of being able to edit or delete my old one. I found where the book offers that language on p. 36; somehow I glazed right over it previously. Oopse.


I think we won't see more because they tied a lot of the class into the lucky/mystical three and seven numbers. It's not a coincidence that nine implements is three times three.


The spell Awaken Entropy (p. 181) has no limitation that prevents it from triggering twice on the same creature per turn. It's also weird that you can choose between two area options, but only one of those options gets an extra benefit from sustaining.


Violent Unleash (level 4 class feat) has problematic wording. It starts off saying that it affects all enemies and then switches to saying that it affects all creatures.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Seems odd to me that the Can't You See? feat has a DC 14 flat check. Usually flat checks replace percentage rolls and are thus often set to specific values (with 5, 11, and 15 being common). I've never seen a 14 before. Leads me to believe that it could a mistake.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Seems odd to me that the Can't You See? feat has a DC 14 flat check. Usually flat checks replace percentage rolls and are thus often set to specific values (with 5, 11, and 15 being common). I've never seen a 14 before. Leads me to believe that it could a mistake.

rule of threes. it's 1/3


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The errata doesn't address Unlimited Potential and prepared slots, sadly.


Xenocrat wrote:
I think we won't see more because they tied a lot of the class into the lucky/mystical three and seven numbers. It's not a coincidence that nine implements is three times three.

I hadn't noticed any of that.


Xenocrat wrote:
I think we won't see more because they tied a lot of the class into the lucky/mystical three and seven numbers. It's not a coincidence that nine implements is three times three.

I'd considered that, though there are other lucky numbers as well that implements could be based on. Granted if they wanted to go to the next one, four by four, they'd have to make five new implements, which seems like a bit of a stretch, and seven sets of seven is ... I'm not sure what they'd even make for that many. I suppose there could also only be three more implements, which would be three multiplied by four, which can both be lucky numbers, which would make twelve which isn't lucky to my knowledge but does have some religious and occult significance.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Perpdepog wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
I think we won't see more because they tied a lot of the class into the lucky/mystical three and seven numbers. It's not a coincidence that nine implements is three times three.
I'd considered that, though there are other lucky numbers as well that implements could be based on. Granted if they wanted to go to the next one, four by four, they'd have to make five new implements, which seems like a bit of a stretch, and seven sets of seven is ... I'm not sure what they'd even make for that many. I suppose there could also only be three more implements, which would be three multiplied by four, which can both be lucky numbers, which would make twelve which isn't lucky to my knowledge but does have some religious and occult significance.

Nah, they should go all out. Three thrice three, three times. That's right! 27 implements total! MWAHAHAHA!!!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Scroll Thaumaturgy: It allows you to use your class DC for the Spell DC. So far, so good. But what about spells with a spell attack roll? Since the Thaumaturge is not proficient in the magical schools, does that mean any spell with a spell attack roll is bascially useless since they won't ever hit anything? I think most likely, there is just a sentence missing, allowing to use the same proficiency for spell attacks as well.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The people cry out for clarity on whether the Forsee the Path cantrip gives an extra reaction (so that you can take two per round), or just a new reaction option with a new trigger/action.

I can't decide which of these is true from a textual, precedential, or balance perspective. Both sides have merits on all three spectra.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Xenocrat wrote:

The people cry out for clarity on whether the Forsee the Path cantrip gives an extra reaction (so that you can take two per round), or just a new reaction option with a new trigger/action.

I can't decide which of these is true from a textual, precedential, or balance perspective. Both sides have merits on all three spectra.

Not a fight I'm willing to die over but if you look at any of the spells with the contingent trait, you'll see that they have similar wording and IMHO pretty clearly grant a new way to spend your reaction rather than an additional reaction like Combat Expertise gives you.


Xethik wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:

The people cry out for clarity on whether the Forsee the Path cantrip gives an extra reaction (so that you can take two per round), or just a new reaction option with a new trigger/action.

I can't decide which of these is true from a textual, precedential, or balance perspective. Both sides have merits on all three spectra.

Not a fight I'm willing to die over but if you look at any of the spells with the contingent trait, you'll see that they have similar wording and IMHO pretty clearly grant a new way to spend your reaction rather than an additional reaction like Combat Expertise gives you.

Yeah, Foresight spell, Aegis of Arnisant feat, and the, uh, Fighter class base abilities all say "you gain the following reaction." Foresee the Path says "the target ally gains a reaction that lets it..." The only real difference is that FtP spells out the reaction in text (a bad precedent!) rather than setting it out in a separate action block like everything else.

One of the redditors trying to bamboozle people on this was arguing it was the same as Quick Shield Block, but that is much more specific: "At the start of each of your turns you gain an additional reaction that you can use only to Shield Block." No reference to a new option, clearly giving you an extra reaction to use an existing one.

I withdraw my suggestion this is deserving of any errata or clarification.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gisher wrote:
Here is the Errata page for those not familiar with it.

Hard to reply, but thx.


Still not seen an answer to this so posting here:
What is frequency on dark archives living vessel dedication reaction? Seems like it should be once a day or once an hour but there is nothing. Also it seems like you should get the wounded condition when using it, but that is not stated either.


Longhair Fox wrote:

Still not seen an answer to this so posting here:

What is frequency on dark archives living vessel dedication reaction? Seems like it should be once a day or once an hour but there is nothing. Also it seems like you should get the wounded condition when using it, but that is not stated either.

Every time "You would be reduced to 0 Hit Points but not immediately killed", you use the reaction and the entity isn't in control [it can't take control if it's already in control].


So Shatter Mind's Amp lists that the range changes to your choice of a 30 ft cone or a 60 ft cone. I have to wonder if that is an error. Though I feel like I have seen similar wording before. But I am not sure why it would give a choice between two ranges that are both cones.


Ryuujin-sama wrote:
So Shatter Mind's Amp lists that the range changes to your choice of a 30 ft cone or a 60 ft cone. I have to wonder if that is an error. Though I feel like I have seen similar wording before. But I am not sure why it would give a choice between two ranges that are both cones.

The best response I saw to this was a joke that you don't want to hit the other Psychic enemy in the back who has the Mental Static feat to slap back at you.


graystone wrote:
Every time "You would be reduced to 0 Hit Points but not immediately killed", you use the reaction and the entity isn't in control [it can't take control if it's already in control].

I agree but both of those things would normally be spelled out. I also get the feeling that the reaction should have a longer cooldown before it can be used again rather than just a minute when I compare it to other similar abilities.

51 to 100 of 227 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Dark Archive errata thread All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.