Dark Archive errata thread


Rules Discussion

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

Tesseract Tunnel has a duration of sustained up to 1 minute, but the body of the text states that "Until the beginning of your next turn, any creature that enters the first portal...". The part before the comma should be removed, as otherwise the duration and the amped effect of removing the need to sustain the spell do nothing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Thaumaturge Archetype Dedication lacks the "Special You can't select another dedication feat" clause right now.


Page 189 – Time Skip – There should be a line between the description of the spell and the heightened effects.
Page 189 – Time Skip – Heightened – In the line “You can one additional willing creature” there is a word missing between “can” and “one”.


pg. 29 - Unlimited Potential says prepared spell... you meant spell slot?

And if having Ancestral Mind, can any innate spells (of 5th level or lower that has no duration) be used without using its frequency?

Horizon Hunters

Laclale♪ wrote:

pg. 29 - Unlimited Potential says prepared spell... you meant spell slot?

And if having Ancestral Mind, can any innate spells (of 5th level or lower that has no duration) be used without using its frequency?

Ancestral Mind only changes how you cast the spell, and changes the DC/Bonus of it. It's still an innate spell, not a spell that uses a spell slot, so you can't use it with Unlimited Potential.

And yes, Unlimited Potential should say Spell Slot as Psychics don't prepare spells.


pg. 21 - Amped Shield, when breaking two layers, hardness should be 1+1/2 × the normal amount (so it matches 7 at 1st level, 15 at 3rd level, 22 at 5th level, 30 at 7th level, and 37 at 9th level)

Horizon Hunters

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Laclale♪ wrote:
pg. 21 - Amped Shield, when breaking two layers, hardness should be 1+1/2 × the normal amount (so it matches 7 at 1st level, 15 at 3rd level, 22 at 5th level, 30 at 7th level, and 37 at 9th level)

That's a dash not a minus sign. If read out loud you would say it as "One and a half" not "One minus one half".


Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Maps Subscriber

Not sure if it was addressed before (an not sur if intended, but it feels weird if it is the case):

p. 20 - Amped Ray of frost: The damage does not mention adding the spellcaster's ability score modifier (assuming max stats: 1d10 amped vs 1d4+4 non-amped at lvl 1).

It seems like there is little value damage-wise for the Amped version dealing 5dmg on average, 10 max vs 6 for the non-amped, 8 max (or is it intended to balance with the Temporary Hit point gain?).


johnnyudes wrote:

Not sure if it was addressed before (an not sur if intended, but it feels weird if it is the case):

p. 20 - Amped Ray of frost: The damage does not mention adding the spellcaster's ability score modifier (assuming max stats: 1d10 amped vs 1d4+4 non-amped at lvl 1).

It seems like there is little value damage-wise for the Amped version dealing 5dmg on average, 10 max vs 6 for the non-amped, 8 max (or is it intended to balance with the Temporary Hit point gain?).

It's intended, this is common across some other damaging amped cantrips - you lose the attribute, get a bigger die, and get a special effect. At 1st level you aren't getting much if any damage boost.

Horizon Hunters

Xenocrat wrote:
It's intended, this is common across some other damaging amped cantrips - you lose the attribute, get a bigger die, and get a special effect. At 1st level you aren't getting much if any damage boost.

It's not common, there are only 3 amps that lose their ability score bonus and two of them are from The Oscillating Wave. Produce Flame, Ray of Frost, and Daze.

I have no idea why they thought it was a good idea. The extra 4 damage at level 1 isn't game breaking when you have Fighters and Barbarians swinging a d12 + 4 + More at the same level. The loss of your ability score to damage causes Ray of Frost to be the second worst amp, with Daze being slightly worse because it's Daze (and scales every 2 levels instead of every 1).

At max level, Ray of Frost does 10d4+7, an average of 32, while Amped Ray of Frost does 10d10, an average of 55.
Meanwhile TKP does 10d6+7, an average of 42 while Amped TKP does 19d6+7, an average of 73.5

Here's all the direct damage amps and their average damage:
Amped Astral Rain has an average of 29.5 in a 5ft burst every round for up to 10 rounds.
Amped Daze has an average of 49.5.
Amped Phase Bolt has an average of 54.5, but gets to ignore circumstance bonuses to AC and some hardness, and targets Flat Footed AC.
Amped Ray of Frost has an average of 55.
Amped Redistribute Potential has an average of 56 in two 10ft bursts
Amped Shatter Mind has an average of 56.5 in a 30 or 60ft cone.
Amped Produce Flame has an average of 65 or 75 in melee.
Amped Telekinetic Rend has an average of 70 in 3 5ft bursts.
Amped TKP has an average of 73.5.
Amped Imaginary Weapon has an average of 92.5, times two since it targets two creatures.

The only saving grace Oscillating Wave gets is Entropic Wheel, as that can add up to 10 additional damage to all your main damage spells. You still won't get anywhere near an Imaginary Weapon build, but it helps. Mainly for your actual spell slots though.

Horizon Hunters

Lantern Paragon Benefit, last line:

“You can choose to leave any illusion or transmutation you discover intact, instead of counteracting it.”

What is this meant to do?
The counteract check that’s part of Lantern Paragon 1: only lets you see through the illusion, doesn’t break the spell, and 2: is a secret GM check so you don’t know it’s happening until you’ve already done the counteract.


Paragon Benefit wrote:
but only for the purpose of determining whether you and others can see through it (for instance, if the check succeeds against a polymorph spell, you can see the creature's true form, but you don't end the spell).

The "counteract" check isn't to actually counteract the illusion or transmutation effect. It's just to determine if the thaumaturge and their party can see through them. If the check succeeds, the thaumaturge can choose to see through the illusion/transmutation, or not, and continue seeing the illusion or the transmuted object/being as they appear and not as they really are

Horizon Hunters

Yeah the counteract is only to see through the illusion, that was my point 1.

So is the process here:
•GM rolls secret counteract check, succeeds.
•GM doesn’t complete the secret counteract, but instead tells the Thaumaturge “there’s an illusion here, you can see through it if you want to”
•The Thaumaturge can say no at that point, and so nothing happens.

And if that is the process, why? I’m feeling like I’m missing something obvious here.


Moth Mariner wrote:

Yeah the counteract is only to see through the illusion, that was my point 1.

So is the process here:
•GM rolls secret counteract check, succeeds.
•GM doesn’t complete the secret counteract, but instead tells the Thaumaturge “there’s an illusion here, you can see through it if you want to”
•The Thaumaturge can say no at that point, and so nothing happens.

And if that is the process, why? I’m feeling like I’m missing something obvious here.

The choice is the whole point of the thing


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Baarogue wrote:
Moth Mariner wrote:

Yeah the counteract is only to see through the illusion, that was my point 1.

So is the process here:
•GM rolls secret counteract check, succeeds.
•GM doesn’t complete the secret counteract, but instead tells the Thaumaturge “there’s an illusion here, you can see through it if you want to”
•The Thaumaturge can say no at that point, and so nothing happens.

And if that is the process, why? I’m feeling like I’m missing something obvious here.

The choice is the whole point of the thing

I think that maybe their real question is "why would you ever not want to see through an illusion?"


When it is an illusory bridge over a chasm you wish to cross!


GM OfAnything wrote:
When it is an illusory bridge over a chasm you wish to cross!

Or perhaps you don't want to see through that illusionary wall because you know there's a medusa nearby.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The sentence does read oddly though: "instead of counteracting it" is a weird thing to say when you never actually counteract the spell in the first place. "You can choose to leave it intact" also seems to imply that you have the option to destroy the illusion, even though you explicitly don't.

Horizon Hunters

Squiggit wrote:
The sentence does read oddly though: "instead of counteracting it" is a weird thing to say when you never actually counteract the spell in the first place. "You can choose to leave it intact" also seems to imply that you have the option to destroy the illusion, even though you explicitly don't.

Exactly! And if you don’t know what the illusion is or what’s behind it, why would you choose not to see through it?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

I don't know what PF2 rules say about it, but if I'm looking at an illusory bridge over say a deep chasm, and I step out onto the bridge, I would expect that I would fall into the chasm.


Ed Reppert wrote:
I don't know what PF2 rules say about it, but if I'm looking at an illusory bridge over say a deep chasm, and I step out onto the bridge, I would expect that I would fall into the chasm.

That reminds me of the end of Batman: The Killing Joke.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ed Reppert wrote:
I don't know what PF2 rules say about it, but if I'm looking at an illusory bridge over say a deep chasm, and I step out onto the bridge, I would expect that I would fall into the chasm.

Which is really the problem. Because some illusions are mostly visual and clearly you would fall, but some illusions are more quasi real and you wouldn't. Example House of Imaginary Walls. The illusion rules need to clearly distinguish these two types. It would be nice if there was a tag for it.


Fair certain it should be 60 ft line, similar to breath weapons.


JonIsPatented wrote:


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.

Was there ever a ruling on this bit? Should we use "Stupefied 1"?


While I think the Mind Smith archetype would benefit greatly from a design pass based on what we are starting to see with Remastered content, I want to draw specific attention to the Mind Projectiles level 8 feat.

As written, this ability introduces a lot of ambiguity, based on anecdotal conversations with local GMs and players. It is described as a ranged mind weapon strike, but the only weapon from which it inherits abilities is a melee weapon - should the projectile form be considered a distinct weapon, or does the melee mind weapon become ranged in this act? For instance, would this qualify for the Champion’s Ranged Reprisal feat, or other feats requiring a ranged weapon? Similarly, it is unclear how supporting spells such as Disrupting Weapons or the archetype”s own Ghost Blade feat interact with it. Finally, I am unaware of another case of defined range outside of the increment system for weapon strikes, which can create further interaction challenges (the specific example locally was with Sniping Duo).

A narrow RAW interpretation would preclude nearly all such interactions, not because of any clear exception from such benefits but moreso because the projectile mechanic feels written as a one-off in a system that relies heavily on modularity.

I cannot propose specific language because the design intent for these cases is unclear to me. Ultimately, I hope time and priority permit another round of copy editing for this feat.


Littimer wrote:

While I think the Mind Smith archetype would benefit greatly from a design pass based on what we are starting to see with Remastered content, I want to draw specific attention to the Mind Projectiles level 8 feat.

As written, this ability introduces a lot of ambiguity, based on anecdotal conversations with local GMs and players. It is described as a ranged mind weapon strike, but the only weapon from which it inherits abilities is a melee weapon - should the projectile form be considered a distinct weapon, or does the melee mind weapon become ranged in this act? For instance, would this qualify for the Champion’s Ranged Reprisal feat, or other feats requiring a ranged weapon? Similarly, it is unclear how supporting spells such as Disrupting Weapons or the archetype”s own Ghost Blade feat interact with it. Finally, I am unaware of another case of defined range outside of the increment system for weapon strikes, which can create further interaction challenges (the specific example locally was with Sniping Duo).

A narrow RAW interpretation would preclude nearly all such interactions, not because of any clear exception from such benefits but moreso because the projectile mechanic feels written as a one-off in a system that relies heavily on modularity.

I cannot propose specific language because the design intent for these cases is unclear to me. Ultimately, I hope time and priority permit another round of copy editing for this feat.

Mind Projectiles says you can make "ranged mind weapon Strikes", and then defines what those are

Mind Projectiles wrote:
these are ranged Strikes with a maximum range of 30 feet that deal 1d6 damage of the same type as your mind weapon. Your ranged mind weapon Strike gains all the benefits of your mind weapon's runes as long as they still apply to a ranged weapon. For example, if your weapon had +1, striking, and spell-storing runes, you would get a +1 item bonus to hit with your ranged mind weapon Strike, and it would deal the additional damage from the striking rune, but it wouldn't be able to unleash a spell from the spell-storing rune, as that rune can be etched onto only melee weapons.

Note the repeated use of the entire phrase, "ranged mind weapon Strike." When they repeat an ungainly phrase like that, the words are significant all together, as a phrase. This doesn't create a new ranged mind weapon, nor are they ranged strikes with your existing melee mind weapon. They're "ranged mind weapon Strikes" and they have specific stats for the strike: max range 30' and 1d6 damage and that's IT. They don't inherit anything from your melee mind weapon except the runes. For instance, repeated "ranged mind weapon Strikes" wouldn't benefit from the agile trait on your mind weapon. Melee only runes are out, so unfortunately Ghost Blade is out too. Mind Projectiles says "ranged mind weapon Strikes" have a maximum range of 30 feet, so that's their absolute max range. That's not a range increment as used for ranged weapons. And they're not a distinct weapon, so Disrupting Weapons wouldn't apply to the "ranged mind weapon Strikes", only to the mind weapon itself. I COULD SEE someone ruling that Ghost Blade would apply because feelsbadman to lose a benefit of your own archetype, and also allow Disrupting Weapons because it's not OP to do so when it can be used on ranged weapons

Ranged Reprisal says you can use Retributive Strike with a ranged weapon. I would allow Ranged Retribution to be used with "ranged mind weapon Strikes" with all the limitations defined by Mind Projectiles

As for other feats, if it says "make a strike with a ranged weapon" or its requirement is "you are wielding a ranged weapon" and the only thing it does is allow them to make a strike, I would allow the Mind Smith to use their "ranged mind weapon Strike" for it unless a clear case of abuse is presented

I don't know what your local example re: Sniping Duo was but if it just boils down to "can I use it with Sniping Duo" I would say yes to anything that had them simply make a ranged strike (like Assisting Shot) but not if it specifically requires a firearm or crossbow (like Cover Fire), and no to anything that extended their range (like Triangule). If it says "within your ranged weapon first range increment" like Exploit Opening or Tag Team (but not Deflecting Shot because that requires a crossbow or firearm), I would allow it. But not Targeted Redirection because that describes you ricocheting your projectile off your spotter, which you cannot do with a "ranged mind weapon Strike'


I appreciate your guidance, and I agree with the main thrust of your points. Personally, I would allow feats that have an increment requirement to apply to Mind Projectiles so long as it doesn’t involve going beyond 30ft, would allow Mind Projectiles to inherit non-rune benefits applied to the Mind Weapon such as with Disrupting Weapons, and would allow the Mind Projectiles to be used with abilities such as Ranged Reprisal. I would not allow Mind Projectiles to inherit rune-like “effects” where a requirement is a melee weapon (so Ghost Blade would not apply), but would allow it in similar cases where the term is instead “benefits.”

However, the number of times you (and I) use phrases such as “I would allow X” reinforces for me that there is an opportunity for clarity with this feat.

201 to 227 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.