Pathfinder Remaster Errata Submission


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 202 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Page 264, "Trick Magic Item" feat.

If you activate a magic item that requires a spell attack
modifier or spell DC and you don’t have the ability to cast spells
of the relevant tradition, use your level as your proficiency
bonus and the highest of your Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma
modifiers. If you’re a master in the appropriate skill for the item’s
tradition, you instead use the trained proficiency bonus; if you’re
legendary, you instead use the expert proficiency bonus.

Since spell attack & DC proficiency is no longer split up by tradition, the bold section can be omitted, leaving it as "If ... you don't have the ability to cast spells, use your level..."


4 people marked this as a favorite.
ssims2 wrote:

Page 264, "Trick Magic Item" feat.

If you activate a magic item that requires a spell attack
modifier or spell DC and you don’t have the ability to cast spells
of the relevant tradition, use your level as your proficiency
bonus and the highest of your Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma
modifiers. If you’re a master in the appropriate skill for the item’s
tradition, you instead use the trained proficiency bonus; if you’re
legendary, you instead use the expert proficiency bonus.

Since spell attack & DC proficiency is no longer split up by tradition, the bold section can be omitted, leaving it as "If ... you don't have the ability to cast spells, use your level..."

While spell attack and DC aren't split up, a Wizard is still not a Divine spellcaster, so the highlighted text does have mechanical impact I would think. Whether that's intended, of course... (On the other hand, why would you be using Trick Magic Item if you were a caster of that tradition anyways? So I assume the intent was proficiency, and it's just doubly wrong?)

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Don't know if its already on the radar but it seems adjustments to an armor's strength modifier never got changed from strength score in GM core. For fortification runes on page 226 it could also be a functional change as it just says "strength required to reduce its penalties" but it increase it by 2. If its increasing strength modifier by 2, that is twice the adjustment from before. Dawnsilver and duskwood armors on page 228 still are definitely just missed though as they reference reducing strength score, rather then strength modifier.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I don't know if this is exactly errata, but the shield rules are a little unclear with strapping now.

All shields need to be strapped unless they say otherwise.

Player Core page 274

"All shields, unless specifically noted or described
otherwise, must be strapped to your arm and held in one
hand, so you can’t hold anything with that hand and
Raise a Shield, and you lose the shield’s benefits if that
hand is no longer free."

But nowhere is there mention of what is required to strap on a shield. It is an interact to unstrap we know, but to put on a shield do you have to draw it then strap it? Also, there are the following weird interactions

Lightning Swap, Fighter Feat - Lets you change your weapons and draw a shield. But with this rule the shield still needs to be strapped, right?

Also, the strapped rule seems to say that you can have a shield strapped to your arm and use the hand for anything, even wield a weapon, unless you want to raise the shield, at that point you grip it.

So there is nothing stopping you from having a steel shield strapped to each arm while you swing a greatsword, lol.

These rules could be cleaned up a bit.

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The druid feat Reactive Transformation allows a druid with Dragon Shape to use it automatically if he takes acid, cold, electricity, fire, or poison damage to transform in to a shape from dragon form that resists the incoming damage. However, the sidebar for the new types of dragons available doesn't include any that resist acid, cold, or electricity: only fire and poison are present, as well as some other goofier things like force or bludgeoning. It seems like neither this feat nor Dragon Shape were really updated with the new menagerie of tradition-based dragons in mind; they're still focused on the old chromatic/metallic system of dragons. The dragon form spell itself is in great shape, though!

The druid feat Form Control no longer requires Strength +2. I guess that's nice! But Perfect Form Control still requires Strength +4, which was always kind of a tough lift for druids who were planning to spend most of their time in battle form anyway. This just seems kind of inconsistent.

(One of my PCs is a druid, can you tell?)

I don't know if this has been mentioned elsewhere, but I didn't see it: frostbite still has the Attack trait from ray of frost despite now being purely save-based.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

The Craft part of the general skill feats table still lists Snare Crafting. The Ranger head note on page 93 suggests rangers have some snare-related class feats, but none appear in the Ranger class description. Also, there are no snares in the Player Core or GM Core books.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I am confused about the Bear Companion’s Bear Hug action on page 207 of the Remaster Player Core. It appears to be exactly the same wording as the old Core Rulebook, which states:

BEAR HUG [one-action] Requirements The bear’s last action was a successful claw Strike.
The bear makes another claw Strike against the same target. If this Strike hits, the target is also grabbed, as if the bear had successfully Grappled the target.

The way this reads to me is that the bear auto succeeds at Grapple. But, the Remaster Core Preview document stated the following regarding Grab for creatures:

Grab [one-action] Requirements The monster’s last action was a successful Strike that lists Grab in its damage entry, or the monster has a creature grabbed or restrained;
Effect If used after a Strike, the monster attempts to Grapple the creature using the body part it attacked with. This attempt neither applies nor counts toward the creature’s multiple attack penalty.
The monster can instead use Grab and choose one creature it’s grabbing or restraining with an appendage that has Grab to automatically extend that condition to the end of the monster’s next turn.

So, should the target be considered to have been successfully Grappled by the bear? Or, should the player have his bear companion attempt a Grapple check per the Remastered Athletics Grapple Skill Action on page 235 of the Remaster Player Core? Given the changes to Grab and Grapple elsewhere in the Remaster, I am inclined to think the later, but it is unclear in the bear companion text in my opinion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashanderai wrote:

I am confused about the Bear Companion’s Bear Hug action on page 207 of the Remaster Player Core. It appears to be exactly the same wording as the old Core Rulebook, which states:

BEAR HUG [one-action] Requirements The bear’s last action was a successful claw Strike.
The bear makes another claw Strike against the same target. If this Strike hits, the target is also grabbed, as if the bear had successfully Grappled the target.

The way this reads to me is that the bear auto succeeds at Grapple. But, the Remaster Core Preview document stated the following regarding Grab for creatures:

Grab [one-action] Requirements The monster’s last action was a successful Strike that lists Grab in its damage entry, or the monster has a creature grabbed or restrained;
Effect If used after a Strike, the monster attempts to Grapple the creature using the body part it attacked with. This attempt neither applies nor counts toward the creature’s multiple attack penalty.
The monster can instead use Grab and choose one creature it’s grabbing or restraining with an appendage that has Grab to automatically extend that condition to the end of the monster’s next turn.

So, should the target be considered to have been successfully Grappled by the bear? Or, should the player have his bear companion attempt a Grapple check per the Remastered Athletics Grapple Skill Action on page 235 of the Remaster Player Core? Given the changes to Grab and Grapple elsewhere in the Remaster, I am inclined to think the later, but it is unclear in the bear companion text in my opinion.

Think of Bear Hug more like Combat Grab (i.e. a Press attack that grapples on a hit). It's not suposed to work like the Grab creature ability - and in fact never did work like the Grab ability.


On a different note, are we ever going to get errata for Guns & Gears?


Var Sardos wrote:
On a different note, are we ever going to get errata for Guns & Gears?

Otherworldly protection needs reward, and resistance to alignment damage could be replaced into spirit damage


Laclale♪ wrote:
Var Sardos wrote:
On a different note, are we ever going to get errata for Guns & Gears?
Otherworldly protection needs reward, and resistance to alignment damage could be replaced into spirit damage

I mean, yes, and also, how about that 2nd level Inventor feat (Reverse Engineer) that Inventors can't actually take at 2nd level.


Var Sardos wrote:
On a different note, are we ever going to get errata for Guns & Gears?

Not before next March/April, when the extra load due to the remaster is done.

Also, this is the remaster errata thread, so please keep things on topic from this point on. G&G isn't part of the remaster.


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

P262 GMCore
Magic Scroll entry

Frequency once per day, plus overcharge;

Making a guess someone was copying some content over from Wand.


Pathfinder PF Special Edition Subscriber

Player Core Pg 333., Gouging Claw is missing the Cantrip trait.

GM Core Pg 225, the rules for transferring runes include the line 'It takes 1 day (instead of the 4 days usually needed to Craft)', it no longer takes 4 days to Craft.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm seeing a lot of debate in the "Remaster dislikes" thread about interpretation of the changes/clarifications to wounded/dying, including whether there was some sort of unresolved internal argument at Paizo over how it should work. Some of this strikes me as wishful thinking from people who just don't like the Remastered wounded/dying rules, but further clarification probably can't hurt.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Chrono wrote:
Player Core Pg 333., Gouging Claw is missing the Cantrip trait.

LOL. Every time you cast gouging claw you forever after lose the ability to cast one of your cantrips. XD


Alchemical bombs are referred to as martial ranged weapons in Player Core and martial thrown weapons in GM Core. Along with a few other weird clashes in wording.

Player Core pg 292 wrote:
Alchemical bombs are consumable weapons that deal damage or produce special effects, and they sometimes deal splash damage. You throw a bomb as a ranged Strike. It’s a martial ranged weapon with a range increment of 20 feet and can’t benefit from runes since it’s a consumable. A bomb deals any listed splash damage to the target on a failure, success, or critical success, and to all other creatures within 5 feet of the target on a success or critical success. Add the damage together before applying resistance or weakness, and don’t multiply splash damage on a critical hit.
GM Core pg 244 wrote:
Bombs are martial thrown weapons with a range increment of 20 feet. When you throw a bomb, you make a weapon attack roll against the target’s AC, as you would for any other weapon. It takes one hand to draw, prepare, and throw a bomb. The bomb is activated when thrown as a Strike—you don’t have to activate it separately. As consumables, bombs can’t have runes etched onto them, have talismans attached to them, or benefit from runes granted in other ways (such as from spells or from items that replicate runes from other items). Spells and magic items that give you a bonus to all your attacks (or to all thrown weapons, for example) can still apply to them.

Lantern Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:

Page 212 - Familiars - Possible Editing Error

I've gone and methodically searched for every instance of "Familiar" in Player Core and GM Core. The closest rule that I could find addressing something non-witch familiar death is the Special entry of the Pet feat (from which familiars are based): "You can gain a new pet by retraining this feat, releasing any previous pet you have."

Insofar as I can tell, it's either resurrection, or retraining for a week to release your dead familiar.

The Animal Companion rules have the line, "If your companion dies, you can spend a week of downtime to replace it at no cost. You can have only one animal companion at a time." The Familiar rules do not.

The language in the PET feat is what you are looking for. Not sure if you noticed that Familiars ARE pets. The Familiar rules say:

"You gain the Pet general feat (page 259), except that your pet has special abilities."

So I would guess you use the rules in the PET feat to gain a new pet/familiar.

If they errata this, I would ask that they make it simple as "retrain" carries GM dependent baggage (cost, instructor, etc.). I'd suggest: "If your pet dies or you want to replace your pet with a new pet, you can spend a week of downtime to replace it at no cost."


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Player Core, Page 226, third paragraph - refers to "Chapter 10: Game Mastering", but should refer to Chapter 1 of the GM Core now.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

GM Core p223: "If you have the formula for an item, you don’t need a different formula to Craft a different type of that item that’s just a higher-level upgrade. For example, if you have the formula for a +1 weapon potency rune, you don’t need to secure a new formula to etch a +2 weapon potency rune. This works similarly with items such as a spacious pouch with its multiple types or doubling rings with a base version and greater version."

GM Core p236, in the Striking Rune: "You can upgrade the striking rune already etched on a weapon to a stronger version, increasing the values of the existing rune to those of the new rune. You must have the formula of the stronger rune to do so, and the Price of the upgrade is the difference between the two runes’ Prices."

I suspect the bolded part of the Striking Rune text is what needs to be removed. Weapon Potency rune (p236) has the same issue.


Pathfinder LO Special Edition, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Hm. I was kind of fond of the idea of a specific formula for each variant of an item. This strikes me as another "dumb down the system so people don't have to deal with complexity" thing. I can't call it a fix, since in my view it was working fine and didn't need fixing.

Also, ISTR reading somewhere (I don't have my pdfs yet, damn you Paizo! :-)) that no formulas are needed anymore for *any* crafting. That's even worse IMO and won't be happening at my table.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

That makes formulas for high level items dirt cheap.

Why spend 1,000gp on that major [item]'s formula when you can spend 10gp on the lesser [item]'s formula?

Liberty's Edge

It's consistent with stuff like wands and scrolls not needing separate formulas for each rank of a spell (or, worse, every rank of every spell).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

(Probably the wrong thread for hot takes about formulae, since it's not an errata item.)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Player core, page 207: the Arboreal Sapling's Throw Rock ability is listed as a reaction, but there's no trigger explaining what would trigger it. Archives of Nethys shows the pre-remastered version being one action.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

GM Core, Page 292: Masquerade Scarf, the the greater version's description. "The activation is a 2-action activity, you can activate it any number of times per day, and the illusory disguise is 2nd rank. "

The new version of Illusory Disguise (Player Core, page 337) has no benefit from being heightened to 2nd rank. I'm assuming this is supposed to say 3rd rank.


Ravingdork wrote:
Chrono wrote:
Player Core Pg 333., Gouging Claw is missing the Cantrip trait.
LOL. Every time you cast gouging claw you forever after lose the ability to cast one of your cantrips. XD

Ahahahaha that's incredible.


Decorpsed wrote:

GM Core, Page 292: Masquerade Scarf, the the greater version's description. "The activation is a 2-action activity, you can activate it any number of times per day, and the illusory disguise is 2nd rank. "

The new version of Illusory Disguise (Player Core, page 337) has no benefit from being heightened to 2nd rank. I'm assuming this is supposed to say 3rd rank.

It matters for counteract checks, like Dispel Magic.

Wayfinders Contributor

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Spamotron wrote:
A reminder that the Paizo Developers have said that threads like these are a lot more useful to them when people post specific page numbers. Realize they probably worked on the book months ago at this point and don't always remember where everything is.

And likely have worked on half a dozen other projects since.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Pirate Rob wrote:
Decorpsed wrote:

GM Core, Page 292: Masquerade Scarf, the the greater version's description. "The activation is a 2-action activity, you can activate it any number of times per day, and the illusory disguise is 2nd rank. "

The new version of Illusory Disguise (Player Core, page 337) has no benefit from being heightened to 2nd rank. I'm assuming this is supposed to say 3rd rank.

It matters for counteract checks, like Dispel Magic.

Nobody is spending 310gp to upgrade to the greater version to top out at a single rank upgrade for counteract checks.

The Hat of Disguise, that this item replaces, heightened to rank 2 because that's when the next set of benefits on the spell kicked in. This update clearly missed that Illusory Disguise moved its first upgrade to rank 3.


Courageous Anthem (Pg.370) The Spell Description states

You inspire yourself and your allies with words or tunes
of encouragement.
You and all allies in the area gain a +1
status bonus to attack rolls, damage rolls, and saves against
fear effects.

It is lacking the Auditory trait from from the how it is worded, unless it is suppose to effect deaf creatures.

Unusual Composition (Pg.105) Level 10 Bard feat. - Most compositions do not have a trait which confirms rather or not they are visual or auditory outside their description. making this feat all subjected to your DM.


Pathfinder PF Special Edition Subscriber
ElementalofCuteness wrote:

Courageous Anthem (Pg.370) The Spell Description states

You inspire yourself and your allies with words or tunes
of encouragement.
You and all allies in the area gain a +1
status bonus to attack rolls, damage rolls, and saves against
fear effects.

It is lacking the Auditory trait from from the how it is worded, unless it is suppose to effect deaf creatures.

Unusual Composition (Pg.105) Level 10 Bard feat. - Most compositions do not have a trait which confirms rather or not they are visual or auditory outside their description. making this feat all subjected to your DM.

(This is already the case, it’s covered by the rules of the Composition trait itself: https://2e.aonprd.com/Traits.aspx?ID=31 )


ElementalofCuteness wrote:

Courageous Anthem (Pg.370) The Spell Description states

You inspire yourself and your allies with words or tunes
of encouragement.
You and all allies in the area gain a +1
status bonus to attack rolls, damage rolls, and saves against
fear effects.

It is lacking the Auditory trait from from the how it is worded, unless it is suppose to effect deaf creatures.

Unusual Composition (Pg.105) Level 10 Bard feat. - Most compositions do not have a trait which confirms rather or not they are visual or auditory outside their description. making this feat all subjected to your DM.

I don't know if anything has changed in the remaster as I don't have a copy yet but previously this was all handled by the Composition trait.

Edit: Beaten to the punch by minutes!


Not 100% sure it's an error, but Floral Restoration (Druid) requires being in a location of at least 15 sq ft with healthy plant life. 15 sq ft is less than one 5 foot square, which seems like both a poor restriction and not coherent with normal tactical layouts.

Possible corrections could be 25 sq ft (1 square, just rounding up), 75 sq ft (3 squares, assuming they just did 3x5 to get 15), 150 sq ft (6 squares, assuming they left off a 0), 225 sq ft (9 squares, assuming they meant a 3x3 block of 5 ft squares), or 375 sq ft (15 squares).


3 people marked this as a favorite.

A Post on reddit just said that Fantasy Grounds apparently got a Remaster errata from paizo. Looks like we might be getting a day-1-patch.

It allegedly also includes stuff outside the core books that's affected by the remaster. So maybe Magus and similar this get updates.


Pathfinder LO Special Edition, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

I'll believe it when I see it.


The Fantasy Grounds post in question.


Pathfinder LO Special Edition, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

I was referring to the errata, but okay.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Player Core Page 157

Hunted Shot just says the target must be your "prey" not your hunted prey. The intent is clear given the context but I am sure people will argue that means you don't have to hunt prey against your target before using it.


GM Core page 231

Moonlit Chain has a bulk of 2 as if it were chain mail, but it is actually a chain shirt and so should have a bulk of 1.

(Note that this error was present in the CRB as well.)


Player Core 1 page 215

Under Spellcasting Archetypes, we have the statement that

Quote:
Spellcasting archetypes always grant the ability to cast cantrips in their dedication, and then they have a basic spellcasting feat, an expert spellcasting feat, and a master spellcasting feat.

This is the same language used in the CRB and APG, but it was recently pointed out to me that the Summoner Multiclass Archetype does not grant cantrips as part of its dedication but rather as part of its Basic Spellcasting Feat.

So unless Summoner Multiclass is not a Spellcasting archetype, it seems that the language here should be changed to accommodate that multiclass archetype.


p.312 Grease is shown as both a 1st rank and 3rd rank primal spell
p.332 Frostbite has the Attack trait but it doesn't require a spell attack roll
p.358 Speak with plants requires 4 actions. It seems like the 2 action icon is printed twice


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In the Player Core, the short description for Telekinetic Maneuver, which appears on pages 305 and 310, says it can "Disarm, Reposition, Shove, or Trip a creature telekinetically." The spell description on page 363 omits Reposition.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

GM Core p.83

It seems the Ability Apex still uses the old rule of abilities.

[Ability Apex]
17th
At 17th level, choose one attribute score to either increase
by 2 or increase to 18 (whichever grants the higher score).


Player Core 1, pg. 15: Bad Reference

Player Core 1, page 15 (bottom right) wrote:

Reading Rules

[...] All characters can use the basic actions found in Chapter 9

Must point to chapter 8 instead.


Player Core 1, pg. 79 (vs. 78 and 81): Inconsistent image captions:

2 captions tell the lineage, 1 doesn't. In Detail:


  • Image on page 78 (an angelic descendant) says "Angelkin" - which is a lineage
  • Image on page 79 (some descendant, maybe grimspawn or pitborn) says just "Nephilim" - which is the whole heritage and effectively the supercategory
  • Image on page 81 (a devilish descendant) says "Hellspawn" - which is a lineage

The image caption on page 79 should IMO tell the name of their lineage like the other image captions do.


ignition psi cantrip wrote:
When using amped produce flame as a melee attack, increase the damage dice of the initial damage from d10s to d12s. You are not harmed by splash damage from amped ignition.

amped produce flame here should be amped ignition.

one of Player Core errata wrote:
the daze spell description should read "Cloud a creature's mind and possibly stun it."

Daze is also used in psychic duel.

Dark Archive pg. 202 wrote:
Any creature in a psychic duel can cast two spells, both heightened to half the participant's level, rounded up. They can cast the daze cantrip at will and get a second spell that can be cast once during the duel.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
calnivo wrote:
The image caption on page 79 should IMO tell the name of their lineage like the other image captions do.

That's kind of a reach for being relevant errata, especially since the whole flavor of nephilim now is that it can include influences from several planes, and thus it's just as likely that the character marked 'Nephilim' isn't of any one lineage and features both celestial and fiendish traits.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Player Core Page 437:

Quote:

Drowning and Suffocating

You can hold your breath for a number of rounds equal to
5 + your Constitution modifier. Reduce your remaining air
by 1 round at the end of each of your turns, or by 2 if you
attacked or cast any spells that turn. You also lose 1 round
worth of air each time you are critically hit or critically fail
a save against a damaging effect. If you speak (including
Casting a Spell) you lose all remaining air

Given that all spells require incantations now, this really should be cleared up. Are you meant to immediately start suffocating and fall unconscious when casting a spell underwater?

I think this is not very realistic (try talking underwater in a swimming pool for fun, you will not immediately risk drowning) AND not really very fun in play.

It would really be nice to get something on this, especially with the change to spellcasting.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Page 102 of GM Core "ghostly choir" still lists non-evil for targets to take damage. There is no more evil

51 to 100 of 202 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Pathfinder Remaster Errata Submission All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.