Pathfinder Remaster Errata Submission


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 203 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Level 6 Witch Feat - Ceremonial Knife (PG.188) - Has literally no duration. I do hope this is not intentional.

So far every table has errata'd this to being the following "Uill your next Daily preparation." This just makes Witch feel like the OG Pathfinder First Edition wand crafting and using Wizard.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

This isn't really errata, and honestly is probably a pretty low-order concern, but the intro to the artifact section of GM Core on page 300 is a bit odd.

Artifacts wrote:

A globe of utter darkness that consumes all things. Powerful weapons created in antiquity

carrying the hopes of an entire people. A simple deck of cards representing fortunes both
transcendent and deadly.

The "globe of utter darkness" is the Sphere of Annihilation, and the "simple deck of cards" is the Deck of Many Things, but for obvious reasons neither of them actually appear in this book. I wanted to point out it was strange that two of the three kinds of example artifact in the introduction aren't actually artifacts in the book. I know why, this is the same intro in the Gamemastery Guide, it just struck me as strange.

Edited to clear formatting, correct some spelling, and include the name the section is actually in ... oopse.


ElementalofCuteness wrote:

Level 6 Witch Feat - Ceremonial Knife (PG.188) - Has literally no duration. I do hope this is not intentional.

So far every table has errata'd this to being the following "Uill your next Daily preparation." This just makes Witch feel like the OG Pathfinder First Edition wand crafting and using Wizard.

Alternatively, they could leave the duration unlimited, but add a restriction that you can only have one Ceremonial Knife at a time. I think that would also solve the problem.


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

This isn't really errata, and honestly is probably a pretty low-order concern, but the intro to the artifact section of GM Core on page 300 is a bit odd.

Artifacts wrote:
A globe of utter darkness that consumes all things. Powerful weapons created in antiquity carrying the hopes of an entire people. A simple deck of cards representing fortunes both transcendent and deadly.

The "globe of utter darkness" is the Sphere of Annihilation, and the "simple deck of cards" is the Deck of Many Things, but for obvious reasons neither of them actually appear in this book. I wanted to point out it was strange that two of the three kinds of example artifact in the introduction aren't actually artifacts in the book. I know why, this is the same intro in the Gamemastery Guide, it just struck me as strange.

Edited to clear formatting, correct some spelling, and include the name the section is actually in ... oopse.

Yeah, when I saw that I expected to see Remastered versions of both those things and was a bit disappointed when I couldn't find them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While we are at Ceremonial Knive ...

Player Core 1, page 188, right column - Inconsistency

Player Core 1, page 188 wrote:

Ceremonial Knive

You have prepared a special knife [...]. During your daily preparation you and your familiar can perform [...]. This causes [...]"

(Italics mine.)

I guess, the first sentence was intended to start "You prepare a special knife" (present form)?

The present perfect form confused me - and still does. It sounds as if taking the feat resulted in a one-time event, which is now completed although effecting the present. However, the next sentences tell, that the knife is prepared daily, which poses a contrast to the first sentence. Unless everything was more complicated. (I hope not, but maybe I'll create a spin-off thread about Ceremonial Knive...)

Paizo Employee Director of Marketing

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed argumentative, unhelpful posts and posts in reply.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Page 236: The Brilliant rune lacks the holy trait, which feels weird since its spirit damage only effects fiends anyway. It now won't trigger weakness damage against fiends. Maybe that's intentional because the holy rune (which does have the holy trait) feels kind of nerfed too, but could easily be an oversight.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Extremely mirror error, but it annoys me. On page 79 of PC1 there is an image of a character labeled as Nephilim, which is true but seems like the wrong label was placed in error given that the entire section is on Nephilim and every other character there is labelled as the specific kind they are like Angelkin or the like.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So the example leaf order druid has two feats; Green Empathy and Green Tongue, which aren't in the book anymore. Were these consolidated into a general feat or another skill? Because I cannot find it. Were they removed accidentally?


dirkdragonslayer wrote:
So the example leaf order druid has two feats; Green Empathy and Green Tongue, which aren't in the book anymore. Were these consolidated into a general feat or another skill? Because I cannot find it. Were they removed accidentally?

The new (post-Remaster) feat Plant Empathy seems to be all that's left of them. I presume they had to drop the old names to placate WotC, but I don't see why there isn't a Plant Tongue now, unless it was mistakenly dropped while changing levels: the Green feats are 6th & 12th but Plant Empathy is just 1st.

EDIT: If your table wants to use the old Green feats, they're available on the Archives of Nethys: Green Empathy, Green Tongue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorgo Primus wrote:
Extremely mirror error, but it annoys me. On page 79 of PC1 there is an image of a character labeled as Nephilim, which is true but seems like the wrong label was placed in error given that the entire section is on Nephilim and every other character there is labelled as the specific kind they are like Angelkin or the like.

Lineages are not mandatory. They may have wanted to show a lineageless "generic" Nephilim to show off a sort of baseline


Oh, I see, Green Empathy became Plant Empathy and it's a starting bonus to druids instead of spending your 6th level feat on it (but it lost the +2 circumstance bonus). So I guess that just means Green Tongue is missing for the permanent Speak With Plants and usually friendly plants.

So the sample druid on p. 134 of the new player core book needs a remake. It's probably just a copy-paste from the original rulebook the editor missed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
dirkdragonslayer wrote:
So I guess that just means Green Tongue is missing for the permanent Speak With Plants and usually friendly plants.

Plant Empathy is already permanent Speak with Plants.


Errenor wrote:
dirkdragonslayer wrote:
So I guess that just means Green Tongue is missing for the permanent Speak With Plants and usually friendly plants.
Plant Empathy is already permanent Speak with Plants.

Ah, I guess I need to double check it when I get home to my book. The phrasing seemed closer to the old Green Empathy than Green Tongue/Speak with Plants. But if it is supposed to be permanent Speak with Plants then that is pretty exciting for me.


Witch Patron - Starless Shadow (PG 185) - Familiar of Stalking Night - When does this trigger, does it trigger as soon as I just cast my hex cantrip Shroud of Night on an enemy and if they fail they become Frighten 1?

Also the ability does not list any traits, does this mean Mindless Undead can be frightened by the Familiar?

Wayfinders

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Page 134 - Primal Summons druid feat - The descriptive text mentions the classic four elements but omits wood and metal, which are listed in the actual primal summons order spell now, so that should probably be updated to mention all six elements.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

It appears that the Player Core and GM Core have contradictory interpretations of how Bombs work.

Player Core pg 292 wrote:
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.

Splash only hitting the main target on a miss is a very definite change from Core Rulebook. On the other hand...

GM Core pg 244 wrote:
Most bombs also have the splash trait. When you use a thrown weapon with the splash trait, you don’t add your Strength modifier to the damage roll. If an attack with a splash weapon fails, succeeds, or critically succeeds, all creatures within 5 feet of the target (including the target) take the listed splash damage. On a critical failure, the bomb misses entirely, dealing no damage. Add splash damage together with the initial damage against the target before applying the target’s resistance or weakness. You don’t multiply splash damage on a critical hit.

is basically the same as things were in the old Core Rulebook.

Note that the Player Core doesn't have the language about not adding the Strength modifier.

Definitely confusing. Some clarification would be welcome.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Page 387: Nudge Fate seems like if got mixed up with some other spell.

NUDGE FATE [one-action] CANTRIP 1
UNCOMMON CANTRIP CONCENTRATE HEX WITCH
Patron Spinner of Threads
Range 30 feet; Targets 1 creature
Defense Will; Duration 1 minute

First off, it shouldn't have a Defense because it is a buff. Secondly, it doesn't mention Sustained in its duration. These completely break the patterns of all the other hexes so they are likely unintended, much as I am sure spinner of fates players might wish otherwise.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Discern Secrets needs a look too.

https://paizo.com/threads/rzs43wv2?Discern-Secrets-change#5

To summarize, it is the only hex cantrip that still has a one minute immunity. And because it grants a free action with no trigger or frequency it technically grants your ally unlimited uses of Recall Knowledge and Seek on their turn. That's maybe acceptable for Recall Knowledge because of limits built into the action and the high opportunity cost in an otherwise weaker patron, but unlimited Seeks breaks the game.


Captain Morgan wrote:

Discern Secrets needs a look too.

https://paizo.com/threads/rzs43wv2?Discern-Secrets-change#5

To summarize, it is the only hex cantrip that still has a one minute immunity. And because it grants a free action with no trigger or frequency it technically grants your ally unlimited uses of Recall Knowledge and Seek on their turn. That's maybe acceptable for Recall Knowledge because of limits built into the action and the high opportunity cost in an otherwise weaker patron, but unlimited Seeks breaks the game.

You or an ally. I can cast the spell on myself too.

And Seek is a secret check, so I don't see how it is unlimited.


Discern Secrets the thread, linkfied


Captain Morgan wrote:

Page 387: Nudge Fate seems like if got mixed up with some other spell.

NUDGE FATE [one-action] CANTRIP 1
UNCOMMON CANTRIP CONCENTRATE HEX WITCH
Patron Spinner of Threads
Range 30 feet; Targets 1 creature
Defense Will; Duration 1 minute

First off, it shouldn't have a Defense because it is a buff. Secondly, it doesn't mention Sustained in its duration. These completely break the patterns of all the other hexes so they are likely unintended, much as I am sure spinner of fates players might wish otherwise.

Funny enough, the saving throw bit was in the original.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

GM Core, pg. 302, left column - Bad reference in Philosopher's Extractor

GM Core, pg. 302, left column wrote:
Activate—Accelerated Synthesis (3 action activity) (manipulate) Frequency once per minute; Effect You use the extractor to produce an alchemical item of your level or lower whose formula you know. The extractor can create 56 levels’ worth of items per day in this way. For example, the extractor could create two true elixirs of life (19th level) and two moderate elixirs of life (9th level), or eight comprehension elixirs (7th level), and so on.

(italics mine.)

I couldn't find any comprehension elixir neither in Player Core 1 nor GM Core.

Note: This reference could be partially healed if comprehension elixir is re-introduced by Player Core 2. However, if customer only have PC1 and GMC, they might not know.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Player's Core, P.138 - Bad reference

Very minor error.

PC Core, p. 138 wrote:

Shield Block

You gain the Shield Block general feat (found on page 266),
a reaction that lets you reduce damage with your shield.

Italics mine.

The page number should be 262. It is correctly referenced in the Druid description on page 126.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Not an errata as such, but something that should be included as a footnote.

Bottomless Pit, GM Core page 101.
The detail for the Infinite Pitfall says that you can attempt to Grab an Edge each round that you are falling. Ot should probably included a reminder that even a success results is taking damage equal to half the distance you fell in feet (to a maximum of 1,500 feet). So saving in the first round should result in 250 damage, in the second or beyond 750 damage.

(Not bad for a level 9 hazard. :) )


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

Each of the eight classes has a description for "Skill Feats". This is the Fighter one: "At 2nd level and every 2 levels thereafter, you gain a skill feat. Skill feats can be found in Chapter 5 and have the skill trait. You must be trained or better in the corresponding skill to select a skill feat." The information here is correct.

This is from the Witch class: "At 2nd level and every 2 levels thereafter, you gain a skill feat. You must be trained or better in the corresponding skill to select a skill feat." Note it's identical to the fighter entry except that the second sentence is missing.

Every other class except Rogue has this entry: "At 2nd level and every 2 levels thereafter, you gain a skill feat. Skill feats can be found in Chapter 4 and have the skill trait. You must be trained or better in the corresponding skill to select a skill feat." Chapter 4 is "Skills" not "Feats", which is chapter 5.

This is the Rogue entry: "You gain skill feats more often than others. At 1st level and every level thereafter, you gain a skill feat. Skill feats can be found in Chapter 4 and have the skill trait." It's missing the last sentence "You must be trained or better in the corresponding skill to select a skill feat."

Bard: pages 98-99.
Cleric: page 112.
Druid: page 126.
Fighter: page 138.
Ranger: page 154.
Rogue: page 167.
Witch: page 182.
Wizard: page 197.


Okay, so I'm not entirely sure if this is a me problem or a book problem.

I think the spell Harm is missing a 'Defense' entry in the stat block before the spell's description. I took a quick look at some other spells, and that entry seems normal for damaging spells that don't require an attack roll, like Falling Stars, Fireball, Frostbite, Lightning Bolt, etc.

Harm doesn't have that entry. It *does* mention a Fortitude save in the text of the spell, though. Funnily enough it uses language near-identical to Frostbite, which lists 'Defense: Fortitude' before the description. So, for consistency's sake, I think Harm ought to have it as well.

The only thing giving me pause is, it was like this in the 2E Pathfinder CRB as well. So maybe there's a reason I'm missing?


SecondMark wrote:

Okay, so I'm not entirely sure if this is a me problem or a book problem.

I think the spell Harm is missing a 'Defense' entry in the stat block before the spell's description. I took a quick look at some other spells, and that entry seems normal for damaging spells that don't require an attack roll, like Falling Stars, Fireball, Frostbite, Lightning Bolt, etc.

Harm doesn't have that entry. It *does* mention a Fortitude save in the text of the spell, though. Funnily enough it uses language near-identical to Frostbite, which lists 'Defense: Fortitude' before the description. So, for consistency's sake, I think Harm ought to have it as well.

The only thing giving me pause is, it was like this in the 2E Pathfinder CRB as well. So maybe there's a reason I'm missing?

It is more a mirror of heal than a regular damage spell, since heal also doesn't have a defense entry I imagine it is intended (I personally think it should have the healing effect in the text before the damage but that's not really an errata thing just an opinion, I understand them wanting have both have an ordering of effect on living then undead instead of heal effect then damage)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Trait Abilities, GM Core page 127.
Ooze, HP "usually around double"

Double what? High, Moderate, Low?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I don’t know if someone has already mentioned this, but the text for transferring runes in GM core (pg 225) still says that crafting an item takes 4 days. “It takes 1 day (instead of the 4 days usually needed to Craft) to transfer a rune or swap a pair of runs”.
This needs to be updated to say the 2 days usually needed at the very least, though I am wondering if the 1 day may be shortened as well to keep the 1/4 time required ratio from the original rules.


Just a friendly reminder of any more Errata that needs to be posted should be.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Player Core. Much has been said, these I didn't notice mentioned. Most are typos or formatting stuff.

Page 56: Kneecap
Make a melee Strike with a melee weapons or melee unarmed

Page 73: Incredible Ferocity
Missing horizontal line under the prerequisites.

Page 110: cleric table, level 11
Still has Lightning Reflexes instead of Reflex Expertise

Page 134: Primal Summons
Should include metal and wood as element options (the spell on p.381 has them, fortunately)

Page 231: Recall Knowledge action first paragraph
committing to the action if you can’t don’t like your options

Page 314 and 315: Aerial form and Animal form second paragraph
"You gain specific abilities based on the animal you choose:"
should probably be
"You gain the following statistics and abilities regardless of which battle form you choose:"
to match other battle form spells.

Page 316: Desna's avatar form
Starknife was given deadly 3d4 in the errata. Should this be 3d6 to match the weapon?

Page 327: Earthquake fourth paragraph
Remove bolding from "Structures"

Page 336: Ill omen parameter section
Missing "Defense Will"

Page 356: Seize soul third paragraph
had a soul trapped it in with

Page 366: Volcanic eruption traits
Are not in alphabetical order (the horror!)

Page 374: Soothing words traits
Probably should replace "manipulate" with "mental" to match the original spell

These are not errata but are listed for fun and profit:
This stuff is mostly rank and tradition modifications.
Avatar all air walks turned to fly speed
Bane Emanation is larger, grows faster
Bless Emanation is larger, grows faster
Breath of life No longer adds key stat, base dice increased
Cleanse affliction Druids can now remove curses, occult casters cure poison or disease
Cursed metamorphosis Added to occult list
Fly Added to all traditions since air walk is gone
Dominate Added to divine list
Dragon form Added to divine and occult traditions
Entangling flora Added to arcane list.
Ghostly weapon No longer deactivates existing runes (unless override in GM Core exists)
Honeyed words No longer uncommon
Insect form Added to arcane list
Marvelous mount Added to divine list
Mindlink Added to arcane list
Mystic armor Added to divine and primal lists
Noise blast Added to arcane list
Protection No longer uncommon and a lot simpler
Retrocognition Added to arcane list
Runic body Added to arcane, divine, and occult lists
Runic weapon Added to primal list
Shadow blast Small increase in damage with spirit option now
Shape wood Added to arcane list
Speak with animals Duration to 1 h
Speak with plants Dropped to 3rd rank, duration to 1 h, added to divine and occult lists
Speak with stone Dropped to 5th rank, duration to 1 h, added to occult list
Summon dragon Added to divine, occult, and primal list (with some restrictions)
Summon instrument Added to arcane list (this is very important)
Tangling creepers Added to arcane list
Wall of thorns Added to arcane list (at least it's not 1st edition horror)


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

Not sure if it's an error but Elven Weapon Familiarity no longer includes the Longsword.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Helvellyn wrote:
Not sure if it's an error but Elven Weapon Familiarity no longer includes the Longsword.

!


Hustle Action (Pg.438) - Has a time limit for how long you can Hustle for, Con Mod x 10 minutes but doesn't say what happens if you Hustle the full time. Nor does it state if you can only Hustle once per Exploration Mode.

Current RAW: You can infinitely Hustle because it doesn't prevent you from repeating the action. Neither does it give you a negative for Hustling for the max amount of time.


Organization Statistic by level, GM Core p.205.
3rd column, "Lieutenant level" to be replaced my "Max Follower level"


Lost Omens: Character Guide and Lost Omens: Ancestry Guide - Remaster Compatibility

I wasn't entirely sure what was the best place to put Lost Omens-Books elements that probably need remaster compatibility errata, too.

For example, I've stumbled over non-core "[Ancestry] Lore"-feats.

For now, I've put them in the Lost Omens-Errata-thread (see https://paizo.com/threads/rzs43f59&page=7?Official-Lost-Omens-clarifica tion-errata-and#345)

If remaster compatibility errata candidates should rather be put in the thread at hand, just give me a note and I will do for any future findings.


Player Core 1, pg. 320, right column - Confusing description of Cleanse Affliction

I don't understand the exact effect of Cleanse Affliction, particularly when reading it's heightened versions:

First, Cleanse Affliction 2 addresses curse, disease, or poison.

Player Core 1, pg. 320, right column wrote:

[b}Cleanse Affliction Spell 2[/b]

[...] Choose an affliction [...] such as a curse, disease, or poison

(italics mine)

Then, Cleanse Affliction 3 addresses "disease or poison", only.

Lastly, Cleanse Affliction 4 addresses "curse, disease, or poison" again.

I believe it is intended, that the higher the Cleanse Affliction rank, the more types of afflictions it can counteract. Hence, from context I assume that Cleanse Affliction 2 is meant to address only poisons, isn't it? I can't say for sure. The way the main description text is worded in conjunction with the heightened 3rd text - and how my brain processes spell descriptions - don't seem quite compatible.


Base cleanse affliction reduces the stage of an affliction, but cannot reduce it below 1 (so cannot remove it entirely), and does not attempt to counteract afflictions. Higher rank cleanse afflictions attempt to counteract afflictions in addition to reducing the stage.


Red Metal wrote:
Base cleanse affliction reduces the stage of an affliction, but cannot reduce it below 1 (so cannot remove it entirely), and does not attempt to counteract afflictions. Higher rank cleanse afflictions attempt to counteract afflictions in addition to reducing the stage.

Ah, I now understand my mistake.

When I read the sentence...

Player Core 1, pg. 320, right column, Cleanse Affliction description wrote:
Although the reduction can’t occur again, heightened versions of this spell attempt to counteract with each casting.

... my brain seemed to have put the emphasis on the final phrase "with each casting". I assumed the "with each casting" was the one and decisive difference to the function of the base version described before. (Complementary to this overemphasized "with each casting", the "counteract" part went in the background, mentally.)

This is why I had thought that all versions of the spells worked by counteracting and got confused about the seemingly incompatible heightening descriptions. Thx, Red Metal for helping me out.

May I suggest a slightly changed wording that will probably prevent errors like mine: (italics for recommended clarification)

"Although the reduction can’t occur again, heightened versions of this spell attempt to counteract and do so with each casting.


PC pg. 236: "The item is your level or lower. An item that doesn’t list
a level is level 0. If the item is 9th level or higher, you
must be a master in Crafting, and if it’s 17th or higher,
you must be legendary."

GMC pg. 223: "If the item is 9th level or higher, the crafter must be
a master in Crafting, and if it’s 16th or higher, the
crafter must be legendary."

Is it 17th or 16th level that you require legendary?


GMC pg. 225: The Etching Process
"You must be able to Craft magic items, have the formula for the rune, have the item you’re adding the rune to in your possession throughout the etching process, and meet any special Craft Requirements."

Must have the formula? This is counter to the not needing formulas for common items, which a majority of the runes are. Guessing this section just got skipped during remastering.

GMC pg. 225: Transferring Runes
"It takes 1 day (instead of the 4 days usually needed to Craft) to transfer a rune or swap a pair of runes, and you can continue to work over additional days to get a discount, as usual with Craft."

Guessing this section just got skipped during remastering.

Seeing how this was, I'm guessing my answer to the previous post is "17"


PC pg. 294: Formulas
"You can also Craft a formula by reverse-engineering it from an item you possess. Use the formula’s Price and the item’s Craft DC."

You only have prices for common formulas. If a player wants to reverse-engineer an uncommon or rare item there are no price guidelines for that.

Verdant Wheel

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Fighter Dedication (a class feat) gives non-scaling Proficiency with Simple and Martial Weapons.

Weapon Proficiency (a general feat) gives scaling Proficiency (to Expert tied to class features).

I am not sure this is intended.

The former should probably just grant the latter as part of it's package?

=)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Player Core book.

Please have a footnote style symbol applied to any trait that is not the full complete text. "See GM rulebook" or "abbreviated" or some other disclaimer symbol.

It's really, REALLY not OK to have discrepancies between the Player Core and GM book that both appear to be defining the same trait. And there are many of them.

--------------------------

GM core book.

It is not a complete reference material. Some traits, like [concealable] for weapons that can be worn stealthily, do not exist in the GM core, but do in the Player Core.

The function of a glossary/index is completeness. Having no single book be complete is failure to achieve the primary function.

I'd honestly recommend the "see pg ___" be used much, much more, as there's no need for an index to be a dictionary.

------------------------------

Encyclopedias have been able to split themselves into separate volumes without issue for centuries via communicating to the reader what the bounds of said volume are. You never know what exists in both core books the same, what's missing in one, or what entry is going to have a conflict between them.

The moment a reader realizes The GM core is not complete, they need to search both books every time, potentially resolving text between two conflicting entries (see bomb splash, inhaled trait, ect).

The need for / benefit of a complete (digital) reference has never been felt so badly as now that it has become impossible to rely upon a single reference book.

With this Player / GM split, it's reasonable for the PC book to be limited to PC building options, and even to use (properly flagged) abbreviated explainers at times. If the PC book is designed to be an incomplete starting reference, then it is not OK for the other half, the GM core, to be incomplete as well. Even if it's a lot of redundancy, one index *needs* to be comprehensive.


The Aiuvarin and Dromaar versatile heritages should have the requirement of non-elf and non-orc respectively*. A humanoid requirement like Beastkin has is more subjective, but might also be worth considering.

*To be clear, I mean that Elven Aiuvarin and Orcish Dromaar don't make sense. I absolutely want to see a sibling team of an Elven Dromaar and an Orc Aiuvarin.


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

I suppose the offspring of an elf and an orc could be Aiuvarin or Dromaar, or both. What would govern which it is. I want to say "genetics" but I'm not sure how (or if) that would work in pathfinder. Another option is player (or gm, for npcs) choice, but that seems rather arbitrary.

151 to 200 of 203 << 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.