The Dark Archive errata for the Remaster update changes the base damage of phase bolt. However, I don't see anything granting it the Concentration or Manipulate traits.
Since somatic and verbal components no longer exist in any meaningful fashion, does this mean I can cast it even when bound, or without provoking a Reactive Strike?
What about other spells? Is there a more general errata that I may have overlooked?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. Force Bolt is a wizard focus spell that is reprinted in PC1 with the Manipulate trait.
2. You already know that removing all of the Manipulate and Concentrate traits that spells which aren't reprinted got from their components is an absurd, wrong read without needing an explicit reference. This is not a serious question.
Sorry. I meant to say PHASE bolt, not force bolt. I've corrected the OP.
Sorry. I meant to say PHASE bolt, not force bolt. I've corrected the OP.Why should be anything different about it?
For starters, phase bolt does not appear in Player Core, but in Dark Archive.
Therefore, unlike force bolt in Player Core, it does not list "Concentration" and "Manipulate" among its traits, but rather "Verbal" and "Somatic."
The Remaster did away with the latter two as clearly defined Traits.
There is Remaster errata for Dark Archive and even for phase bolt in particular. However, it only adjusts the damage, and doesn't stat the spell picks up any new traits.
Ergo, unless there is a general rule, it does not appear to gain any new traits.
I'm quite certain that's not the intent, and will be running it that way in my own games, but this is the Rules forum, where RAW is what we'rediscussing.
I'm looking for said general rule. (And no, I don't consider a preview blog article to be enough on its own; though it does make the intent clear, it is not formal errata and cannot change the rules.) Does anyone know where I can find it?
Elsewise, lots of spells aren't going to worry overly much about reactions that trigger on those traits in hard rules games like PFS.
|
Oh, RAW has got you covered there:
Ambiguous Rules
Sometimes a rule could be interpreted multiple ways. If one
version is too good to be true, it probably is. If a rule seems
to have wording with problematic repercussions or doesn’t
work as intended, work with your group to find a good
solution, rather than just playing with the rule as printed.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry. I meant to say PHASE bolt, not force bolt. I've corrected the OP.Why should be anything different about it?For starters, phase bolt does not appear in Player Core, but in Dark Archive.
Therefore, unlike force bolt in Player Core, it does not list "Concentration" and "Manipulate" among its traits, but rather "Verbal" and "Somatic."
The Remaster did away with the latter two as clearly defined Traits.
There is Remaster errata for Dark Archive and even for phase bolt in particular. However, it only adjusts the damage, and doesn't stat the spell picks up any new traits.
Ergo, unless there is a general rule, it does not appear to gain any new traits.
I'm quite certain that's not the intent, and will be running it that way in my own games, but this is the Rules forum, where RAW is what we'rediscussing.
I'm looking for said general rule. (And no, I don't consider a preview blog article to be enough on its own; though it does make the intent clear, it is not formal errata and cannot change the rules.) Does anyone know where I can find it?
Elsewise, lots of spells aren't going to worry overly much about reactions that trigger on those traits in hard rules games like PFS.
You wouldn't expect to see them not trigger Reactions in PFS, either. The campaign rules do not, in fact, have people run the game by tortured "technically, there isn't a formal enough description of how this obvious thing (with clear intent) works, so jump to wild consequences, instead" logic instead of by their honest understanding of how the rules are supposed to work.
You wouldn't expect to see them not trigger Reactions in PFS, either. The campaign rules do not, in fact, have people run the game by tortured "technically, there isn't a formal enough description of how this obvious thing (with clear intent) works, so jump to wild consequences, instead" logic instead of by their honest understanding of how the rules are supposed to work.
Nevertheless that doesn't change the fact that, so far, nobody has been able or willing to show me a rule that explicitly covers this.
Elsewise, lots of spells aren't going to worry overly much about reactions that trigger on those traits in hard rules games like PFS.
This is a nonsense argument. Hard rules games like PFS don't fall for convoluted rules trap arguments. Nothing changed about the concentrate and manipulate traits on the CRB spells. There is nothing to show you because nothing actually changed.
Do remember that in PF2, RAI is the RAW. The designers were kind enough to protect you from yourself.
The Remaster did away with the latter two as clearly defined Traits.
There is Remaster errata for Dark Archive and even for phase bolt in particular. However, it only adjusts the damage, and doesn't stat the spell picks up any new traits.
Ergo, unless there is a general rule, it does not appear to gain any new traits.
It sounds like you are trying to get your GM to ban anything that wasn't officially and fully updated to the new Remastered rules.
Certainly those traits need to be added to the spell as part of updating them for use. No, the game devs didn't do that as part of the Remaster compatibility errata. That doesn't mean that it isn't needed or isn't intended. Nor does it mean that it won't be changed later.
But it isn't a hard change to make at the table.
Changing the damage values to account for losing the attribute static damage is much more complicated - which is why that was included in the compatibility errata.
Then rejoice! Nothing removed the original traits from the spells to begin with. So no need for extra rules!
Yup. That would be my GM response to this too.
If you want to argue that the new Remastered traits don't exist, then you are running the spell fully with the pre-Remastered rules for the traits that it does have.
|
You wouldn't expect to see them not trigger Reactions in PFS, either. The campaign rules do not, in fact, have people run the game by tortured "technically, there isn't a formal enough description of how this obvious thing (with clear intent) works, so jump to wild consequences, instead" logic instead of by their honest understanding of how the rules are supposed to work.Nevertheless that doesn't change the fact that, so far, nobody has been able or willing to show me a rule that explicitly covers this.
Why should there be rules covering it?
You're using a spell from a previous version of the game which included different baseline assumptions than more contemporary books. All old spells which haven't been reprinted continue to have their old traits (unless otherwise specified), even if the formatting of those traits differs from those in newer spells.Suggesting anything otherwise is obdurate at best and belligerent at worst.
Can you tell me where does it states in the "dark archive compatibility" that the Phase bolt no longer has Verbal and Somatic traits?
I know that the spells in Core 1 do not. And in those spells those traits are replaced by concentration and manipulation, but "hard line RAW" nothing removed siad traits from the rest of the books.
Am I understanding correctly that your rebuttal is that there is no clearly stated rule that the old casting component traits have gone away?
If so, then that's a pretty interesting take.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems like the only reasonable interpretation to me. If something hasn't been printed in a remastered book, we use the legacy printing. The Verbal, Somatic, and Material traits haven't been reprinted, so we use the printed legacy rules for those traits just as we use the printed legacy writeup of spells like Phase Bolt except where affected by errata. The only change from errata is the damage expression, so Phase Bolt still has the Verbal and Somatic traits as defined in legacy material.
Thank you for your input, everyone. It seems the rule I was looking for doesn't exist, at least not explicitly.
The logic most of you presented seems to me to be rather rock solid though. I suppose that will have to be enough until the developers put things into writing more clearly, if they ever deign it worth their time and energy to better formalize things, that is.
You wouldn't expect to see them not trigger Reactions in PFS, either. The campaign rules do not, in fact, have people run the game by tortured "technically, there isn't a formal enough description of how this obvious thing (with clear intent) works, so jump to wild consequences, instead" logic instead of by their honest understanding of how the rules are supposed to work.
I mean I get where you're coming from abut RAI, but pointing out that the compatibility errata has no commentary on components and traits is neither a small thing nor is it some egregious act of malice to suggest the rules should have more clarity here.
Even without the manipulate trait (which it absolutely still has by any sensible interpretation of what happened in the remaster, mind you), Phase Bolt in particular would still trigger Reactive Strikes anyway, since it has you make a ranged attack.
Sure there are other reactions that only trigger on manipulate, but Reactive Strike is by far the most common reaction.
But yeah, I agree with everyone else that those errata'd spells absolutely retain the traits buried in their original components.
Otherwise, one could also say there's no remaster rule on how to provide Somatic or Verbal spells at all, so you're outright unable to use any pre-master spell, period.
...pointing out that the compatibility errata has no commentary on components and traits is neither a small thing nor is it some egregious act of malice to suggest the rules should have more clarity here.
Indeed!
Even without the manipulate trait (which it absolutely still has by any sensible interpretation of what happened in the remaster, mind you), Phase Bolt in particular would still trigger Reactive Strikes anyway, since it has you make a ranged attack.
Sure there are other reactions that only trigger on manipulate, but Reactive Strike is by far the most common reaction.
But yeah, I agree with everyone else that those errata'd spells absolutely retain the traits buried in their original components.
Otherwise, one could also say there's no remaster rule on how to provide Somatic or Verbal spells at all, so you're outright unable to use any pre-master spell, period.
Some very good points.
What is so hard about using the preview and other similar documents as change guidelines?
The simple fact that they're pretty scattered about, and not everyone reads the Blog articles or watches the YouTube streams, or gives them the same weight. Having it all in one place (such as on the official errata/FAQ page) would go a LONG way toward clarification and accessibility.
I know you said it's all on the home page, which is a good point, but how long do you think it will be before they remove all that and replace it with some other promotional items; a few months tops? How easy will it be to find time stamp X:XX in expired YouTube stream Y where some developer said Z then? In this modern tech day and age, if you can't get your customers to the information they're seeking in one or two easy to find clicks, they're just not going to bother.
|
Remember everyone, we know at this phase (heh) that the Remaster project aims to eventually fully replace everything from the original PF2 Core Rules via new books and anything that isn't picked up for a new publication and Remaster is squarely in the sights of errata, so far they only pushed out one errata wave with the day 0 patch that was intended to hit the biggest and most common issues they noticed in time for an immediate patch. I assume that they're banking everything they're learning since release so that a day 0 errata can drop when MC 1 and PC 2 go public for maximum visibility and hopefully universal adoption.
|
I think getting a little lost in this is that I believe that the intent is to keep the Core Rulebook and older preremaster books playable under the old rules. If someone never buys the remaster books, then the old books still need to work with the CRB. An errata to change the damage on a cantrip is balancing the old spells with the remaster spells so that old material isn’t out of balance. An errata to remove spell components would break the spell for the old rules. I suspect the only time we’ll see components removed from a spell is if the spell gets reprinted. Granted, you can also ignore the errata for spell damage if you aren’t using the remaster rules, but I don’t think anything in the errata actually breaks the old rules in the way that removing spell components would.
|
|
You need to mourn the CRB and the rules from it, it has been, for all intents and purposes, retired and buried. They aren't reprinting it and they are formally publishing errata and updates to all books other than the ones that are being replaced to align with the new rules. This is all because they're not moving to a new edition, insisting "loyalty" to the CRB is choosing the hill to say that Paizo needs to respect people and publish new book according to their desire to ignore all rules updates, and errata for printings 1-4 and keep making rules for the version you like instead of the new system norm.
The only reason the CRB isn't fully and completely replaceable at this point is due to the lack of the rest of the CRB Classes, items, armor, equipment, and other misc stuff that supports them.
Alignment is dead, Abi Mod to Cantrips is gone, old languages don't exist, some traits no longer exist, that's just how it is. The only other options they had would be to treat all Remaster materials as "optional" new rules like PF1 Unchained which would have been a disaster or to give up on PF2 as a viable product and rush PF3 out of the doors WAY before they were ready do.
|
|
It’s not loyalty to the CRB. They have still been selling the CRB. There are people who will continue to use it. So errata on old books is never going to fully update them for the remaster. To do that, they’ll release a remastered version of the book. To expect them to errata an old book to in every way use the rules in the remaster is unreasonable.
Yeah, the point of the remaster is to protect Paizo from legal action from their competitors since these games are no longer published under the OGL.
You, a person running a game for the amusement of yourself and your friends, have nothing to fear from any corporate entity so you should just use the old version if there is a question about how something should function.
Once PC2 releases, will I still be able to cast ray of frost in home games and/or PFS? (In other words, has it been wholly replaced by frostbite? Or are they considered two separate spells?)
|
|
For PFS, per the remaster rules released by the campaign, you can continue to cast the spell as long as it wasn’t reprinted under the same name. I don’t remember if ray of frost was reprinted or updated. You would have to use any errata on the damage. And I would expect that it would still be considered to provoke.
Having it all in one place (such as on the official errata/FAQ page) would go a LONG way toward clarification and accessibility.As someone else said, they're probably not going to errata the CRB any more, period. And they're not going to include what you want in PC1 or PC2 errata because the things you're asking about don't exist in PC1 or PC2.
That's why I think it would work better as a FAQ clarification rather than an errata change, but since Paizo opted to blur the lines between the two a few years back by putting them all on one page, it's hard to say if there even are FAQ clarifications anymore. (The irony of which is not lost on me.)
how long do you think it will be before they remove all that and replace it with some other promotional items; a few months tops?Does having it in that folder really, in your mind, make it more official?
Well, yes.
Are documents published by Paizo, on the Paizo website, not official content to you? Regardless of what folder/link they are in?
Official? Yes. Errata? No. Errata belongs on the errata page of the website.
Are you really honestly telling me that if they moved the current changes pdf from the current Paizo link into the Paizo errata link/folder, in your mind that changes it from 'unofficial, can't trust' to 'official, will use'?
It's not a matter of official/unofficial, but of clear classification. If it's not where the errata is expected to be, how can anyone realistically claim it is proper errata? The easy answer is that it's not errata at all. It's "commentary," or "opinion," or something else.
Can you tell me where does it states in the "dark archive compatibility" that the Phase bolt no longer has Verbal and Somatic traits?
I know that the spells in Core 1 do not. And in those spells those traits are replaced by concentration and manipulation, but "hard line RAW" nothing removed siad traits from the rest of the books.
Am I understanding correctly that your rebuttal is that there is no clearly stated rule that the old casting component traits have gone away?
If so, then that's a pretty interesting take.
My take is that you shouldn't be using judicious picking and choosing of which rule set to follow in order to get a mechanical advantage that wasn't intended.
If you want to cast Phase Bolt with the CRB casting components and the CRB rules for what those casting components mean, then that is fine.
If you want to cast Phase Bolt with the PC1 traits and the PC1 rules for casting spells, that is also fine.
Arguing that you want to use the PC1 casting rules, but use the CRB casting components instead of the PC1 traits - and then argue that the CRB casting components line is undefined in PC1 and therefore the casting doesn't provoke...
No. That is abusing the rules for mechanical gain.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For PFS, per the remaster rules released by the campaign, you can continue to cast the spell as long as it wasn’t reprinted under the same name. I don’t remember if ray of frost was reprinted or updated. You would have to use any errata on the damage. And I would expect that it would still be considered to provoke.
It was errata.
Page 362: In the ray of frost cantrip, replace "cold damage equal to 1d4 + your spellcasting ability modifier" with "2d4 cold damage".
In PFS you have access to both Ray of Frost and Frostbite as separate spells. If you use Ray of Frost, you do have to use the updated damage values.