| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My biggest one I think is the level 9 Rogue Feature, getting to boost all 3 saves to critical success is absurd. What do you think is somethign that really could use some Errata for balance.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The return of creatures' Ecology stats!
The reigning in of the Exemplar Dedication/Archetype.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Still waiting for the promised clarifications on how long I follow commands when not in combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My biggest one I think is the level 9 Rogue Feature, getting to boost all 3 saves to critical success is absurd. What do you think is somethign that really could use some Errata for balance.
I'm pretty sure it was just a copy-paste error, but I can agree that for balance purposes it needs to be reigned in.
It's entirely possible that it was meant to apply to a subset of Fortitude Saves a la Bravery (probably Poison and maybe Disease effects), but given that they didn't have this feature before in the Premaster, either from feats or otherwise, it seems unlikely that they wanted this change in the Remaster.
Anyway, the other two I would recommend is for Psychic to be bumped to a proper 3 slot caster (because Cantrips+ isn't really a powerful enough feature for it to make them a weaker spellcaster than even a Cleric, Bard, Druid, or Witch), and for Magus to be able to not trigger reactions from casting a spell via Spellstrike while in Arcane Cascade, giving them more incentive to use that feature without having to risk nullifying their entire turn because they are going up against one of the few enemies that actually has Reactive Strike.
I do have more, but they are far more ambitious and probably not something that can be accomplished with simple errata.
Looking through the full rules of Alchemist, I think that the sidebar used the wrong name for the bomb.
The Versatile Vials aren't used as bombs directly. You have to turn the Versatile Vial into a Quick Vial using Quick Alchemy - the Quick Vial is used as a bomb (or as something else available to the Research Field as a Quick Vial).
As it is currently written it is causing confusion. The Versatile Vials can be used as a bomb directly, but have no action cost for creation - only for drawing them and Strike - and the Versatile Vials are said to be stored with your alchemical toolkit, so it seems like they have no draw cost. But then you can optionally use Quick Alchemy to turn a Versatile Vial into a bomb: a Quick Vial bomb that has no stats listed anywhere. Not sure why anyone would want to spend the action on that when they could just throw the Versatile Vial itself.
Alternatively, if the Versatile Vial is not to be used as a bomb directly, why would anyone want to turn a Versatile Vial into a cheap bomb using Quick Alchemy when Quick Alchemy could instead turn the Versatile Vial into a regular bomb for the same action and reagent cost?
Something in here is very confusing.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
How about properly explaining what an instance of damage is, or how falling works, or minions outside encounter mode?
As far as priority errata goes, imo a class saves or a feat being slightly out of whack has to be really far down the list.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How about properly explaining what an instance of damage is
For that one specifically, I am wondering if we haven't gotten clarification or errata on that because the problem is not able to be solved. The various definition pieces cause a mutually exclusive interlock where no definition of 'instance of damage' would make all of the existing interactions work as defined.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How about properly explaining what an instance of damage is, or how falling works, or minions outside encounter mode?
As far as priority errata goes, imo a class saves or a feat being slightly out of whack has to be really far down the list.
I think falling is pretty self-explanatory; I haven't had any issues with falling taking place both as a GM and a player, because the rules are pretty clear as to when you start falling (depending on if you engage in flying or not prior to falling), as well as the rate at which you fall.
Minions probably don't necessarily need an explanation, and is probably more dependent on the type of minion, the mission they're commanded to do, etc. There's so many variables here that it's basically best for the GM at the time to make that call based on the context of the command, as well as its capacity to follow it. I wouldn't mind guideline examples, though, such as commanding an animal companion to track an enemy's footprints, or a familiar flying onto an open window to scope out an upper floor room, but as far as hardline rules, I don't think I would like that very much, because it can strait-jacket gameplay in an undesired way.
How about properly explaining what an instance of damage isFor that one specifically, I am wondering if we haven't gotten clarification or errata on that because the problem is not able to be solved. The various definition pieces cause a mutually exclusive interlock where no definition of 'instance of damage' would make all of the existing interactions work as defined.
I already said my two cents on that whole can of worms here, and it really just feels like a binary problem that they just need to pick one and go with it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think falling is pretty self-explanatory; I haven't had any issues with falling taking place both as a GM and a player, because the rules are pretty clear as to when you start falling (depending on if you engage in flying or not prior to falling), as well as the rate at which you fall.
It's all well and good until you try to Glide.
I have yet to see a Glide ability that makes sense in conjunction with the falling rules.
Falling rules are fine. It's all the Glide abilities that need errata.
[The "instance of damage" rules] really just feels like a binary problem that they just need to pick one and go with it.
I feel like that approach is liable to cause more problems than it solves, at least in the short term.
How about properly explaining what an instance of damage isFor that one specifically, I am wondering if we haven't gotten clarification or errata on that because the problem is not able to be solved. The various definition pieces cause a mutually exclusive interlock where no definition of 'instance of damage' would make all of the existing interactions work as defined.
That seems like all the more reason to point to a clarification. The effect of certain abilities can change significantly depending on how you read them.
What I find really damning though is that if you look at developer comments, developer games, and semi-official implementations like Foundry, it seems there is somewhat of a consensus on how the rules are run. Basically all of these sources add up damage by type and applies weakness/resistance to each type within an individual hit, but the RAW doesn't clearly reflect that.
If the rules really were hyper ambiguous I'd be more sympathetic, but the fact that so many secondary sources seem to all interpret the rules the same way and we still haven't had an official clarification to that effect is really annoying though.
|
If we're talking rules that need engineering, my main gripes would be:
- what exactly is an instance of damage?
- what to do when you get stunned 1 in the middle of your turn?
If we're talking more class design, I'd like some more polish on:
- make wizard schools actually exciting
- upgrade psychics to match the remaster paradigm
- do something to the thaumaturge so people stop stumbling over the restrictions of implement's empowerment
It's all well and good until you try to Glide.I have yet to see a Glide ability that makes sense in conjunction with the falling rules.
Falling rules are fine. It's all the Glide abilities that need errata.
Eh, glide works fine if you just let your player activate it before they start falling.
I think falling is pretty self-explanatory; I haven't had any issues with falling taking place both as a GM and a player, because the rules are pretty clear as to when you start falling (depending on if you engage in flying or not prior to falling), as well as the rate at which you fall.It's all well and good until you try to Glide.
I have yet to see a Glide ability that makes sense in conjunction with the falling rules.
Falling rules are fine. It's all the Glide abilities that need errata.
[The "instance of damage" rules] really just feels like a binary problem that they just need to pick one and go with it.I feel like that approach is liable to cause more problems than it solves, at least in the short term.
I can agree with that, and that's because the issue is that there is little to no opportunity to utilize glide abilities due to how the fall rules are currently written. Falling usually doesn't allow actions in-between unless you either were flying from the previous round, or have Free Actions or Reactions that can interrupt the standard flow, like Gentle Landing, for example. In my opinion, glide abilities need to either have a trait or something that lets them circumvent the standard falling rules, or they need to have different requirements for them to work, but it's definitely feasible for such abilities to be in place without much change to them.
That depends on which route they go with, and that's basically what my linked post summarizes is the "best route", and that's without any errata needed. I do believe certain abilities need to have more concise trigger points to be able to sensibly apply to their circumstances (i.e. Champion Reaction, since damage is only applied in step 4, and by that point the ability to reduce the damage via the resistance it grants is too late), but as far as intent is concerned, it's not difficult to ascertain how the ability is supposed to function.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eh, glide works fine if you just let your player activate it before they start falling.
So, Stride to the edge of the wall. Glide for one action while on the ground and get no movement from it at all. Then jump and end your turn hanging in mid air right there next to the wall you jumped off of.
Perfect. Very intuitive.
You can directly throw/use it for Field Benefits the Versatile Vial for 1 action but that costs you the Versatile Vial.
You can make a Quick Vial from thin air to use as a bomb/Field Vial but that requires 1 action.
Making a Quick Vial isn't make from thin air. You make them from a Versatile Vial. Everything in Quick Alchemy costs you a Versatile Vial - it says so in the first paragraph.
So your choices are:
1) Directly throw a Versatile Vial for 1 action that costs you the Versatile Vial.
2) Make a Quick Vial to use as a bomb/Field vial but that costs 1 action and a Versatile Vial, and then you can throw it for 1 more action.
And why would you ever make a Versatile/Quick Vial bomb using option 2 if you could use option 1 instead?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eh, glide works fine if you just let your player activate it before they start falling.So, Stride to the edge of the wall. Glide for one action while on the ground and get no movement from it at all. Then jump and end your turn hanging in mid air right there next to the wall you jumped off of.
Perfect. Very intuitive.
Okay, with the added caveat that you aren't really intended to glide while already on the ground, the text of the ability doesn't really make sense if you do. Though that part was pretty obvious (you can't control your descent or glide forward 25 feet if you're not in the air in the first place) but I guess you're just a cat.
So it's move off the edge, glide forward 25 feet and down 5, and end your turn there.
You can directly throw/use it for Field Benefits the Versatile Vial for 1 action but that costs you the Versatile Vial.
You can make a Quick Vial from thin air to use as a bomb/Field Vial but that requires 1 action.Making a Quick Vial isn't make from thin air. You make them from a Versatile Vial. Everything in Quick Alchemy costs you a Versatile Vial - it says so in the first paragraph.
So your choices are:
1) Directly throw a Versatile Vial for 1 action that costs you the Versatile Vial.
2) Make a Quick Vial to use as a bomb/Field vial but that costs 1 action and a Versatile Vial, and then you can throw it for 1 more action.
And why would you ever make a Versatile/Quick Vial bomb using option 2 if you could use option 1 instead?
Because you're reading it incorrectly. Option 2 does not cost you a versatile vial.
Consider it a replacement for perpetuals, a resourceless low quality attack you can choose to make.
"You either use upa versatile vial[...] or create an especially shoved-lived versatile vial"
Note again that Create Consumable specifically calls out expending a vial while Quick Vial does not.
The second use very clearly doesn't consume a vial. As you point out, spending a vial to create a vial would do nothing.
You can either use up a versatile vial to make another alchemical consumable at a moment's notice or create an especially short-lived versatile vial.
You are using up the Versatile Vial either way. You either create an alchemical consumable at a moment's notice, or you create an especially short-lived Versatile Vial.
But the original Versatile Vial is used up.
How are you reading that any other way?
Okay, with the added caveat that you aren't really intended to glide while already on the ground, the text of the ability doesn't really make sense if you do. Though that part was pretty obvious (you can't control your descent or glide forward 25 feet if you're not in the air in the first place) but I guess you're just a cat.Eh, glide works fine if you just let your player activate it before they start falling.So, Stride to the edge of the wall. Glide for one action while on the ground and get no movement from it at all. Then jump and end your turn hanging in mid air right there next to the wall you jumped off of.
Perfect. Very intuitive.
I may be a cat, but I'm a cat that can read the Simultaneous Actions rule.
If you use Glide on the ground you aren't gliding anywhere, and once you are in the air because you jumped, then you must have ended your Glide action to do a Jump action and can't glide any more then either.
How about properly explaining what an instance of damage is, or how falling works, or minions outside encounter mode?
As far as priority errata goes, imo a class saves or a feat being slightly out of whack has to be really far down the list.
Instance of damage would be high on the list too.
How weapon specialization and property runes work with battle forms and other non-typed damage.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can directly throw/use it for Field Benefits the Versatile Vial for 1 action but that costs you the Versatile Vial.
You can make a Quick Vial from thin air to use as a bomb/Field Vial but that requires 1 action.Making a Quick Vial isn't make from thin air. You make them from a Versatile Vial. Everything in Quick Alchemy costs you a Versatile Vial - it says so in the first paragraph.
So your choices are:
1) Directly throw a Versatile Vial for 1 action that costs you the Versatile Vial.
2) Make a Quick Vial to use as a bomb/Field vial but that costs 1 action and a Versatile Vial, and then you can throw it for 1 more action.
And why would you ever make a Versatile/Quick Vial bomb using option 2 if you could use option 1 instead?
You're having difficulty understanding why anyone would use option 2, because you've understood it incorrectly.
Your choices are:
- 1. Spend a normal versatile vial to make a bomb based on a formula in your book.
- 2. Create a temporary vial out of thin air and throw it. It doesn't cost you a regular versatile vial, but it's also not as powerful as turning a regular versatile vial into a "real" bomb.
Sentence parsing:
You can either use up a versatile vial to make another alchemical consumable at a moment's notice or create an especially short-lived versatile vial.
You can either use up a versatile vial to:
1) make another alchemical consumable at a moment's notice
or
2) create an especially short-lived versatile vial.
Why are you saying that I am the one misunderstanding this?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For what it's worth, add my vote to Finoan reading it the wrong way. Creating a Quick Vial with Quick Alchemy does not consume a Versatile Vial.
|
Sentence parsing:
You can either use up a versatile vial to make another alchemical consumable at a moment's notice or create an especially short-lived versatile vial.You can either use up a versatile vial to:
1) make another alchemical consumable at a moment's notice
or
2) create an especially short-lived versatile vial.
Why are you saying that I am the one misunderstanding this?
Yeah that's a pretty annoyingly constructed sentence. But from pre-release material like the alchemist preview, I'm pretty sure it's intended that the "short-lived" vial, are the vials that can be thrown or used as a class action. It really needs a different name to make this clear. Idk like field vials or something. Your versatile vial is your resource, your "field vial" is the thing you make and then use like any other QA alchemical item.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It says you create a versatile vial, and unlike Create Consumable, makes no mention of expending a versatile vial to create it.
It doesn't need to explicitly mention expending a versatile vial if the general rules for using Quick Alchemy say that it will do so for both processes.
-----
Do you see why I say that this needs errata more than any of the other classes in PC2?
Oracle is at least clear in how bad some of the Mysteries are and how they don't do what they used to. Rogue saving throws may look strange, but RAW is understandable (houserule as desired).
Alchemist Versatile Vials we can't even agree on how to read it to know what RAW is.
This one is not too hard to untangle because the intention is so obvious.
The intention is not obvious.
It seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to have Quick Alchemy cost a vial for any of its uses. Versatile Vials are a renewable resource.
People like to believe that everyone else thinks the same way that they do. That isn't the case. "Clear and unambigous" means that people can't read it wrong and come to a different conclusion.
This needs errata because it is most definitely not "clear and unambiguous".
It’s not great wording, but they rarely errata stuff that is logically obvious to the median customer but perpetually confusing to the bottom 10-20%. Maybe they’ll come through for you, though.
It’s not great wording, but they rarely errata stuff that is logically obvious to the median customer but perpetually confusing to the bottom 10-20%. Maybe they’ll come through for you, though.
Excellent snarking there. Nicely done.
"You can either use the car to go to the store or to attend the fair."
And that very obviously means that you are walking to the fair?
So obviously that people who are not English majors are going to read it that way 100% of the time and anyone who reads it differently is in the bottom 10% of literacy of the population.
-You can use money to either get cake or get stale bread
-you can either use money to get cake or get stale breadthe two above sentences are obviously not equal.
Those sentences are very much equal. In both cases you are spending money. And getting one of cake, or stale bread.
The first sentence sounds 'wrong' to my brain as a whole. The phrasing sounds clunky.
If you want to say that the bread doesn't cost money, I would phrase it as:
you can either use money to get cake or not use money to get stale bread.
Those sentences are very much equal.
Nah man, you can't tell me 3 - 2 = 1 is the same as 2 - 3 = 1. Because that's basically what you're saying right now.
And after we are done hashing out the first sentence of Quick Alchemy, we can move on to the overloaded term "Versatile Vials".
It is pretty obvious to me that the Versatile Vials that you keep stored indefinitely (up to your next daily preparations) in your alchemists tools are very much different than the Versatile Vials that are 'especially short-lived' that are created by using Quick Alchemy: Quick Vial and only last until the end of your current turn.
So which version of Versatile Vial is the sidebar referencing that has the bomb stats?
In short - can you actually throw a Versatile Vial directly from your Alchemists Tools or do you have to use Quick Alchemy (to possibly turn the Versatile Vial into a Versatile Vial) and throw that Versatile Vial instead?
Those sentences are very much equal.Nah man, you can't tell me 3 - 2 = 1 is the same as 2 - 3 = 1. Because that's basically what you're saying right now.
The math comparison would be more that -2 + 3 = 1
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The intention is not obvious.
It's not perfectly phrased, but when there are two ways to read a rule, one of which produces a functional game mechanic and the other causes the text to make no sense and do nothing at all, you can't put it entirely on Paizo when you actively choose the latter interpretation.
Like IDK it doesn't take a lot to realize that spending a versatile vial to craft a versatile vial doesn't make any sense, then notice that of the two sub-actions of quick alchemy only one of them mentions expending a versatile vial, and put a little bit of deductive reasoning together and decide that maybe reading it in that very specific way doesn't make sense-
... IDK like why is your reaction here to dig in your heels and insist the broken interpretation is clearly correct and that the whole mechanic doesn't work instead of just trying to think it through?
Okay, with the added caveat that you aren't really intended to glide while already on the ground, the text of the ability doesn't really make sense if you do. Though that part was pretty obvious (you can't control your descent or glide forward 25 feet if you're not in the air in the first place) but I guess you're just a cat.Eh, glide works fine if you just let your player activate it before they start falling.So, Stride to the edge of the wall. Glide for one action while on the ground and get no movement from it at all. Then jump and end your turn hanging in mid air right there next to the wall you jumped off of.
Perfect. Very intuitive.
I may be a cat, but I'm a cat that can read the Simultaneous Actions rule.
If you use Glide on the ground you aren't gliding anywhere, and once you are in the air because you jumped, then you must have ended your Glide action to do a Jump action and can't glide any more then either.
That's fine, you just take the action to glide after you've finished the action that's left you in midair.
Because the alternative interpretation that I am reading this as does still make sense.
With the distinction between daily Versatile Vials and the very temporary Versatile Vials, then it makes full sense that:
You can use Quick Alchemy to craft a Versatile Vial into a consumable. Or you can use Quick Alchemy to craft a Versatile Vial into a very temporary Versatile Vial and throw it as a bomb (the stats of which are listed in the sidebar).
You can't throw a daily Versatile Vial directly. Those stats currently written in the book for Versatile Vial bombs are referencing the very temporary Versatile Vials made from Quick Alchemy.
Now, this is not the way that you are interpreting the wording. But is it objectively wrong? Or is it just that you don't read it that way and refuse to acknowledge that the alternative is a valid interpretation and doesn't cause things to be non-functional - just differently-functional.
Yes, I do find it very odd that you use Quick Alchemy to turn a Versatile Vial into a Versatile Vial. That is why I really dislike that those two very different concepts are given the same name. Versatile Vial should be for the ones that can be stored for the day in your Alchemist Tools. The ones created by Quick Alchemy should be given some other name like calling it a Quick Vial and changing the sub-action of Quick Alchemy to "Create Quick Vial".
That's fine, you just take the action to glide after you've finished the action that's left you in midair.
You don't end a jump action in midair. What rule says that you can do that?
And again with the Simultaneous Actions rule you can't use Glide while in the middle of a jump action.
Precision is needed in the damage rules and the battle form rules.
Incorporeal needs errata.
Hostile needs a firm definition.
Minions still need work, regarding timing and conditions.
Another thought. Since Investigator: Alchemical Sciences uses Versatile Vials and says to reference the Alchemist class for definition of what that means, can an Investigator throw a Versatile Vial directly as a bomb? Alchemical Sciences doesn't by itself let the Investigator put bombs of any form into their formula book.
Do they recharge their Versatile Vial count back up to their maximum during exploration mode?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now, this is not the way that you are interpreting the wording. But is it objectively wrong?
Very obviously yes. Reading it in such a way renders the text effectively meaningless.
Like-... you opened your complaint in this thread by saying that the ability makes no sense... so like, yeah.
That's fine, you just take the action to glide after you've finished the action that's left you in midair.You don't end a jump action in midair. What rule says that you can do that?
And again with the Simultaneous Actions rule you can't use Glide while in the middle of a jump action.
If you think characters aren't allowed to jump off cliffs then don't jump. Step, Stride, Teleport, whatever.
Though if you're suggesting characters can't voluntarily move themselves off a cliff then again that's some broader problems with the rules around sheer drops and falling (hence my initial request) and not really a problem with glide.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not perfectly phrased, but when there are two ways to read a rule, one of which produces a functional game mechanic and the other causes the text to make no sense and do nothing at all, you can't put it entirely on Paizo when you actively choose the latter interpretation.
Not to sound like a rules lawyer, but in statutory interpretation, there’s something called “the absurd results doctrine,” which says that if the plain language of a statute gives rise to an absurd result, it should be read in a way that doesn’t produce that result.
In this case, I don’t think that the plain language even produces the result that Finoan is putting forth, but even if it did, that would be an absurd result, so I think it’d be pretty reasonable to disregard it.