| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Due to the recent Errata today I will start a thread about stuff that should be asked! We as a community have several questions and perhaps I will start us off.
One of the biggest questions we have is why in the Class of Rogue, why does Rogue's resilience give them both expert in fortitude Saves and also when they succeed it gets boosted to a Critical Success, is this actually intended when at level 17 they get the same boost to Will-Saves? Meaning Rogues get the boost of Success to Critical Success on all 3 saving throws. This survived 2-3 Erratas already.
The second less big but still fairly asked questions is why does Blade Ally Class Feature of Champion Remaster take up a Rune slot when originally Pre-remastered it did not. I do hope this is just a minor mistake that the Errata missed.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gonna pre-empt this by adding to what the OP said that this was suggested by Paizo Staff Maya Coleman in the errata thread, and that this thread should be used for errata questions rather than for arguing that something should be buffed/nerfed or whatever. (or arguing interpretations on answers to these questions unless the RAW is extremely clear)
Some questions related to the mythic rules, all of which I've seen people confused on what is intended:
1. Is it intended that Wildspell's Spellsurge focus spell (an aura around your character that much of the mythic path keys off) costs a mythic point to cast? There's been a lot of speculation that this wasn't intended as it makes Wildspell's mythic point economy really rough (for example to make the aura 30 feet costs a second mythic point), it makes taking Wildspell as a non-mythic archetype largely impossible, and it would be super easy to tag a focus spell in a mythic path as mythic without remembering that any spell with the mythic trait costs a point.
2. Do mythic player characters count as mythic creatures for the purpose of ignoring mythic resistance? There's been confused debates on this all over the internet (with many threads or discussions coming to different conclusions) mostly because the mythic strike feat says it bypasses mythic resistance, which any PC that could take it would already bypass if mythic PCs are mythic creatures. People also point to how mythic resistance in monster building is valued as equivalent to mythic resilience, when the former is possibly completely ignored by mythic PCs while the latter effects all PCs regardless of mythic status with no way to bypass it, as evidence that mythic PCs might still be subject to the resistance. (since it's weird that two equivalent features have one that would be completely ignored and one that's very powerful)
3. Is it intended that Mythic Magic works for non-spellcaster PCs?
4. Are the Beastlord and Apocalypse rider companions intended to be mythic creatures? It never says, but it feels to a lot of people like an oversight and the former even has a feat named Creature of Myth.
5. Are there any plans to patch Mythic to make it more compatible with classes that right now don't interact with some of its most important features (Kineticist is the big one that tons of people have been asking about, but also Summoner, Magus, and Swashbuckler all chafe on not being able to use mythic proficiency for strikes/spells without giving up on using your main class features)
6. Artisan's calling has the anathema "use a weapon or item crafted by someone else, except for the purpose of learning its function so you can understand how to create it yourself" which has been widely noted as being problematic and very difficult to follow as it disallows the use of any items you pick up as loot or buy and most campaigns don't have nearly enough downtime to craft every item a character would conceivably use, is it intended to be as punishing as it seems?
7. Mythic Defenses, the level 20 mythic monster ability that causes rerolls of critical attack rolls against them, is incorrectly combined into the mythic resilience entry of some of the monsters, including the Oliphaunt of Jandelay and Agyra, and the Oliphaunt has a research track that ends in discovering a way around its "mythic resilience" that is described as the crit reroll that is actually covered by mythic defenses. (this one is less a question and more pointing out the issue for getting errata lol)
8. Is it intended that several previously non-mythic rare rituals like Create Demiplane, Freedom, and Imprisonment are now mythic-exclusive, or should they still be considered rare for non-mythic chars and this is just automatic access? (lots of lore confusion on this one since PF lore is full of non mythic high level chars using these)
Another question:
The spiritual warrior archetype requires the use of a fist and a 1H weapon. However the wording implies that a 2H finesse weapon can also be used. However, you can't use a fist if you're holding a 2H weapon since fists are treated as freehand weapons and you can't use a freehand weapon if you are holding anything in it. This means the dedication overwhelming combination activity cannot be used with both a fist and 2H finesse weapon (you can strike with the weapon, but there is no way to insert a free action 'drop a hand' to punch with the fist). Can the team clarify if the use of the term fist is meant to be unarmed strikes (which can be non-fist unarmed strikes) or confirm that the intent is to limit the dedication activity to just 1H weapons.
Yeah, I'd also appreciate clarification here; I have a player that ran into this. It seems like an intentional choice over restricting it to one-handed weapons, but about the only weapons it actually opens up are free-hand weapons, since you need your second hand free when you flurry to get the fist attack.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
In Tian Xia Character Guide: the Bakuwa Lizardfolk heritage.
This heritage gives the lizardfolk bony plates which act as a natural set of medium armour that they can't remove. Unfortunately, it does not grant training in that armour, meaning that something like half of all classes not only gain no benefit from this heritage, but are actively hindered by it, to say nothing of the Strength requirement to negate the penalties.
It's possibly that this heritage is meant only for martial classes and some spellcasters, but it seems rather strange that lizardfolk of bakuwa heritage functionally can't become wizards or rogues without significant drawback. Moreover, it seems inconsistent with Paizo's move away from letting biology dictate what classes you can take to this degree.
My brother is looking forward to the possibility of playing a Lizardfolk Monk in Season of Ghosts, and knowing the TXCG was coming out with some Tian-specific heritages, I was recommending the possibility of going bakuwa, but it seems like this heritage is rather fundamentally incompatible with Monk. I wouldn't mind if it just didn't work so well with monk, but it seems to leave rather a lot of classes in an awkward position.
This is a rather low-priority issue for us, but it seemed worth addressing sooner or later.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since I hope this will be picked up for the spring 2025 errata:
Please clarify the duration of the Grandeur cause reaction. By RAW, its effect end when your own turn starts (Player Core, page 426 "For an effect that lasts a number of rounds, the remaining duration decreases by 1 at the start of each turn of the creature that created the effect").
This would make the worth of the reaction highly variable depending on when it is triggered.
However a soft reading of the text suggests it is supposed to last longer, i.e. "for 1 round", which a lot of people would read until the start of the triggering creatures next turn.
Therefore, the worth of the Grandeurs Champion's reaction depends a lot on your GM and since your GM can change a lot in PFS, it may make this cause very inconsistent to use there. Please clarify, to make the reaction's duration consistent for everyone.
***
Also, should this thread's title not be "Spring errata 2025 questions"?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A definition on "Instance of damage" and how it interacts with weaknesses, resistances and Thaumaturge Personal Antithesis ability.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Still waiting on answers for how long a minion can follow commands for when not in combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While on the subject. Was it intended that Familiars lost the ability to use trained actions of skills that they have the Skilled ability for?
From the look of things it may have just been lost in the shuffle of Remastered rules being split between Familiar and Pet.
And it is a weird nerf for Familiars that they really don't need.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Page 248: Live wire’s damage increases far too quickly due to a typo. Change “Heightened (+1)” to “Heightened (+2)“.
YEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSS! I can pick live wire in PFS without feeling guilty now!
And it looks like they addressed inner radiance torrent as well, though the changes aren't on AoN yet.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And it looks like they addressed inner radiance torrent as well, though the changes aren't on AoN yet.
Could be soon according to the latest news on the AoN PF2 launchpage
12/15/24 9:30 PM PST
Hello everyone and happy holidays! We have another update for you before the end of the year, this time with the Tian Xia Character Guide! Our team has continued the regular pace since Player Core 2 and our other missing content is not that far behind. In addition to shouting out the whole team, I'd like to give a huge thanks to Fern and Jackson, our latest data entry members, for their quick acclimation to the team and in getting everything in as fast as they have.
Our next update goal is War of Immortals, along with the latest errata that Paizo has put out for a number of remastered products. We don't have a hard estimate for a date but we're optimistic to have another update for you soon.
Thanks as always for your support, and enjoy!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Three classes — Magus, Summoner, and Psychic — do not have a Class DC.
Given that other spellcasting classes (like Wizards) were given Class DC's in the remaster, a clarification on whether those three classes are also supposed to have them would be nice.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still not sure how Class DC interacts with muticlass archetypes, as discussed here.
If I'm a barbarian with the monk archetype, do I have two separate Class DCs? If yes, which one do I use for an ability that says it uses "Your class DC"?
I'm still not sure how Class DC interacts with muticlass archetypes, as discussed here.
If I'm a barbarian with the monk archetype, do I have two separate Class DCs? If yes, which one do I use for an ability that says it uses "Your class DC"?
I've always run it as you having separate Class DCs. Otherwise I don't understand why they would specifiy you become trained/expert in it (though if memory serves, only Kineticist can get you to expert in its Multiclass)
For abilities that say it uses your Class DC I just ask the player where the feat comes from. If it's from their main class, or an archetype that doesn't grant you a Class DC, then it uses your main class DC. If it's from an Archetype that does grant you a Class DC, it uses the Archetype's Class DC.
For example if you have a Fighter with Gladiator dedication, they would use their Fighter Class DC for Gladiator's Roar (because Gladiator doesn't make you trained in any Class DC). If they also had Monk Dedication and Stunning Blows, they would use Monk Class DC for it since Monk Dedication makes you trained in it.
I do think it's a bit complicated though, and streamlining it to just "use the Class DC of your main Class for everything that needs Class DC" should work fine.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's less a question, per se, but I would like a rewrite for the alchemist's quick vials. The current wording is a bit hard to parse on a first read, even with the knowledge of what it should do.
Quick Vial: You create a versatile vial that can be used only as a bomb or for the versatile vial option from your research field (it can't be used to create a consumable, for example). This item has the infused trait, but it remains potent only until the end of your current turn.
The double use of "versatile vials" as a class resource and an item is a bit confusing, and I'd like to see the item variant renamed to something like quick vials, or class vials to help this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An unspecific Class DC can be any Class DC that you have simply because any Class DC IS a Class DC that you have. There's no cause to over-interpret.
I believe this is the reason Paizo culled down all the spellcasting proficiencies to the highest because martials had this advantage over casters when picking up abilities outside their class. And it's balanced since the PC is still buying feats at 2x the level (and so many of these pricier feats would become near worthless if stuck at Trained). Class DC centered classes like Kineticist label their abilities as "Kineticist Class DC" specifically to avoid poaching abilities that would be too strong via MCD. (Their feats are their shtick more than other classes whose primary abilities remain above superior to those taking the MCD for it.) The Remaster came after the Kineticist and did not alter the wording of previous Class DCs nor the abilities based on them. Paizo makes no mention of this "very important if true" distinction.
The [inhaled] poison exposure trait has never had a complete ruleset, and if it did, the trait could gain a lot more usage across the system as a short way to have a default harm cloud to specifically override / modify for that creature ability, item, etc. Having that "base form" as a default could genuinely show off the benefits of the trait system. (monster abilities already use/ invoke the trait, and that's a good thing!)
I also need to call out PC1 explicitly for creating a contradictory [inhaled] trait that is not flagged for being the abbreviation instead of a real definition.
I hate to be blunt, but it is outright not acceptable to have contradictory definitions between player and GM resources like this. I think Foundry still only has the incorrect PC1 version of [inhaled] as: "This poison is delivered when breathed in" (literally 7 words & 0 mechanical explanation, WTF).
An inhaled poison is activated by unleashing it from its container. Once unleashed, the poison creates a cloud filling a 10-foot cube lasting for 1 minute or until a strong wind dissipates the cloud. Every creature entering this cloud is exposed to the poison and must attempt a saving throw against it; a creature aware of the poison before entering the cloud can use a single action to hold its breath and gain a +2 circumstance bonus to the saving throw for 1 round.
Gaps / issues with present RaW and proposed fixes:
_______________________!issue! --- Missing mention of exposure event upon initial use. Technically, a GM could rule that a foe who was inside the cloud and never leaves for the entire minute is never forced to save against the poison a single time.
$fix$ +4 words: "Once unleashed, the poison creates [an exposure event] as a cloud fill[s] a 10-foot cube lasting for..."
_______________________
!issue! --- No mention of rules explaining how repeat exposures can happen, or if they are intended to not happen. Repeat exposures needing saves at "the end of the creature's turn" is the least powerful common method, and [inhaled] could/should include a "one exposure per turn" maximum as well.
$fix$ +20 words: "...bonus to the saving throw for 1 round. Ending a turn inside the cloud causes an exposure event, but a creature may only suffer one exposure event per turn."
_______________________
!issue! --- [inhaled] should include explicit mention of non-breathing creatures being immune to the trait, as the "hold breath for +2" option otherwise causes confusion. The Breathtaking Vapor poison item provides enough reason to think this non-breathing immunity is the intended default.
$fix$ +1 word(!): "Every [breathing] creature entering this..."
_______________________
!issue! --- Needs explicit mention that the location of the cloud placement does benefit from the user's reach. If no reach was allowed, one would always be inside the cloud.
$fix$ +6 words: "An inhaled poison is activated by unleashing it from its container upon a square within your reach."
_______________________
!issue! --- (optional / luxury rule) [inhaled] should mention of what happens when multiple clouds collide/combine. Sort of covered by the general rules around duplicate effects.
$fix$ +V words "Additional poisons of the same name refresh the duration of overlapping squares, but are treated as being the same effect for the sake of duplicate effects and exposure limitations.
.
.
.
All the needed fixes combined into a new [inhaled] trait:
An inhaled poison is activated by unleashing it from its container [upon a square within your reach]. Once unleashed, the poison creates [an exposure event] as a cloud fill[s] a 10-foot cube lasting for 1 minute or until a strong wind dissipates the cloud. Every [breathing] creature entering this cloud is exposed to the poison and must attempt a saving throw against it; a creature aware of the poison before entering the cloud can use a single action to hold its breath and gain a +2 circumstance bonus to the saving throw for 1 round. Ending a turn inside the cloud causes an exposure event, but a creature may only suffer one exposure event per turn.
.
Please note that even with a permissive GM, multiple (poison-possible) foes, and even repeat exposure events via Shove-back-inside, in actual play with this "fixed" version, inhaled poisons do not perform well. It's normal for AP fights against humans with 4 or 5 exposures to have 0 failed saves. When yall have published items like Bottled Night, I promise there is very little balance concern at play here; almost half the inhaled poisons are uncommon (or rare).
I forgot to include one more WoI question in my other comment, which is how is Titan Breaker’s transcendence intended to function?
The ability reads “ Your spirit is so dense it takes on tangible force. Make a melee Strike with the titan’s breaker. This counts as two attacks when calculating your multiple attack penalty. If this Strike hits, your additional spirit damage from the ikon’s immanence increases to 4 plus an extra die of weapon damage. If you’re at least 10th level, it’s increased to 6 spirit damage and two extra dice, and if you’re at least 18th level, it’s increased to 8 spirit damage and three extra dice.” For context, the immanence effect is plus 2 damage per weapon damage die.
Nobody can figure out how it’s supposed to work since the two possible readings of it seem either too bad to be true (your damage bonus only increases very slightly for 1-2 levels then doesn’t increase at all from the base damage until the next upgrade because 2xdamage dice already equals the “increase”) or too good to be true (the damage increase is also per die which results in some ludicrously large flat damage bonuses).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I forgot to include one more WoI question in my other comment, which is how is Titan Breaker’s transcendence intended to function?
The ability reads “ Your spirit is so dense it takes on tangible force. Make a melee Strike with the titan’s breaker. This counts as two attacks when calculating your multiple attack penalty. If this Strike hits, your additional spirit damage from the ikon’s immanence increases to 4 plus an extra die of weapon damage. If you’re at least 10th level, it’s increased to 6 spirit damage and two extra dice, and if you’re at least 18th level, it’s increased to 8 spirit damage and three extra dice.” For context, the immanence effect is plus 2 damage per weapon damage die.
Nobody can figure out how it’s supposed to work since the two possible readings of it seem either too bad to be true (your damage bonus only increases very slightly for 1-2 levels then doesn’t increase at all from the base damage until the next upgrade because 2xdamage dice already equals the “increase”) or too good to be true (the damage increase is also per die which results in some ludicrously large flat damage bonuses).
Order of operations feels like it applies here, as there's two distinct effects listed:
1. Increase spirit damage from immanence.2. Add extra damage die of damage.
Meaning that if it's a +1 striking Greatsword, the immanence effect is 4 (2*2). When transcending, that becomes 8 (4*4). That's #1.
You then roll a d12 (the damage die of a greatsword) and add that to the total. That's #2.
This is strictly better than Power Attack/Viscious Swing, which just adds the extra die and not the additional extra damage from part 1, and fits the wording if you parse it out, but not ludicrously so since you're not getting the immanence damage on the additional die.
I can't say if that's what's intended, but it doesn't feel outrageous while making the ikon better than the equivalent feat, so it's IMO pretty workable.
This just proves they should make it more clear, but no, it doesn't fit, there's nothing per die there and no multiplying. And numbers are ok as is.When transcending, that becomes 8 (4*4). That's #1.
... fits the wording if you parse it out
... yes there is. 4 damage per die on a weapon with two dice is 8.
It could definitely use clarifying, but there's clearly multiplication and damage per die there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is the damage bonus that the transendence text references ...It does not though. Reference in a mathematical sense. It's just new additional spirit damage which equals as written. I can take this as the evidence that the text is not clear. I won't ever agree that it anywhere near 'clearly' proves your version.
No, you're dramatically overthinking that. The Immanence effect has a 2. The Transcendence changes that 2 to a 4.
This isn't some formal mathematical proof. It's natural language text. Seems pretty straightforward what they're doing here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll say that it is easy to accidentally remove rules / feats / ect from their surrounding context of class, etc.
These days, I've learned that the first thing to do when reading something that seems unclear is to zoom out one level and read the surrounding rule context.
When you read Exemplar's other text around their Immanence damage, Tridus' reading is clearly the intent. TBH, there are waaay worse cases than this one, and the RaI is pretty apparent once you have read a number of other power-attack style abilities/effects.
The Trans ability ups the normal passive damage, and also adds bonus dice to the total.
Can you explain how you do interpret Breaker's 2A Trans ability?
I honestly do not know how else to read it.
Something saying "...increases to 4..." naturally invokes the base value and swaps that number for that 4. IMO, the super brief text kinda makes any alternative that's more complicated rather impossible, as you can't invent rules out of thin air.
.
If you compare against other "power attacks," adding flat dice that go up with level is the default normal.
Exemplar's special version also upping their Ikon's passive damage is the only unique/new part of that equation.
And it also makes sense, as it increases the reward more strongly due to that power attack swing needing 2 Actions instead of 1.
Note that the other 2A trans strike ability is Gleaming Blade's flurry-style one. That offers 2 attacks with delayed MAP, meaning that would do 2x the passive damage compared against any single-hit "power attack."
While it may seem that Breaker's overtakes Blade's, flurries are generally "better" than power attacks due to crits and other passive damage bonuses like STR being doubled. Yes, it's still ultimately an apples to oranges comparison thanks to things like fortune effects favoring power attacks, etc.
But overall, IMO the Breaker's extra passive boost in addition to the bonus die is there explicitly to balance the comparison against the Blade's flurry.
You take the +[2 * dice] damage, and swap that for +[4 * dice] + [1 d weapon].
.
That ends up with a power attack that scales a bit smoother than most, as you get a damage boost each time the number of dice increase via Striking (4 * dice), and you get a bigger boost right in middle of those Striking rune levels at L10 & L18.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think paizo would want a +32 damage bonus plus some dice when things like power attack do a fraction of this (even if it's supposed to be a bit better, not by that much). So I think the literal reading of increasing the damage expression as a whole to exactly what is listed in the transcendence effect is the intended one. But, both readings have some logic to them and a clarification wouldn't hurt.
+32 would make it perfectly in line with what Gleaming Blade's transcend does on a fully upgraded weapon at level 20. That one can get you two hits, and that second hit will come with extra base weapon dice (one more than the bonus dice provided by Titan Breaker, so +6.5), full strength and weapon specialization flat damage (+13), and up to three rainbow runes of damage (+10.5).
Add it up and that's...+30 for Gleaming Blade vs the +32 from the favorable Titan Breaker reading. Of course that depends on both Gleaming Blade's hitting vs one Titan Breaker hit. But Gleaming Blade is also more likely to get some damage from one hit vs zero for a miss on Titan Breaker. TB has higher variance, GB is more reliable, and GB can totally bypass resistances, which TB can't.
I don't really care about the language arguments trying to parse what the written text means.
We have two options: did Paizo intend a competent piece of game balance consistent with the other big two hander ikon, or an incompetent piece of game balance consistent with past feats like Power Attack/Vicious Swing? They've published both the good and the bad option (and many other good and bad options not under discussion here), but the good option was in the same book and same subsection as the option under discussion, and I'd prefer to assume competence by Paizo. Ergo, +32 at level 18 for Titan Breaker. But I won't be surprised if Paizo comes out in favor of the bad ability that no one should take except for flavor reaosns, that's not uncommon.
Glad we are getting to see some more math comparisons.
And your presented case does not include temporary bonuses to damage, which are something that PCs with a Flurry MAP dodger will be incentivized to seek out.
For them to be that close a match at L20 really does make me think that is Paizo's RaI.
I've genuinely not seen 2A Power Attack abilities used at a table before, but I have seen both Double Slice and Flurry of Blows.
Not hard to see why.
.
For the "nay, that's too strong" camp, I would like to point out that this Trans ability is not 1:1 comparable to a vanilla Power Attack, as those can be used without Exemplar's contextual requirements and consequences.
Exemplar is required to juggle their spark around, and even shuts off their passive not-Rage damage whenever the spark is out of the weapon.
It's only logical that all the downsides of this Ikon's ~Power Attack being tied into the spark management comes with an upside when compared against more conventional Power Attack options.
Another thing: the very selection of one's Ikon is *way* more important of a build choice than a single feat. You are picking 1/3 core class actions. Exemplar has no sneak attack, no exploit vulnerability, etc.
All that adds up to my designer-brained take of: "Doing significantly more damage than normal Power Attacks? Yup, looks good to me."
Maybe if the issue is so contentious it deserves a dedicated thread. Perhaps even then one can link to it from here so that anyone scoping for Errata Questions can fins it easily
For the purposes of errata, I don't think it makes much sense to compare the two. Paizo has consistently been more than comfortable letting a class' internal options be wildly unbalanced with each other.
All melee options gain +2 to all weapon dice as part of their immanence.
Not all. Barrow's Edge is 1 which upgrades to 3 against low HP enemies.
Mortal Harvest is 1 and persistent which means it comes with additional downsides on top of doing less damage, which is probably another good example of supposing balance being a bad idea.