| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It isn't clear how the goblin ancestry feat "Kneecap" interacts with MAP. It lacks the Attack trait, but it calls for you to make a Strike as a part of the action. I think it needs to be mentioned in the next errata, to either add the missing Attack trait or to confirm whether or not it counts as an attack when increasing MAP or calculating it's accuracy.
That is not uncommon or unclear. Lunge, Tendril Strike and Reloading Strike work the same way. The action itself does not have the Attack trait, the Subordinate Strike action does.
The actions that do specify 'apply MAP normally', such as Flurry of Blows and Twin Takedown are just giving reminder text of the general rule for Subordinate Actions: "This subordinate action still has its normal traits and effects". So the Attack trait on the Subordinate Strike action uses and increases MAP normally by default.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If an Eidolon dies to a death effect - so therefore its HP never goes to 0 - what happens to the Summoner?
Best RAW reading is that the Summoner continues adventuring for the rest of the campaign without an Eidolon - effectively as a severely nerf'ed Sorcerer.
But that seems like a bit of a troll ruling.
Other options are that the Summoner dies to the death effect also, or that the Eidolon is unmanifested and potentially cannot be summoned again for some unspecified length of time. Neither of those rulings have any rules support for them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If an Eidolon dies to a death effect - so therefore its HP never goes to 0 - what happens to the Summoner?
Best RAW reading is that the Summoner continues adventuring for the rest of the campaign without an Eidolon - effectively as a severely nerf'ed Sorcerer.
But that seems like a bit of a troll ruling.
Other options are that the Summoner dies to the death effect also, or that the Eidolon is unmanifested and potentially cannot be summoned again for some unspecified length of time. Neither of those rulings have any rules support for them.
When you die, you’re reduced to 0 Hit Points if you had a different amountYour eidolon must remain within 100 feet of you at all times and can't willingly go beyond that limit. If forced beyond this distance, or if you are reduced to 0 Hit Points, your eidolon's physical form dissolves: your eidolon unmanifests, and you need to use Manifest Eidolon to manifest it again.There is however not a concensus on wether this outright kills the summoner or just makes them unconcious, but by technical reading you are reduced to 0 from a Death effect. That could perhaps be clarified further under the text about shared health.
But you're not the one being hit with the death effect, and conditions don't themselves transfer over from the Eidolon to the Summoner (as shown by the example of the Eidolon being Confused not causing the Summoner to become Confused).
So it's not clear at all how this interaction actually works, since something that kills the Eidolon without doing HP damage doesn't have a reason to do HP damage to the Summoner.
So it's not clear at all what happens in this case.
Alchemist: Toxicologist Field Benefit promotes confusion.
Toxicologist"]You specialize in toxins and venoms of all types.
Formulas Two common 1st-level alchemical poisons.
Field Benefit You can apply an injury poison you’re holding to a weapon or piece of ammunition you’re wielding as a single action, rather than as a 2-action activity. In addition, you flexibly mix acidic and poisonous alchemical compounds. Your infused poisons can affect creatures immune to poison. A creature takes acid damage instead of poison damage from your infused poisons if either the creature is immune to poison or that would be more detrimental to the creature (as determined by the GM). Typically, this benefit applies when the creature has an immunity, resistance, or weakness to one of the damage types.
While it's clear RaW, most people do not understand that "your infused poisons" is limited to the item group of alchemical poisons, in the same way Tox's formulas are.
As a L1 feature, it needs to be understandable even for those unfamiliar with the class.
The pervasive misreading is that Tox is allowed to bypass immunity with any creation that has the poison trait, to the point that attempting to explain the item groups results in me often being left in the negatives with plenty of adamant disagreement. Tox being able to Skunk Bomb low Fort ghosts into being slowed is clearly not the RaW nor RaI.
The sentence could be substituted for something like: "When you create an infused item from the poison group, it can effect creatures immune..."
.
The very same feature has a 2nd problem and community disagreement.
Your infused poisons can affect creatures immune to poison. A creature takes acid damage instead of poison damage from your infused poisons if either the creature is immune to poison or that would be more detrimental to the creature
Some read this as a single co-joined rule; the first sentence introduces the mechanic, and the second is the mechanic's function itself. This reading results in Tox poisons only doing damage to the immune foes, not carrying any debuffs.
The other reading is that these are 2 different mechanics. The first sentence enables the poisons to ignore the normal immunity and impose their effects. The second sentence has the function of changing the damage type from poison to acid if that is beneficial. Without #2, you would still be inflicting poison damage to normally immune foes.
This reading allows the debuff effects to still function.
Because pf2e often does use the "state/introduce the idea, then provide the actual mechanic" method, this is genuinely ambiguous.
I honestly have no clue what the designer RaI was on this issue. Paizo seems incredibly scared of the Alchemist, and I can totally believe the "no debuffs" version as an intentional safety to avoid scenarios like Petrifying ghosts or undead via Gorgon's Breath. RaW, I do lean toward the "2 different rules" reading, but not by much.
Classes: Magus, Summoner, and Psychic.
Issue: Lack of Class DC.
Background: Pre-remaster Bards, Clerics, Druids, Magi, Oracles, Psychics, Sorcerers, Summoners, Witches, and Wizards all lacked a Class DC.
All of those except Magus, Summoner, and Psychic were given a Class DC in PC1 or PC2 which suggested that those last three spellcasting classes would also be given Class DCs when their books were updated.
However, Dark Archive and Secrets of Magic have now each received two post-remaster errata passes without mentioning the addition of those Class DCs.
Clarification as to whether this was intentional or just an oversight in the errata would be helpful.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Swashbuckler: Fencer
"When you Create a Distraction or Feint, the action gains the bravado trait."
There is no such action. The correct name is Create a DIVERSION
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
My question for faq will be:
Clarify if eidolons are fully disallowed to use any non-eidolon items. Not only those needed to some skill actions to work and clarify and unify the language once that the trait says all non-eidolon trait items while the "Gear And Your Eidolon" says all magic non-eidolon trait items.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Probably not Spring Errata, but I really hope Starfinder 2E's Traversal trait comes to a future Pathfinder 2E errata patch.
For those who are not keeping an eye on Starfinder 2E, the trait works as follows:
One new element we'll be introducing is the traversal trait. This new trait mostly applies to player-facing rules that reference Stride. When it applies, traversal allows the use of alternative movement types (burrow, fly, and swim) to be used in place of land Speed, akin to how Sneak works. Expect to see this greatly impact some abilities used by the envoy and solarian (to name a few).
I'll never get why you can't jump with those extra movement abilities. Flying is fine, but jumping is apparently quantum physics too difficult for a mere adventurer to comprehend.
Probably not Spring Errata, but I really hope Starfinder 2E's Traversal trait comes to a future Pathfinder 2E errata patch.
For those who are not keeping an eye on Starfinder 2E, the trait works as follows:
One new element we'll be introducing is the traversal trait. This new trait mostly applies to player-facing rules that reference Stride. When it applies, traversal allows the use of alternative movement types (burrow, fly, and swim) to be used in place of land Speed, akin to how Sneak works. Expect to see this greatly impact some abilities used by the envoy and solarian (to name a few).
Yes please, that would be a great update.
Class: Barbarian
Issue: Animal Instinct Frog has a d4 secondary agile attack (Tongue) when all other animals like it get a d6. It should be corrected to match.
Background: The Frog Animal Instinct Barbarian needs their secondary agile attack (Tongue) to be a d6 like all the others like it such as Cat, Bear, and Tyrannosaurus. It was only a d4 before because it got Reach in the premaster, by with that gone it’s just randomly worse than every other attack like it among the Animal options.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll never get why you can't jump with those extra movement abilities. Flying is fine, but jumping is apparently quantum physics too difficult for a mere adventurer to comprehend.Probably not Spring Errata, but I really hope Starfinder 2E's Traversal trait comes to a future Pathfinder 2E errata patch.
For those who are not keeping an eye on Starfinder 2E, the trait works as follows:
One new element we'll be introducing is the traversal trait. This new trait mostly applies to player-facing rules that reference Stride. When it applies, traversal allows the use of alternative movement types (burrow, fly, and swim) to be used in place of land Speed, akin to how Sneak works. Expect to see this greatly impact some abilities used by the envoy and solarian (to name a few).
I get it. As a terrestrial creature myself, walking and running take substantial less concentration or intentionality than jumping. I don't find Leap to be especially useful and the other jumps take two actions, so it doesn't make much sense to allow them as baked into other actions.
Perhaps add a clause into Quick Jump that the feat also adds the Traversal trait to Leap, Long Jump, and High Jump. I think that'd be a solution.
I'd like it even better if Powerful Leap added the Traversal trait to Leap, with one of those special notes making the Traversal trait apply to High Jump and Long Jump as well, only if you also have Quick Jump. As is, I find the trained feat Quick Jump stronger than the expert feat Powerful Leap, so I think it'd be better to add that extra functionality to the latter.
I must admit: the idea of someone using Sudden Charge to Leap twice and Strike is hilarious.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Class: Barbarian
Issue: Animal Instinct Frog has a d4 secondary agile attack (Tongue) when all other animals like it get a d6. It should be corrected to match.Background: The Frog Animal Instinct Barbarian needs their secondary agile attack (Tongue) to be a d6 like all the others like it such as Cat, Bear, and Tyrannosaurus. It was only a d4 before because it got Reach in the premaster, by with that gone it’s just randomly worse than every other attack like it among the Animal options.
Better yet, keep the low damage and return the reach.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Better yet, keep the low damage and return the reach.Class: Barbarian
Issue: Animal Instinct Frog has a d4 secondary agile attack (Tongue) when all other animals like it get a d6. It should be corrected to match.Background: The Frog Animal Instinct Barbarian needs their secondary agile attack (Tongue) to be a d6 like all the others like it such as Cat, Bear, and Tyrannosaurus. It was only a d4 before because it got Reach in the premaster, by with that gone it’s just randomly worse than every other attack like it among the Animal options.
Even better: Give them all a minor rework.
They feel too samey and are mostly meaningless flavors of a d10. They should have more traits. Or maybe even some minor mechanics attached to them. They lack mechanically interesting flavor.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GM Core, page 49, Section "Buying and Selling Items", paragraph "Magical markets are rare or nonexistent" needs better adjustment to remastered crafting rules. It should reflect the relaxed need for formulas.
Specifically the following sentence should be corrected:
"PCs get what they find in adventures and can Craft their own items, if you allow them to get formulas in some way."
(italics mine)
In remaster Formulas are usually no longer the limiting factor (for common items); downtime still is.
Hence, suggestion 1 for possible correction:
"PCs get what they find in adventures and can Craft their own items, if you allow them to get downtime in some way."
Suggestion 2 might also mention uncommon items -- e.g.
"PCs get what they find in adventures and can Craft their own items, if you allow them to get downtime (and formulas for uncommon items or faster crafting) in some way."
The latter might require too much space. Anyway, you'll know, what fits best.
It is not explicitly mentioned whether familiars are sapient (or not? or just under certain conditions?).
Was this intentional?
The covenants introduced in Divine Mysteries say they work the same way as Pantheons. However, Pantheons require you to choose a patron deity from among the pantheon members and keep their edicts and anthema in addition to those of the Pantheon. This leads to several questions regarding Covenants
1) Can you chose a non-deity as your patron if you follow a Covenant that includes a deity?
2) If your patron is not a deity, either because you chose a non deity as your patron in a Covenant that includes gods, or because your covenant has no gods to choose from, are we correct in assuming you gain no additional edicts and anthema beyond whay tue Covenant already dictates?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a bit more of a stretch, but... weapons with finesse+maneuver traits should be allowed to use dexterity on the roll.
Finesse weapons already pay a price in damage output to let dex be used for accuracy, but maneuvers are strength based. It seems like the pairing of finesse+trip is kind of at odds with itself as a result.
DEX is already a very good ability score. It doesn't need to be able to do yet another thing. If you want to be good at those, that's a reason to invest in some STR.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
DEX is already a very good ability score. It doesn't need to be able to do yet another thing. If you want to be good at those, that's a reason to invest in some STR.This is a bit more of a stretch, but... weapons with finesse+maneuver traits should be allowed to use dexterity on the roll.
Finesse weapons already pay a price in damage output to let dex be used for accuracy, but maneuvers are strength based. It seems like the pairing of finesse+trip is kind of at odds with itself as a result.
Dex is very good as an ability score, sure. It contributes to half your defenses, ranged accuracy, and multiple useful skills. But... there's ways for strength to substitute for dex on both AC and reflex saves - the big gap in combat is in ranged attacks alone, and there's definitely ways around that (Spirit Warrior is especially good at it). If anything, str is better than dex in the context of martial classes during combat at lower levels (I'd also give str a slight edge on skills because athletics is easier to apply to enemies in most cases)
I suppose also this could arguably fall under the GM discretion on using alternate stats for skills anyways - is tripping someone with a whip really more based on strength than dexterity in getting it to tangle their foot up at the wrong moment?
I don't really expect anything to happen on this, it's just something that feels like it could be better? You have weapons that are basically tagged for use by dex builds with a trait that pushes you towards str instead.
I don't want to get into a back and forth on this - this thread is for bringing to attention topics, not for extended discussion.
But on this particular topic, I think you're not gonna get what you're asking for. Paizo actually wrote errata in the opposite direction to prevent this. In early prints of the premaster it was more ambiguous if you could for example use a whip to trip with dexterity, and they nailed down the language to prevent it by saying finesse only applied to attack rolls and while trip was an attack that involved a roll, it wasn't an "attack roll".
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a bit more of a stretch, but... weapons with finesse+maneuver traits should be allowed to use dexterity on the roll.
Finesse weapons already pay a price in damage output to let dex be used for accuracy, but maneuvers are strength based. It seems like the pairing of finesse+trip is kind of at odds with itself as a result.
Just make it a Rune, there done. You pay for a Rune slot to do special things with DEX. Super simple, Super easy. We already know STR for damage is king, so letting a Whip trip with DeX at the cost of a RUNE Slot woudl not be that bad, it onyl does a D4.
With the Dice being reduced by 1 Dice on average for Finesse, is it really something to worry about?
I would like to see a change made to the Swashbuckler's Flying Blade and Twirling Throw.
They're obviously made two work in tandem with each other, yet they basically don't synergize at all.
Flying Blade applies a restriction to apply only on the first increment. Then Twirling Throw instead of extending the throw range, it enables ignoring penalties on the second and third range increments. Which, basically makes Twirling Throw useless for what it's apparently been designed to do. Not to mention that Flying Blade already restricts the Range by itself to Agile/Finesse Thrown Weapons which are all 10ft or 20ft range.
Thus, either Flying Blade doesn't have the first range increment restriction or Twirling Throw triples the Range Increment of the Weapon instead. Either way, it doesn't make sense that both these feats don't work with each other.
I don't know if it's a design oversight that didn't account for this limitation or whether this was the design intent, if so, it kinda sucks.
Twirling Throw lets you throw a weapon up to 3 times farther but with no extra damage of Confident Finisher, this feels silly after I read it. Why is Twirling Throw a Finisher and not a Stance or something similar? Fighter gets a stance which is Ricochet Stance which does this but at a smaller range Increment, we really need a class focused on throwing weapons...
Twirling Throw lets you throw a weapon up to 3 times farther but with no extra damage of Confident Finisher, this feels silly after I read it. Why is Twirling Throw a Finisher and not a Stance or something similar? Fighter gets a stance which is Ricochet Stance which does this but at a smaller range Increment, we really need a class focused on throwing weapons...
Exactly.And that's even after paying the Flying Blade feat tax. And being restricted to Agile/Finesse weapons that are all 10/20ft range and mostly 1d4.
I had the opinion that were already the most hated in this game, after seeing this by just attempting to have a thrown weapon as a BACKUP plan I couldn't believe how many hurdles I had to jump.
Thrown builds and backup weapons are the main reasons why I hate fundamental runes with a passion. That's why we need lame items like Blazons of Shared Power, Doubling Rings (baseline, the greater version is alright) and Thrower's Bandolier.
A lot of simple weapon problems can be solved with Runes, like use DEX for weapon traits? Rune, increasing Throwing weapon range icnrement, Rune. Make a greater shifting rune please, that allows melee > Range and vice-versa. The Rune system is amazing but backup weapons feel terrible when they are under your main weapon.
Maybe a weapon trait or Rune which adds Full STR to a bow? Like most things can be solved by going, hey what if you spent a rune on this, 1 of 3 possible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Player Core 1, page 378, Spell "Charming Touch": Should this get the Subtle Trait?
I'm asking this especially in comparison to how "Charm" was remastered. Legacy Charm was a somatic and verbal spell, that became Subtle in remaster. (Useful!)
Charming Touch, that was only somatic, but not verbal in Legacy -- and was thus less conspicuous than Legacy Charm -- is now the noisy and conspicious cast. Seems like an oversight and currently somewhat imbalanced to me. (Especially when keeping in mind that Charming Touch has only 1/6 up to 1/144 the duration of Charm, which I don't want to criticize as the former is a focus spell.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking of Calistrian domains, is it actually intended that the "Retributive Pain" (s. Player Core 1, p. 378) and "Sudden Shift" (s. Player Core 1, p. 379) reaction spells have the Manipulate trait and thus provoke reactions on their part? (I'm aware the issue existed in Legacy as well.)
Casting them may actually make matters worse and defeat the original purpose of the reactions. (Besides being awkward, if our great avenger attempts to react to an enemies attack and calls in even more damage to self...)
Compare Blood Vendetta for a more practical and forgiving implementation of a revenge reaction.
This is a bit more of a stretch, but... weapons with finesse+maneuver traits should be allowed to use dexterity on the roll.
Finesse weapons already pay a price in damage output to let dex be used for accuracy, but maneuvers are strength based. It seems like the pairing of finesse+trip is kind of at odds with itself as a result.
The game used to work this way but Paizo reversed course and changed their minds for unknown reasons. FWIW it didn't really break anything when it was part of the rules, and made the piles of maneuver traits a lot of finesse weapons have feel less like wasted space and Dex characters a bit less one note.
I doubt Paizo will re-change their mind but who knows, the remaster and new errata has let them fix some mistakes of the past. So they might continue to course correct for the better.
Heritages: Aiuvarin and Dromaar
Issues:
1) Are these versatile heritages supposed to be available to non-humanoids ancestries, or should a requirement that the base ancestry be humanoid be added like the Beastkin has? Adopted Ancestry seems a better fit for constructs, plants, and spirits that have come to be a part of Elven and Orcish Culture
2) Aiuvarin should require that your ancestry is not Elf, and Dromaar should require that your base ancestry is not Orc. Because an Elf with 2 Elven parents or an Orc with 2 Orcish parents is just an Elf/Orc, respectively.