Spring Errata 2025 suggestions

[Kavlor]

Squark wrote:

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.

Actually, I don't quite agree. It allows you to play a character who only has a small portion of his bloodline that is not, say, elven. For example, a character who is 3/4 or 7/8 elf could be an elf with half-elf bloodline.

[BotBrain]

There's definitely mentions in PC1 about how your family doesn't have to be strictly what your ancestry is called.

PG 41 calls ancestry the culture your character comes from, for instance, so it's already not inherently a genetic term. Page 74 also lists ways characters could have multiple versatile heritages, even if only one is mechanically expressed.

[TheFinish]

Kavlor wrote:

Squark wrote:

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.

Actually, I don't quite agree. It allows you to play a character who only has a small portion of his bloodline that is not, say, elven. For example, a character who is 3/4 or 7/8 elf could be an elf with half-elf bloodline.

I agree with you but in this case, we're facing a rules problem. The rules language for the Aiuvarin heritage says:

"You gain the elf trait, the aiuvarin trait, and low-light vision. In addition, when you gain an ancestry feat, you can choose from aiuvarin and elf feats in addition to those from your ancestry."

Dromaar has basically the same language, just replace elf with orc and aiuvarin with Dromaar.

If you're an Elf and you choose Aiuvarin as a versatile heritage (which is, and should be, allowed) then you lose access to an entire Feat list (that of your other ancestry), and you gain basically nothing in return (there are only 5 Aiuvarin feats).

Orcs that choose Dromaar are even worse off since there's only 3 Dromaar feats.

What's strange is that the language for half-elf and half-orc was different and allowed for Orcs and Elves to take the heritage without these issues. The rewrite wouldn't be simple though, it'd be something like:

"If you're not an Elf, you gain the elf trait, the aiuvarin trait, and low-light vision. In addition, when you gain an ancestry feat, you can choose from aiuvarin and elf feats in addition to those from your ancestry. If you're an Elf, you gain an ancestry trait of your choice that isn't a versatile heritage, the aiuvarin trait, and you may choose feats with your chosen ancestry trait in addition to elf and aiuvarin feats."

[Blue456]

Classes Fighter, Duel Weapon Warrior and Duelist
Rules for which an Errata is needed The feats Improved Dueling Riposte, Improved twin Riposte and their fighter counter parts of the same name.
The issueRequire a ruling on what weapon's are allowed to function with the feat.
Some player's I have encountered believe that because you don't need to be in their respective Parry's as allowed by the improved frats, it allows you to use a greatsword or other 2h weapon for the extra reaction only for the riposte granted by the improved feats.

[Tunu40]

I’ll keep speaking up about this so Paizo doesn’t forget.

Classes: Oracle - Battle
Rule: Focus Spell - Weapon Trance
Issue to be Errata’d: Unfortunately, the spell is unfulfilling for many players, especially as a Core class. While there are ways to make it work, there are too many hoops to jump through that only experienced/advanced players would be able to figure out (which still isn’t satisfying for more experienced players). That shouldn’t be expected at lvl. 1. And if players are rushing to bypass it, then it isn’t an option worth having in the game.

Errata Recommendation #1: Change Duration from ”Sustained up to 1 minute” —> “1 minute”.
Reason: Straightforward with what it does. Trims 15 characters. Most economical option.

Errata Recommendation #2: Change text from “You automatically Sustain this spell as a free action the first time you hit with a weapon Strike each round.” —> “You automatically Sustain this spell as a free action the first time you strike with a weapon Strike each round.”
Reason: Simple edit, but does add 3 more characters. I understand why it uses that language (Warrior Bard), but the context is very different. No resources and no risk of rendering your weapon worthless if you miss a sustain. This isn’t the same context for the Battle Oracle who needs to spend a focus point.

I personally wouldn’t mind the “hit” requirement if there were other benefits to the spell (such as allowing you to Step, Stride, cast Shield, or Raise a shield when you spend action to Sustain) or adding temp HP…anything non-damage related to ensure this isn’t a spell where it’s better off poached by a martial. And I don’t think copying Animist’s Embodiment of Battle (a non-poachable spell) is a good idea either. But I do feel like simpler is better in a situation like this. It can be a bit complex enough trying to be a gish, so letting the tools be straight-forward sounds like a better and balanced direction.

Just my few 2 cents to keep Paizo aware of the issues some of us care about.

(Definitely want to get to the Ancestor’s Mystery next.)

[Squark]

Class: Inventor- Armor Innovation
Rule: Heavy Construction (Breakthrough Modification)

The updated version of this Modification gives your armor innovation entrench. The entrench trait states, "The entrench trait lists the type of attack this bonus applies against, typically entrench melee or entrench ranged." What does the entrench trait for your armor innovation provide a circumstance bonus to AC against? Everything? Also, I don't see the entrench trait listed on the inventor page of Nexus- It should probably be included since Entrench is a pretty obscure armor trait.

[Dubious Scholar]

Centaur Weapon Familiarity should allow them to use the Jousting trait, even though they're technically not mounted. Feels odd that it grants proficiency in the Lance but they can't actually benefit from the weapon's main gimmick as written.

[Squark]

Class: Gunslinger
Rule: Alchemical Shot.
Problem: This feat can cause a crossbow to misfire. We don't have rules for what happens when that occurs.

[moosher12]

Ancestry: Automaton
Rules: Arcane Propulsion
Problem: An earlier errata pass made partial fly speeds available at Level 5 with the unlock for full flight at Level 9. Arcane Propulsion is still Level 9, and should be reduced to level 5, where Lesser Augmentation can unlock full flight at Level 9.

[YuriP]

After the upgrade in inventor's Power Suit to have same AC of heavy armors in its remaster and the insertion of Warpriest’s Armor feat and Invulnerable Rager feat in remaster, the barbarian's Animal Skin feat only improving its AC when get Greater Juggernaut looks to late now. Instead it could maybe need to errated to improve earlier when get the normal Juggernaut instead for example.

[YuriP]

The new remastered Overdrive failure effect don't specify its duration. Unless that the intention is to allow the inventor's weapon could burn forever probably we have a duration missing here.

[YuriP]

There's a typo in Munitions Machinist feat in the sentence "You gain the Quick Alchemy benefits (Player Core 2) and 4 versatile vials, but can only use Quick Vial to create bombs or alchemical ammunition." because Quick Vials cannot be used to create nothing that isn't allowed by Research Field. Probably the correct here is Quick Alchemy or Versatile Vial.

[Squark]

moosher12 wrote:

Ancestry: Automaton

Rules: Arcane Propulsion
Problem: An earlier errata pass made partial fly speeds available at Level 5 with the unlock for full flight at Level 9. Arcane Propulsion is still Level 9, and should be reduced to level 5, where Lesser Augmentation can unlock full flight at Level 9.

This might not happen, or it might come with a change to a fixed 20 foot fly speed*, as flight speeds tied to your land speed are significantly more powerful than fly speeds with a specific speed designated, as it's much, much easier to increase your land speed to 40** feet, or even more if you're a monk or swashbuckler. Honestly, it's nice having a few flight ancestry feats that are higher level but allow fast characters to keep their incredible land speeds in flight.

*In line with other ancestries and heritages that have a 5th level and 9th level fly speed feat instead of a 1st, 5th, and 9th level feat.

[alsyr]

Some things that still need to be remastered for the Summoner:

General
- All Eidolons should have the stats in their Eidolon Array options updated to be modifiers.

Angel Eidolon
- Hallowed Strikes: The current errata is “Your eidolon's unarmed Strikes gain the holy trait and deal 1 extra spirit damage to unholy creatures and creatures with weakness to holy.” This is out of sync with comparable abilities like the Fire Elemental’s Elemental Core (which deals the 1 additional damage unconditionally) as well as how spirit damage and sanctification work more broadly. Instead, the Angel Eidolon should gain the holy trait and Hallowed Strikes should have their Strikes become sanctified and deal 1 additional spirit damage. This would also have the benefit of making any other sanctified spells or abilities the Eidolon uses become holy as well (which RAW would not happen currently).
- Traveler’s Aura: Should replace flat-footed with off-guard
- Angelic Mercy: Should replace the old condition removal spells with the remastered ones (Sound Body, Clear Mind, Sure Footing, and Cleanse Affliction)

Anger Phantom Eidolon
- Seething Frenzy: Not strictly necessary, but since the remaster did away with the Barbarian’s AC penalty while Raging, I think it would be reasonable to bump the penalty here down to -1 AC.

Construct Eidolon
- Construct Heart: Should remove necromancy from the list of effects it gains a +2 circumstance bonus against. Since there’s no exact equivalent in the remaster, I’d suggest replacing it with void effects (since most damaging necromancy spells dealt void damage) and spirit effects (since constructs are typically immune to spirit damage)

Demon Eidolon
- Demonic Strikes: The same suggestion for the same reasons as the Angel Eidolon - give the Eidolon the unholy trait, and have its Strikes become sanctified and deal 1 additional spirit damage
- Blasphemous Decree: Should remove the references to evil, as well as the “You are unaffected by this decree” clause since the remastered version only affects enemies

Dragon Eidolon
- As other posters have mentioned, should be updated to allow for players to choose a tradition and a Breath Weapon damage type that matches the remastered dragons. Notably, limiting this to the dragons in Monster Core would add bludgeoning, mental, spirit and force but also remove acid, cold, electricity, void and piercing, so ideally it would just allow a choice of any damage type.

Psychopomp Eidolon
- Spirit Touch: Should deal 1 additional spirit damage rather than negative/positive damage (similar to how the Spirit Instinct Barbarian was remastered)
- Spirit Taker: The second paragraph is pretty awkward now that those properties are largely shared by spirit damage. I think it should either be updated to allow its Strikes to deal spirit damage when attacking a possessed or projected creature, or just replaced with a new benefit since the old effect is much more widespread now.

Feats
- Unfetter Eidolon: This is purely me editorializing, but a one minute duration seems far too short. It’s not very useful in combat since you’re typically fighting over smaller distances than that and it’s too short a time to do much in exploration mode. I think ten minutes or maybe even an hour would be more reasonable (possibly as a heightened effect if that’s too strong at level 1).
- Ranged Combatant: The positive and negative damage options should be updated to vitality and void damage, while the alignment damage option should probably be updated to spirit damage with the sanctified trait.
- Phase Out: The resistance exception to negative damage should probably be updated to spirit damage, which feels more thematically appropriate than void damage.
- Ostentatious Arrival, Master Summoner and Legendary Summoner: Should be updated to reference the summon trait instead of the the summoning spell sidebar

[ElementalofCuteness]

Inventor Multiclass Archetype requires +3 Int which is out of line of all the other MC Archetypes only needing a +2.

[Red Griffyn]

Guns and Gears (Remastered):

- Gunslinger: Slinger's Precision -> Should apply to attachments (bayonet, reinforced stock, etc.) now that the melee weapon part of combination weapons are at the highest proficiency.

- Gunslinger: Quickdraw -> Should include the same wording as quick bomber as it relates to bombs to enable the use of Versatile Vials that are now available in class from the L6 Munitions Machinist

- Inventor: Offensive Boost -> The feature, for armor inventors, is limited to melee weapons despite being given cutouts to pick one weapon during daily. This should be expanded to the one option so it can apply to armor inventor's weapons even if it is ranged.

- Inventor: Megaton Strike -> The feature, for armor inventors, is limited to melee weapons despite being given cutouts to pick one weapon during daily preparation. This should be expanded to the one option so it can apply to armor inventor's weapons even if it is ranged.

- Inventor: MC Archetype has an Intelligence +3 requirement instead of +2 requirement like all other MC archetypes. Is this on purpose or a typo?

- Demolitionist/Alchemist -> Multiple feats reference calculated splash which wasn't reprinted in remaster. The archetype also includes expanded splash which no longer clearly interacts with calculated splash. The Alchemist feat/demolitionist feat for expanded splash needs to clarify its interaction with the calculated splash feat.

[Lightning Raven]

ElementalofCuteness wrote:

Inventor Multiclass Archetype requires +3 Int which is out of line of all the other MC Archetypes only needing a +2.

That's most likely by design.

They significantly improved the Armor Innovation, which is something accessible by the Dedication feat itself. They probably thought the +3 Int as a way to require character investment (or delay others) to have access to such powerful AC increase.

[exequiel759]

Lightning Raven wrote:

ElementalofCuteness wrote:

Inventor Multiclass Archetype requires +3 Int which is out of line of all the other MC Archetypes only needing a +2.

That's most likely by design.

They significantly improved the Armor Innovation, which is something accessible by the Dedication feat itself. They probably thought the +3 Int as a way to require character investment (or delay others) to have access to such powerful AC increase.

A multiclassed exemplar can have the same bonus, but for the whole team.

Not to mention it doesn't make sense to break the design logic of something for an edge case. More so when its not even an edge case.

[moosher12]

Class: Inventor
Rules: Weapon Innovation
Problem: The Weapon innovation grants you a common level 0 simple or martial weapon, or any level 0 weapon of which you have access. Alternatively, you can pick a level 0 advanced weapon of your choice, but this consumes an initial weapon modification.

Problematically, the alternate use does not specify a rarity, which can lead to different interpretations on whether or not this entry allows the use of uncommon, or even rare weapons, and whether access is required to have such a weapon invention.

A clarification of the limits of this ability would be appreciated.

[Lightning Raven]

exequiel759 wrote:

Lightning Raven wrote:

ElementalofCuteness wrote:

Inventor Multiclass Archetype requires +3 Int which is out of line of all the other MC Archetypes only needing a +2.

That's most likely by design.

They significantly improved the Armor Innovation, which is something accessible by the Dedication feat itself. They probably thought the +3 Int as a way to require character investment (or delay others) to have access to such powerful AC increase.

A multiclassed exemplar can have the same bonus, but for the whole team.

Not to mention it doesn't make sense to break the design logic of something for an edge case. More so when its not even an edge case.

You mean the Mirrored Aegis that is a STATUS bonus that also requires a Shield and an action to activate? Surely is the same as a straight up AC passive improvement that stacks with other things.

It's not weird to increase the dipping cost considering the strength the armor and weapon innovations are giving right now. In fact, it might even be an option to balance the Exemplar dedication. Things can remain powerful as they are, but demand more investment. Seems reasonable to me.

[exequiel759]

Lightning Raven wrote:

exequiel759 wrote:

Lightning Raven wrote:

ElementalofCuteness wrote:

Inventor Multiclass Archetype requires +3 Int which is out of line of all the other MC Archetypes only needing a +2.

That's most likely by design.

They significantly improved the Armor Innovation, which is something accessible by the Dedication feat itself. They probably thought the +3 Int as a way to require character investment (or delay others) to have access to such powerful AC increase.

A multiclassed exemplar can have the same bonus, but for the whole team.

Not to mention it doesn't make sense to break the design logic of something for an edge case. More so when its not even an edge case.

You mean the Mirrored Aegis that is a STATUS bonus that also requires a Shield and an action to activate? Surely is the same as a straight up AC passive improvement that stacks with other things.

It's not weird to increase the dipping cost considering the strength the armor and weapon innovations are giving right now. In fact, it might even be an option to balance the Exemplar dedication. Things can remain powerful as they are, but demand more investment. Seems reasonable to me.

Mirrored Aegis's immanence effect is +1 status bonus to AC for you and all allies within 15 feet. The only thing that requires an action there is the trascendence, which doesn't increase the bonuses to AC but gives a bonus to saves too. In no way the inventor's armor innovation is better than this, more so to need to be the only class in the system that has a special attribute requirement when much better classes don't.

[Squark]

Exemplar Dedication being broken is not news, and really shouldn't be used in balance discussions of other things

The change to inventor dedication feels like them trying something different when they foresaw similarities to champion and sentinel. I'm not crazy about it, though, since it also made weapon and construct inventor dedication harder to qualify for, and those are not exactly good options to begin with.

[Lightning Raven]

exequiel759 wrote:

Lightning Raven wrote:

exequiel759 wrote:

Lightning Raven wrote:

ElementalofCuteness wrote:

Inventor Multiclass Archetype requires +3 Int which is out of line of all the other MC Archetypes only needing a +2.

That's most likely by design.

They significantly improved the Armor Innovation, which is something accessible by the Dedication feat itself. They probably thought the +3 Int as a way to require character investment (or delay others) to have access to such powerful AC increase.

A multiclassed exemplar can have the same bonus, but for the whole team.

Not to mention it doesn't make sense to break the design logic of something for an edge case. More so when its not even an edge case.

You mean the Mirrored Aegis that is a STATUS bonus that also requires a Shield and an action to activate? Surely is the same as a straight up AC passive improvement that stacks with other things.

It's not weird to increase the dipping cost considering the strength the armor and weapon innovations are giving right now. In fact, it might even be an option to balance the Exemplar dedication. Things can remain powerful as they are, but demand more investment. Seems reasonable to me.

Mirrored Aegis's immanence effect is +1 status bonus to AC for you and all allies within 15 feet. The only thing that requires an action there is the trascendence, which doesn't increase the bonuses to AC but gives a bonus to saves too. In no way the inventor's armor innovation is better than this, more so to need to be the only class in the system that has a special attribute requirement when much better classes don't.

I'm not saying Mirrored Aegis isn't great. It's just that it has a bunch of caveats that the Armor Innovation just doesn't. The fact that Mirrored Aegis and other Ikons are so good is a bigger argument to make the Exemplar Archetype harder to qualify for, like the new Inventor, than others.

Personally, I don't mind strong Dedication Feats, but I think a good compromise is making them harder to qualify for.

[calnivo]

Lost Omens: Ancestry Guide - Remaster Compatibility:

All "[Ancestry] Lore"-like-feats should be harmonized with the way core feats are styled after remaster.

See Lost Omens Clarification Thread, comment 346 for a list with page numbers.

Apart from that I guess that thread has more unresolved (Lost Omens) issues that might be worth review.

[calnivo]

Player Core 2, there is some "disharmony" between Alchemist (main-class) and Alchemist Multiclass Archetype rules. While they are technically correct (not obviously erroneous or incomplete), they nonetheless appear to me somewhat inconsistent. As if rules from different development stages and/or different developers were put together while still needing a final balancing pass.

In detail:

Nr 1:
Page 175, Feat "Voluminous Vials": Gaining a single, non-recoverable versatile vial per feat appears strangely weak to me. Reading the related Special paragraph that allows to repeat this at specific levels gives me a really bizarre impression, too.
Please review and reconsider.

(There have been speculation that this feat was put into place when multiclass quick alchemy had allowed to regain versatile vials like main-class quick alchemy still can. That would have made the versatile vial way more useful. Then Quick Alchemy for multiclass was degraded, but the effect on "voluminous vials"-feat not reevaluated. I can understand these speculations.)

Nr 2:
p. 64, Feat "Efficient Alchemy":
- Should have Prerequisite Advanced Alchemy.
- Now taking this as multiclass alchemist with Advanced Alchemy feat will raise the number of daily items to create from 4 to (6 + INT-Modifier). Is this intended?

Nr 3:
p. 67, Feat "Advanced Efficient Alchemy":
Analog to second remark for "Efficient Alchemy", above.

[Moth Mariner]

- Avoid Notice (Player Core) is not a Secret roll, this seems counter to the standards of the rest of the system. Should it be Secret?

- Balance (Player Core) being its own action is very messy on how it interacts with anything else that calls on it.

- Rogue Resilience (Player Core) is the only save proficiency upgrade in the system that gives the "roll a success get a crit success" effect when upgrading to Expert, rather than Master. Is this right? Why do Rogues have this? They're already very powerful!

- Subtle (Player Core) needs clarification on how it interacts with reactions against Manipulate and Concentrate.

- Dragonhide (Player Core 2) objects, what is the point in most of them? Divine, Occult, and Primal make the object (armour or shield) immune to Spirit, Mental, or Poison respectively, things that objects are already immune to. Arcane offers Force immunity, which is thing that doesn't target armour (afaict), nor can be reacted to with Shield Block since it's not physical.

- Burning Blossoms (Secrets of Magic) spell as written is not viable, or at least not worth rank 8 because of when the saves are triggered and how it interacts with the Fascinated condition. First fascinated enemy walks into the damage, all enemies drop fascinated. Then the check repeats at the end of each future enemy's turns. And remember that Fascinated drops "if a creature uses hostile actions against you or any of your allies"? So now your party cannot do anything for a full round or this Fascinated drops, and then the first enemy takes damage from the tree and the Fascinated drops anyway.

- Hodag Leather (Howl of the Wild) seems intended for melee strikes only, but as currently written you can run away from an enemy, shoot them, and use that shot to drag them towards you (since the creature is moved in any direction of your choice). Also has no size restriction, so you can do the above to gargantuan creatures.

- Silencing Shot (Guns & Gears) inflicts an enemy with the Silence spell, a spell that only works on willing creatures. A DC is listed, is this meant to be a save against the Silence? Doesn't matter anyway, as it doesn't say which save is targeted.

- Munitions Machinist (Guns & Gears) tells you you can use Quick Alchemy to create alchemical ammunition, but how? Quick Alchemy, Activate ammunition, Load it, and you're out of actions. Then the ammunition becomes inert at the start of your next turn because it was made with Quick Alchemy.

---
Not exactly rules, but maybe need a look?

- Creature Identification (GM Core) seems to relate to the old Recall Knowledge mechanics and doesn't work with the new ones.

- XP Budget (GM Core) Encounter Budget table Character Adjustment column has changed the budget for a Low Threat from 15 to 20, unsure if typo?

- Apsu (Divine Mysteries) still has a ton of Platinum Dragon stuff despite that being connected to the OGL Bahamut: Avatar Form grants platinum scales, symbol is a platinum dragon, and he has a group of followers called the Platinum Band.

[moosher12]

I think the XP budget change was intentional. It does make it easier, as being able to add a single 20 XP creature was rather nice when the encounter was 3 20 XP monsters.

[Tridus]

Moth Mariner wrote:

- Rogue Resilience (Player Core) is the only save proficiency upgrade in the system that gives the "roll a success get a crit success" effect when upgrading to Expert, rather than Master. Is this right? Why do Rogues have this? They're already very powerful!

This has been confirmed by Paizo as intentional. I don't really understand why, but it's not an error.

[Ravingdork]

Tridus wrote:

Moth Mariner wrote:

- Rogue Resilience (Player Core) is the only save proficiency upgrade in the system that gives the "roll a success get a crit success" effect when upgrading to Expert, rather than Master. Is this right? Why do Rogues have this? They're already very powerful!

This has been confirmed by Paizo as intentional. I don't really understand why, but it's not an error.

Doesn't at least one other class (one of the newer unreleased ones I think) also follow this trend?

[YuriP]

Moth Mariner wrote:

- Balance (Player Core) being its own action is very messy on how it interacts with anything else that calls on it.

The rules about Balance are a bit disperse in the book since always (CRB). But it's an active action that happens when you chose to use an action to move to a narrow surface or Uneven Ground.

If you read it and check results their success/critical success are always "You move up to your Speed". For all other situations where you aren't moving by yourself (being force moved for example) you make a reflex save vs the same DC. For all other active movements over such grounds that you actively uses an action you fall prone automatically.

There are some edge situations where your GM for some reason doesn't point that the square that you are moving over is a Uneven Ground (your character doesn't know that the terrain is slippery) this case is not specifically explained by the book but usually due similarity and using some general guidelines (where I don't remember where they are pointed in PC/GMC) the GM will ask for a saving throw (reflex) vs the terrain balance DC probably with a higher DC due the surprise. It can also ask for a Perception check before you act to notice that the terrain is a Uneven Ground especially if you are Seeking or Searching (or have some feat that allows to notice similar danger without use these actions).

Unfortunately the book can't explain how to deal with all cases of each situation but in general the things works like this:

If it is an active action vs something that the players know that they will have some difficult to do this will require a skill or attack check.

If it is an passive effect not caused by the character or a unknow consequence of its actions this will require a saving thrown. A fortitude check for things that affects the body and that usually cannot be avoided, reflex checks for things that could be avoided, will checks for things that affects your mind.

If it is a thing that you don't know your GM may ask (or secret roll) for a Perception check before or during your action/activity to allow you to notice and stop before act or complete your action/activity (like notice a hazard). Usually to get this check you have to be on the alert usually due usage of Seek or Search action/activity or when it judges that the thing is obvious enough to be noticed (usually when is not hidden) but not so obvious to a point that doesn't require a check. But even with the perception check you usually still can roll a saving thrown like happens to hazards.

If your GM judge that is possible it also can ask to you to use a skill action as reaction like Grab an Edge does but usually if you able to do some active action to avoid/diminish the effect (for example if you was forced moved to a Uneven Ground but there is a support to hold on) and usually after you made a save.

Moth Mariner wrote:

- Silencing Shot (Guns & Gears) inflicts an enemy with the Silence spell, a spell that only works on willing creatures. A DC is listed, is this meant to be a save against the Silence? Doesn't matter anyway, as it doesn't say which save is targeted.

It references to heightened 4th-level silence spell that is an AoE and affects all creatures (including enemies) that enters in the AoE automatically (without saves). This bullet for other side offers an opportunity to save but as you well pointed it doesn't point what save it is and really needs an errata. But probably it's a will save once the spell have the illusion trait but due it is an ammo that needs to hit it could be a fortitude check too (yet I still think that's probably a will save).

[Lightning Raven]

Ravingdork wrote:

Tridus wrote:

Moth Mariner wrote:

- Rogue Resilience (Player Core) is the only save proficiency upgrade in the system that gives the "roll a success get a crit success" effect when upgrading to Expert, rather than Master. Is this right? Why do Rogues have this? They're already very powerful!

This has been confirmed by Paizo as intentional. I don't really understand why, but it's not an error.

Doesn't at least one other class (one of the newer unreleased ones I think) also follow this trend?

No. No other class have these on all saves. Not even The Guardian (the pure defense class), even for them the benefit is only given when they become Master.

Under the current design Rogue is getting "Evasion" on its weakest saving throw a full 9 levels earlier than its second best (Will). Making it the only class in the game with "Evasion" on ALL its saving throws.

[calnivo]

Meta request regarding the thread at hand:

I really value all of your input. In the same way let us value OP magnuskn's opening of his thread.

Let us focus on our actual errata/clarification requests to rule developers in this thread. Let us outsource any discussions, exchange over details, back and forth, contradiction (unless absolutely necessary to grasp the original request / correct a factually wrong input), etc. to dedicated sibling threads. Put the respective links here, put detail discussion there.

The cleaner this thread, the more useful it can be for rule developers (who still will make their own, informed and authoritative judgment anyway), and the higher the chance, a particular matter gets their attention at all.

I understand that there is a plethora of subjects for a discussion. Let us give everything its appropriate space.

[calnivo]

I'd like a clarification / errata where necessary, regarding how certain Class Archetype Dedication feats interact with the clause "you can’t select a different dedication feat until you complete your dedication by taking two other feats from your current archetype" that was outsourced from specific (actually almost all) legacy dedication feats to the general paragraph in remaster, i.e. Player Core 1, p. 215, section "Dedication Details".

Is this really intended for Class Archetype Dedications (and all of them) as well?

Specific (not necessarily exhaustive) examples why I am asking:
- Secrets of Magic, p. 209, Flexible Spellcaster (Class Archetype) Dedication originally did not require you to "complete" the dedication originally. Now, above clause from PC1 technically demands it -- although it's entirely unclear how to do it. It might even be impossible to fulfil the clause unless one declares certain feats to be appropriate "Flexible Spellcaster Archetype" feats.

- I have similar reservations regarding War of Immortals's Class Archetypes, e.g. the Avenger (WoI, p. 58), the Bloodrager (WoI, p.60), the Vindicator (WoI, p. 64), etc.
While these do have a couple of explicit archetype feats one could take, I'm still in doubt: Is it really necessary to pick two of these -- which IMHO strongly narrows class development down to a certain nieche -- first before you can take a (non-class) archetype dedication (like Cleric Dedication)?

[calnivo]

Follow-Up Request on Class Archetype Dedications feats like Flexible Spellcaster Dedication, Avenger Dedication, Bloodrager Dedication, ... (see links in previous post).

I'd be grateful, if you could please confirm that these can be taken in extra feat slots from Free Archetype rule variant (s. GM Core, p. 84).

I personally see no objection against, but I've noticed that prominent 3rd party tool developers apparently interpreted it differently. I guess a considerable number of players let themselves guide very strongly by the constraints of such tools, so deviating implementations fuels rule confusion. Naturally, this is not Paizo's fault, yet a short comment on this might help to get a harmonized understanding more quickly.

[ElementalofCuteness]

They have the Archetype Trait so yes.

[Ezekieru]

Noticed an error on the Vehicle Mechanic archetype for Guns & Gears Remastered. Their prerequisite still says "Intelligence 14", where for the Remaster it should read as "Intelligence +2".

[Squark]

Archetype: Wild Mimic
Feats: Gorilla Stance/Gorilla Pound

Issue: In Howl of the wild, these feats are listed as options a Wild Mimic can take from Player Core 2. Unfortunately, Thse feats were cut from Player Core 2. I'm not sure of what to do, but this is not ideal.

[Sibelius Eos Owm]

Actually, speaking of Balance actions, allow me the vanity of reviving an old thread of mine where I encountered an issue with Balance that seems to remain in the game after the remaster.

(and please, if you must disagree on principle, answer me there or in a new thread)

Skill Actions / General Rules Issue: Acrobatics (Balance) and/or Uneven Ground.
To summarize: In the process of converting an upper-level 1e adventure, I encountered a room where the entire terrain of the room was to be treated as slippery (i.e. uneven) terrain and was somewhat astonished to find that, if a character Untrained in Acrobatics encounters such an obstacle, they are simply incapable of movement. While obviously 2e never intended for uneven ground to cover an entire room, and this is to some degree a question of conversion expectations, nevertheless I feel like it exposes an omission in the balance mechanics.

Uneven ground doesn't seem to be presented as a hard wall to untrained characters, yet that is effectively what it can be in some cases. Typically, 2e takes pains to present a non-skill solution to what I'll loosely describe as 'universal obstacles' (searching, escaping ropes, catching cliffs) while occasionally allowing investment in a skill to provide a superior means of clearing that obstacle (escaping ropes).

Indeed, this is what Follow the Expert is intended to solve--if the entire party must climb a mountain outside of combat, untrained characters can rely on their comrades. This works the same for balancing over uneven ground, however while a typical GM would probably think twice about putting a mountain that only 1-2 characters could climb in the middle of a battlefield, a simple sheet of ice (DC 30 Balance) might not raise the same red flags until the champion can barely move on a nat 20 without immediately falling.

Then, when I look at the rules for uneven ground, I find that if you are struck by an attack, you may make a Reflex save to avoid falling. It seems to me, there is already a provision for associating Reflex with the ability to handle uneven ground (and narrow surfaces). It feels like a weird omission that non-acrobats simply cannot step on ice, and struggle to traverse deep gravel--two terrain types readily available at my local playground even now--without FtE guidance.

I don't object that an acrobat should have a much easier time with these terrain types, but it still seems weird to me that the non-acrobat can't even attempt a slow penguin walk across these terrains once the DC climbs above Expert.

And yes, I know that this problem primarily exists with high-level DCs and therefore at times when the party might have access to flight--it doesn't feel weird because there isn't any other solution, it feels weird because it doesn't seem like 'uneven ground' should present such a strong binary between people who did and didn't take a particular skill. It's like if you needed Athletics or fins to wade into a chest-deep pool. I wouldn't expect a non-Athlete character to try diving into a raging river without realizing the risks, but I would expect a player to think they could try walking on ice--or any other uneven ground listed--and manage to move carefully even without high-level acrobatics skills

---

While we're here, it seems like this almost must be intentional, but it remains unexplained to my knowledge...

Skill Action Issue: Acrobatics (Balance) prerequisites
Summary: In order to balance, you must already be standing in a square of uneven ground or on a narrow surface. Considering that the only description of these terrain types is "You must balance or risk falling", it seems like there is a bit of a rules ourobouros here: In order to balance, you need to be on uneven ground, and in order to move on uneven ground (presumably including move onto), you need to Balance.

It's possible that you're intended to get 'one square free' so that you can step out onto the tightrope or patch of ice with normal movement, or it's possible that all patches of uneven/narrow terrain should be lined with squares that 'contain' (as per the Balance text) that terrain without being that terrain, but these guidelines are unwritten.

[TheFinish]

From Guns and Gears (Remastered):

The Fireworks Technician Archetype references Infused Reagents in the Dedication Feat and the Jumping Jenny feat, despite Infused Reagents no longer existing.

[Moth Mariner]

Yeah, as written you can't Balance until you are already in an area you need to be Balancing in. So you Stride (or other) into the uneven terrain, and then because you weren't Balancing you fall. And after that, you can attempt to Balance as an action. Or Grease spell, that seems to call for a forced Balance roll during your movement .

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

While obviously 2e never intended for uneven ground to cover an entire room,

Amusingly, this is an actual situation in a 2e AP

Which 2e AP has this:

Abomination Vaults

Now for an errata question to keep on topic:

- Oracle (Player Core 2) with the Fall 2024 errata, the text was amended to “Each day, you can cast up to three 1st-rank spells.” So far so good. However the Spell Repertoire section later still talks about learning two spells. Is that meant to increase to three, or stay at two and tax the last one for your mystery? Other classes clarify this. Could be Bard style, could be Sorcerer style.

[Theaitetos]

Generalize the OP's suggestion for Flash of Grandeur:

Reactions with a duration need some overhaul in general, as durations of "1 round" technically end on the beginning of the user's turn instead of lasting for "1 round".
This also includes reaction abilities with similar phrasing (e.g. "until beginning/end of your turn"), which is too often prohibitively short, e.g. a support witch using Portents of the Haruspex when an ally kills an enemy, only to have your turn start immediately after without ever giving any ally the chance to make use of it.

These rules/abilities should instead be made to last 1 actual round (i.e. tick down on the initiative they were used on, not the completely unrelated initiative of the user).

[moosher12]

Ancestry: Automaton
Rule: Automaton Lore feat
Problem: Now that Automaton Lore now grants Additional Lore (Automaton Lore), the Enhancement ability to increase Automaton Lore to expert/master is now redundant, and may be removed to just affect Arcana or Crafting.

[SpontaneousLightning]

Book: Rage of Elements

Rule: A few kineticist feats such as Counter Element, Elemental Overlap, and Elemental Transformation have a prerequisite of "exactly one kinetic element"

Problem:: What happens if someone took one of these feats and then later gained a second element? For example, a single-gate earth kineticist taking Elemental Overlap at level 8 to gain the earth/metal composite impulse Whirling Grindstone, and then later at level 13 Forked the Path and gained a new kinetic element (which may or may not be the metal element).

I have seen some people say that they can no longer use the Whirling Grindstone feat, as they no longer meet the prerequisites of "exactly one kinetic element", and I have seen some people say that they could still use Whirling Grindstone because their character met the prerequisites at level 8 when the feat was taken, and losing your feat because of a natural choice you made during a later level up (which might be months or even a year in real life, during which your character would be constantly using the feat) is too bad to be true.

Clarification on which side of the debate is correct would be greatly appreciated.

[knoodler]

The Undine feat Native Waters says

Quote:

if you have the doomed or fatigued conditions, you reduce them by 2 instead of 1.

i suspect that this is meant to say drained instead of fatigued. Fatigued doesn't make sense here, and drained is the only other condition that is reduced by 1 after a full rest.

While you're at it, the feat could use a removal of the choice between fresh and salt water. It's restricting enough to require any natural body of water, and the effects are already rather niche.

[calnivo]

Player Core 1, p. 339, Spell "Invisibility", Description:

Description's second sentence is potentially more confusing than helpful. In case of the caster being observed while casting Invisibility, the phrase "This makes it [Invisibility Target], undetected to all creatures" directly contradicts the definition of Invisible (Player Core 1, p. 444) and probably the Stealth (esp. Sneak) rules (Player Core 1, p. 245) as well.

Suggested Correction 1:
Delete the second sentence completely and replace by a reference to the Invisible definition to care for the explanation, instead.
For instance: "Illusions bend light around the target, rendering it invisible. This makes it undetected to all creatures, though the creatures can attempt to find the target, making it hidden to them instead. (See effects of the Invisible condition at page 444.)"

OR
Suggested Correction 2:
Explain it correctly.
For instance: "Illusions bend light around the target, rendering it invisible. This makes it hidden to all creatures that already see the target or undetected to all other creatures, [...]"

[OrochiFuror]

Add either a proficiency bump to barding or strikes for wrecker and/or bully animal companions.
Strength based animal companions are noticeably behind dex animal companions in both chance to hit and AC with only a very minor damage increase as compensation past level 14. The specializations are not properly balanced with each other.

Long time problem, but figured I'd add it to the list.

[rainzax]

calnivo wrote:

I'd like a clarification / errata where necessary, regarding how certain Class Archetype Dedication feats interact with the clause "you can’t select a different dedication feat until you complete your dedication by taking two other feats from your current archetype" that was outsourced from specific (actually almost all) legacy dedication feats to the general paragraph in remaster, i.e. Player Core 1, p. 215, section "Dedication Details".

Is this really intended for Class Archetype Dedications (and all of them) as well?

Specific (not necessarily exhaustive) examples why I am asking:
- Secrets of Magic, p. 209, Flexible Spellcaster (Class Archetype) Dedication originally did not require you to "complete" the dedication originally. Now, above clause from PC1 technically demands it -- although it's entirely unclear how to do it. It might even be impossible to fulfil the clause unless one declares certain feats to be appropriate "Flexible Spellcaster Archetype" feats.

- I have similar reservations regarding War of Immortals's Class Archetypes, e.g. the Avenger (WoI, p. 58), the Bloodrager (WoI, p.60), the Vindicator (WoI, p. 64), etc.
While these do have a couple of explicit archetype feats one could take, I'm still in doubt: Is it really necessary to pick two of these -- which IMHO strongly narrows class development down to a certain nieche -- first before you can take a (non-class) archetype dedication (like Cleric Dedication)?

+1

Short version: Are class archetypes intended to “take up” the “dedication slot”?

[Lightning Raven]

rainzax wrote:

calnivo wrote:

I'd like a clarification / errata where necessary, regarding how certain Class Archetype Dedication feats interact with the clause "you can’t select a different dedication feat until you complete your dedication by taking two other feats from your current archetype" that was outsourced from specific (actually almost all) legacy dedication feats to the general paragraph in remaster, i.e. Player Core 1, p. 215, section "Dedication Details".

Is this really intended for Class Archetype Dedications (and all of them) as well?

Specific (not necessarily exhaustive) examples why I am asking:
- Secrets of Magic, p. 209, Flexible Spellcaster (Class Archetype) Dedication originally did not require you to "complete" the dedication originally. Now, above clause from PC1 technically demands it -- although it's entirely unclear how to do it. It might even be impossible to fulfil the clause unless one declares certain feats to be appropriate "Flexible Spellcaster Archetype" feats.

- I have similar reservations regarding War of Immortals's Class Archetypes, e.g. the Avenger (WoI, p. 58), the Bloodrager (WoI, p.60), the Vindicator (WoI, p. 64), etc.
While these do have a couple of explicit archetype feats one could take, I'm still in doubt: Is it really necessary to pick two of these -- which IMHO strongly narrows class development down to a certain nieche -- first before you can take a (non-class) archetype dedication (like Cleric Dedication)?

+1

Short version: Are class archetypes intended to “take up” the “dedication slot”?

Yes. When you choose a Class Archetype you also have to pick the dedication at 2nd level.

[Bluemagetim]

Battle Harbinger dedication.
Please consider removing toughness and have the dedication provide the Aura Enhancement feat.
The class archtype really shouldnt be played without all 4 aura spells as a base line for all battle harbingers.

[Squiggit]

Lightning Raven wrote:

rainzax wrote:

calnivo wrote:

I'd like a clarification / errata where necessary, regarding how certain Class Archetype Dedication feats interact with the clause "you can’t select a different dedication feat until you complete your dedication by taking two other feats from your current archetype" that was outsourced from specific (actually almost all) legacy dedication feats to the general paragraph in remaster, i.e. Player Core 1, p. 215, section "Dedication Details".

Is this really intended for Class Archetype Dedications (and all of them) as well?

Specific (not necessarily exhaustive) examples why I am asking:
- Secrets of Magic, p. 209, Flexible Spellcaster (Class Archetype) Dedication originally did not require you to "complete" the dedication originally. Now, above clause from PC1 technically demands it -- although it's entirely unclear how to do it. It might even be impossible to fulfil the clause unless one declares certain feats to be appropriate "Flexible Spellcaster Archetype" feats.

- I have similar reservations regarding War of Immortals's Class Archetypes, e.g. the Avenger (WoI, p. 58), the Bloodrager (WoI, p.60), the Vindicator (WoI, p. 64), etc.
While these do have a couple of explicit archetype feats one could take, I'm still in doubt: Is it really necessary to pick two of these -- which IMHO strongly narrows class development down to a certain nieche -- first before you can take a (non-class) archetype dedication (like Cleric Dedication)?

+1

Short version: Are class archetypes intended to “take up” the “dedication slot”?

Yes. When you choose a Class Archetype you also have to pick the dedication at 2nd level.

The trouble is that breaks some things. It does not feel intentional that someone who wants to play a flexible spellcaster is not allowed to ever take another archetype.