Spring Errata 2025 suggestions

[pH unbalanced]

Squiggit wrote:

Lightning Raven wrote:

rainzax wrote:

+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.

I think the framing on this question is poor, and it really isn't an issue with "Class Archetypes" -- in general this is obviously true with Class Archetypes like Vindicator and Bloodrager.

This question should be limited to Flexible Spellcasting and the other Dedications (like Curse Maelstrom) that premaster did not require 2 additional archetype feats before you could take another Dedication feat. Because premaster that quality was not particularly tied to Class Archetypes.

[Teridax]

I do think the above could be solved with errata to the dedication trait itself. If you took the third sentence of the dedication trait and added something along the lines of: ", or all of your current archetype's remaining feats if it has fewer than two other feats", then this would reconcile the post-remaster clash between RAW and RAI in archetypes like the flexible spellcaster.

[Tridus]

pH unbalanced wrote:

This question should be limited to Flexible Spellcasting and the other Dedications (like Curse Maelstrom) that premaster did not require 2 additional archetype feats before you could take another Dedication feat. Because premaster that quality was not particularly tied to Class Archetypes.

Feels like a straightforward errata to those archetypes to add "this dedication does not require you to take any additional feats in the archetype."

If they ever remaster them, they'll probably get that treatment. Until then since its a fairly obvious remaster compatibility issue it should be a no-brainer for a GM to just waive the requirement. It's obvious that since the default state changed the legacy dedications need to be considered under the lens of the legacy rules.

[moosher12]

Class: Gunslinger
Rules: Gunslinging Legend class feature
Problem: This one is more to bring formatting in order. But now that Gunslingers were buffed to get master proficiency with simple weapons, martial weapons, and unarmed attacks, they can use the terminology of Gunslinger Weapon Mastery instead

"Your proficiency rank increases to legendary with simple and martial firearms and crossbows. Your proficiency rank for advanced firearms and crossbows, simple weapons, martial weapons, and unarmed attacks increases to master."

instead of

"Your proficiency rank increases to legendary with simple and martial firearms and crossbows and to master with advanced firearms and crossbows. Your proficiency rank for simple weapons, martial weapons, and unarmed attacks increases to master."

Though in the end this is a nitpick, it may potentially save 1 line, depending on how center alignment bunches the new wording, but it might not.

[moosher12]

Class: Dual-Weapon Warrior and Gunslinger
Rules: Dual-Weapon Reload
As the PFS note on Archives of Nethys states, Dual-Weapon Reload does not need an action. Additionally, the Gunslinger's version does not need a Requirements slot.

[calnivo]

Lost Omens: Divine Mysteries, p. 273, Battle Creed (1 st) - Wrong word (Feat name)

The last sentence of Battle Creed's description currently reads: "You must select Battle Herald Dedication as your 2nd-level class feat." (italics mine)

Correction: Replace "Herald" with "Harbinger".

[Moth Mariner]

- Blessed Armament (Player Core 2) The slight rewording of the Champion's Blessed Armament –"grant the armament a property rune"– has been taken to mean that your daily rune benefits take up one of the weapon's available rune slots. Is this intended? When compared to the value of the auto-upgrading reinforcing rune of the Blessed Shield option, it doesn't seem as beneficial since its value goes down as you level up.

- Disappearance (Player Core) This spell is weirdly written, saying you are undetected to all senses, meaning you "count as" invisible (a condition that means you are undetected, we go into a loop). What does "count as" mean in this context? Can this rank 8 spell be countered by spells or other effects that grant the ability to see invisible? See the Unseen and Revealing Light are rank 2...

[moosher12]

Archetype: Demolitionist

Rule: Demolitionist Dedication archetype feat
Problem: The Demolitionist Dedication references Calculated Splash in a clause, which was removed.

Rule: Controlled Blast archetype feat
Problem: The Calculated Splash feat can be removed as a prerequisite, as it is not included in the Remaster, and the Demolitionist no longer learns the feat. Additionally, Controlled Blast includes rules for using both Calculated Splash and Demolition Charge, which is also not in the Remaster.

Rule: Collapse Wall archetype feat
Problem: Also makes reference to Demolition Charge.

[moosher12]

Archetype: Firework Technician
Rule: Firework Technician Dedication archetype feat
Problem:
-The Firework Technician Dedication feat grants advanced alchemy benefits, but does not explain how many daily consumables are granted per day.
-While the feat says you should spend your daily consumable to Launch Fireworks, it instead costs versatile vials.
-The feat is a bit inconsistent on whether versatile vials or daily alchemical consumables should be spent on fireworks displays, as it says both should work. But only versatile vials function for the purpose.
-The Launch Fireworks action refers to batches of infused reagents, which no longer apply.

Rule: Coughing Dragon Display archetype feat
Problem:
The feat has a cost of 1 fireworks display, which the allotment of which are not clear. This feat also still communicates costs in terms of batches of infused reagents.

Rule: Jumping Jenny Display archetype feat
Problem:
The feat has a cost of 1 fireworks display, which the allotment of which is not clear. This feat also still communicates costs in terms of batches of infused reagents.

Rule: Goblin Jubilee Display archetype feat
Problem:
The feat has a cost of 1 fireworks display, which the allotment of which is not clear.

Rule: Banshee Display archetype feat
Problem:
The feat has an optional cost of 1 fireworks display, which the allotment of which is not clear.

[Monkhound]

Source: Player Core
Feat: Untrained Improvisation

Could you please have a look and clarify how this feat interacts with Lore skills?

The current way the feat is written gives a character with this feat a variation on a Class Feat (Bardic Lore) in addition to boosting all the other Untrained skills a character may have. This feels inappropriately strong for any character to have for the price of a level 3 General Feat, let alone for high Intelligence characters.

[Lightning Raven]

Monkhound wrote:

Source: Player Core

Feat: Untrained Improvisation

Could you please have a look and clarify how this feat interacts with Lore skills?

The current way the feat is written gives a character with this feat a variation on a Class Feat (Bardic Lore) in addition to boosting all the other Untrained skills a character may have. This feels inappropriately strong for any character to have for the price of a level 3 General Feat, let alone for high Intelligence characters.

You simply don't have Lore skills that you are not trained in. And if you are trained in them, then they're already better than Untrained Improvisation.

Either you are trained in them or they don't exist for your character. Which is one of the several elements that make them different from "normal" skills which Untrained Improvisation is designed to affect.

[Squiggit]

Lightning Raven wrote:

You simply don't have Lore skills that you are not trained in. And if you are trained in them, then they're already better than Untrained Improvisation.

Either you are trained in them or they don't exist for your character. Which is one of the several elements that make them different from "normal" skills which Untrained Improvisation is designed to affect.

Player Core directly says you can make untrained RK checks with Lore skills, so this is incorrect.

There's also already an existing thread to discuss this topic where people are considering these very issues, there's no sense trying to re-litigate it in a thread that's not meant for discussion in the first place.

[Lightning Raven]

Squiggit wrote:

Lightning Raven wrote:

You simply don't have Lore skills that you are not trained in. And if you are trained in them, then they're already better than Untrained Improvisation.

Either you are trained in them or they don't exist for your character. Which is one of the several elements that make them different from "normal" skills which Untrained Improvisation is designed to affect.

Player Core directly says you can make untrained RK checks with Lore skills, so this is incorrect.

There's also already an existing thread to discuss this topic where people are considering these very issues, there's no sense trying to re-litigate it in a thread that's not meant for discussion in the first place.

Well, Nethys isn't updated then, check it out:

https://2e.aonprd.com/Skills.aspx?ID=41&Redirected=1

The clause "Even if you're untrained in Lore, you can use it to Recall Knowledge." is only present on the Legacy version. Unless this bit of info changed to another rule, I don't think you can roll lore when you're untrained in it.

[moosher12]

Lightning Raven wrote:

Well, Nethys isn't update then, check it out:

https://2e.aonprd.com/Skills.aspx?ID=41&Redirected=1

The clause "Even if you're untrained in Lore, you can use it to Recall Knowledge." is only present on the Legacy version. Unless this bit of info changed to another rule, I don't think you can roll lore when you're untrained in it.

That's an error on AoN's part. I just crossed-checked both my Core Rulebook and my Player Core, and they both say that clause (Core Rulebook 247 and Player Core 241)

[moosher12]

Class: Spellshot Gunslinger class archetype
Rule: Spellshot Gunslinger class archetype

This is more a suggestion than a correction after some discontent among my players, but I think swapping out Arcane Breadth for Master Wizard Spellcasting would be apt, like with the Bloodrager.

[Sibelius Eos Owm]

Monster Size Question: Pugwampi Gremlin
Were pugwampis intended to become small creatures in the Remaster? They were tiny in 1e and remained tiny in 2e, but appear to have grown to small on the Archives of Nethys. This may be an AoN error as it doesn't seem to have come up in lists of changes I can find, and its would be the only change I can note.

[Ravingdork]

Tanuki Ancestry Change Shape
Lost Omens: Tian Xia Character Guide p.65

The partial usage of pest form is ambiguous and confusing, as it (1) breaks the precedent of change shape not altering statistics save for natural attacks, and (2) since it only grants the statistics, but none of the battle form benefits or restrictions, you end up with weird issues like the form not melding gear, not being prevented from casting spells, and allowing said stats to be altered by various effects.

Proposed Solution: Omit any mention of pest form, and simply list the specific statistics changes within the ancestry ability description.

For example: You can transform into a mundane raccoon dog. You lose any unarmed Strikes you gained from a tanuki heritage or ancestry feat, but gain low-light vision and imprecise scent 30 feet while in this form. This is a specific raccoon dog form that's the same age and body type as your true form and has roughly analogous physical traits, such as hair color. Using Change Shape counts as creating a disguise for the Impersonate use of Deception. You can remain in your raccoon dog form indefinitely, and you can shift back to your tanuki form by using this action again.

This greatly simplifies the ability and clears up numerous rules interaction interpretations that might have a deleterious effect on tanuki gameplay.

[YuriP]

Most Tanuki's Change Shape feats that changes your form to a non-humanoid doesn't explain what they do with the character gear like battle forms spells do.
These feats needs to add what happen to your gear when you Change Shape to an object, statue or landscape form in a next errata.

[Tridus]

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

Monster Size Question: Pugwampi Gremlin

Were pugwampis intended to become small creatures in the Remaster? They were tiny in 1e and remained tiny in 2e, but appear to have grown to small on the Archives of Nethys. This may be an AoN error as it doesn't seem to have come up in lists of changes I can find, and its would be the only change I can note.

AoN Error. Pugwampi are Tiny in Monster Core.

[magnuskn]

Class: Kineticist
Rule for which errata is needed: Incapacitation for Solar Detonation
The issue: By a strict reading of the impulse, the incapacitation effect on Solar Detonation applies to all components of the impulse, i.e. the damage component and the blinded / dazzled effect on a failed save.

It would make more sense to have the incapacitation effect only apply to the blinded / dazzled effect, since normally incapacitation is not used for damage spells. If this is the actually intended way the impulse is supposed to be read, as I suspect, it would be necessary to clarify the impulse text to make clear that the incapacitation effect only applies to the blinded / dazzled part of Solar Detonation, not the damage part.

[moosher12]

For Guns and Gears Remastered Edition, there are some accidental OGL references.

Pg. 12: in the exposition paragraph, it references a red dragon, rather than a cinder dragon (or really any other Monster Core dragon)

Pg. 169: For the picture of what what should now be a Marvelous Miniature Bullet, it says Feather Token Bullet

Pg. 182: The Immovable Tripod makes reference to the Immovable Rod.

[YuriP]

Kineticist Elemental Overlap feat prerequisites restricts it to "exactly one kinetic element" but it's possible to get another element when you get the next gate's threshold. This feat needs nome additional text describing what happens when you get another element, or restricting to get another element or forcing to retrain this feat and the composite impulse or have this prerequisite removed.

[Gold Rhino]

I think the inventor feat variable core would make sense for its damage change to also apply to Weapon Inventor's Overdrive damage type choice (and for all Inventor's Overdrive fail damage). Currently these all can only be fire.

[Moth Mariner]

- The Etching Process (GM Core) for runes currently requires you have the formula for the rune - is this a unique requirement for runes, or should runes follow the same rules as all other crafting post-remaster (formula reduces time for common items)?

[Patrickthekid]

For Divine Mysteries, could The Child Goddess of Kaer Maga be added as a deity to the supplement list?

[CrisprCass9]

Feature: Multiple level 1 ancestry feats from pre-remaster, titled “Blank Lore”.
Problem: These lores only give trained in a lore, while new “blank lore” ancestry feats give additional lore for that lore.
Solution: Either individually or blanket declare that lore skills give additional lore for any lores they give.

https://paizo.com/threads/rzs5xsyx?-Lore-Errata-Request

Here is a thread where I proposed this originally.

[Trip.H]

Don't forget the Backgrounds are still stuck with "Trained in [Lore]" which never scales. Even post remaster, the few remastered Backgrounds in the core book, like Acrobat, still use that old non-scaling language.

We need a higher-level errata saying that all mentions of gaining trained in a lore skill instead should simply grant Additional Lore of that topic.

IMO this is a needed change, because of how RK works.

Once you get Master in the generics like Religion, it'll make the stuck at trained lore into a trap. RaW, you declare what you are using to make the RK check, and if you pick your trained lore, the gap will mean any use of the lore will perform worse.

See a weird L5 Harpy Skeleton? the Religion RK is 18, while being dead-on with the right lore of Undead Lore will be a 15, for a 3 gap.

The Master -- Trained gap is 4.

Even when staring at an unknown skeleton, you need to avoid using your PC's Undead Lore. Ugh.

[Mooseman-666]

For the animist spell store time it states that you get an extra reaction but that it can only be used for animist or apparition actions. The animist itself only gets 4 reactions the first one being at level 6. So that means the spell has no real use until level 6? Also it is unclear if apparition spells that use a reaction to cast are a valid option. Can we get some clarification if a spell could be used for the extra reaction? I think it would be best if the restriction was just removed entirely. The spell can only be used by an animist and cannot be gained through multiclassing so it is not extremely powerful to get an extra reaction.

[Moth Mariner]

- Brutal Beating (Player Core) gives Frightened but has no mental/emotion/fear traits, meaning you can inflicted frightened on mindless creatures and the like. Is this intended? Seems unlikely.

- Combat Grab (Player Core) lets you grab any size creature since it is not tied to Grapple. Is this intended?

[Moth Mariner]

- Alacritous Horseshoes (GM Core) give an item bonus to Athletics checks to High Jump and Long Jump, but the rules for Animal Companions state they can only ever benefit from item bonuses to Speed and AC...

[Moth Mariner]

Moth Mariner wrote:

- Blessed Armament (Player Core 2) The slight rewording of the Champion's Blessed Armament –"grant the armament a property rune"– has been taken to mean that your daily rune benefits take up one of the weapon's available rune slots...

Oh I forgot one more bit!

If it takes up one of the weapon's rune slots, does this mean you gain no benefit until you actually have a rune slot to take up? If yes, might not do anything for the first couple of levels you have this. If no, you end up losing this benefit once you do actually put a property rune on the weapon...

[Bluemagetim]

Moth Mariner wrote:

Moth Mariner wrote:

- Blessed Armament (Player Core 2) The slight rewording of the Champion's Blessed Armament –"grant the armament a property rune"– has been taken to mean that your daily rune benefits take up one of the weapon's available rune slots...

Oh I forgot one more bit!

If it takes up one of the weapon's rune slots, does this mean you gain no benefit until you actually have a rune slot to take up? If yes, might not do anything for the first couple of levels you have this. If no, you end up losing this benefit once you do actually put a property rune on the weapon...

Conversely if the rune does not take up a rune slot on the weapon and is additional to any runes etched onto the weapon through normal means does the granted rune still follow the rules for having two of the same property rune.

None of the 3rd level runes could stack but what about a rune from the level 10 Radiant Armament feat?

For example would a +1 bastard sword etched with an Astral rune gain the Astral rune damage twice if also given an Astral rune from Blessed Armament improved with the Radiant Armament Feat?

[Mangaholic13]

This probably isn't an erratum, so much as pointing out a typo, but one page 108 of Player Core 2, in the sidebar Sample Investigator: Coroner

It lists taking the feat Share Tincture.

Problem with that is, the Coroner is Forensic Medicine and Share Tincture requires the Alchemical Sciences methodology.

[Squark]

Level 0 Characters (GM Core pg. 84)

The Apprentice option reccomends giving level 0 Alchemists the Advanced Alchemy feature with 1 infused reagent per day. The Advanced Alchemy feature was heavily modified by the remaster and doesn't use infused reagents any more. The rule should probably be changed to allow Level 0 Alchemists to create two level 1 consumables a day, which would be the same number as previously available with the minor benefit of being able to choose to make two different items instead of only being allowed to make two of the same item.

[Mangaholic13]

Squark wrote:

Level 0 Characters (GM Core pg. 84)

The Apprentice option reccomends giving level 0 Alchemists the Advanced Alchemy feature with 1 infused reagent per day. The Advanced Alchemy feature was heavily modified by the remaster and doesn't use infused reagents any more. The rule should probably be changed to allow Level 0 Alchemists to create two level 1 consumables a day, which would be the same number as previously available with the minor benefit of being able to choose to make two different items instead of only being allowed to make two of the same item.

Sounds like whoever wrote that wasn't allowed to see the notes on the Remastered Alchemist.

[Blave]

I'd like a clear statement whether or not the Deafenend condition is supposed to have a chance to make you lose your spell when you cast it (assuming it's not a subtle one).

This came up multiple times on reddit in the past months with the main arguemnt being that spellcasting requires speech and all speech being auditory by RAW.

[Lightning Raven]

Blave wrote:

I'd like a clear statement whether or not the Deafenend condition is supposed to have a chance to make you lose your spell when you cast it (assuming it's not a subtle one).

This came up multiple times on reddit in the past months with the main arguemnt being that spellcasting requires speech and all speech being auditory by RAW.

I honestly think it should, even if currently isn't. Don't know why they didn't make it crystal clear. The game seems to treat Deafened as a strong condition, since you can have it as a rider effect at 10th level competing with Slam Down, Grab and similar abilities.

Deafened used to affect spellcasting in PF1e as well and it was specifically called out as a 20% chance of failure (Flat Check DC5 in PF2e's terms).

[YuriP]

It made sense in legacy. But in the remaster it got a bit confusing because concentration is not exactly the same as verbal and theoretically not being able to hear yourself doesn't mean you can't speak.

Few tables know and accept deafenend as a condition that makes it harder to cast spells, and it is also very likely to start a debate at the table, something that many GMs don't want to have to deal with.

[Lightning Raven]

YuriP wrote:

It made sense in legacy. But in the remaster it got a bit confusing because concentration is not exactly the same as verbal and theoretically not being able to hear yourself doesn't mean you can't speak.

Few tables know and accept deafened as a condition that makes it harder to cast spells, and it is also very likely to start a debate at the table, something that many GMs don't want to have to deal with.

Which is why I think it should call out specifically spells like it did, while enabling subtle spell (and similar effects) to work. It also improves Psychic spellcasting as a byproduct along with the player options that engage with Deafened both to inflict and prevent.

It also doesn't step on Stupefied toes because it can increase the flat check difficulty from baseline and affects other elements well.

[Errenor]

YuriP wrote:

It made sense in legacy. But in the remaster it got a bit confusing because concentration is not exactly the same as verbal and theoretically not being able to hear yourself doesn't mean you can't speak.

No? There's no verbal because everything is 'verbal' now by default. This restriction became stronger, not weaker. So now it makes more sense for everything (apart from subtle).

[Sibelius Eos Owm]

It seems there is cause for confusion that may be worthy of errata. That is sufficient to warrant mention here. However, this thread is not for discussion, so if one needs to happen, it is best to happen in its own thread.

[magnuskn]

Yeah, please make your separate thread if you want to have a long discussion about the topic. This thread is for posting issues for the developer team to look at as possible errata.

[Conscious Meat]

Perhaps I'm missing something, but the "Kotodama Bells" and "Kotodama Whistle" items (page 129, "Lost Omens - Tian Xia Character Guide") don't have prices and I didn't see these among the errata already at https://paizo.com/pathfinder/faq .

[Squark]

Source: Rival Academies, page 117
Rule: Precious Gleam (Greed Focus Spell)

Problem: I am almost 100% positive the Mental trait on this spell (for a sin that eschews such effects most of the time) was supposed to be the Metal trait (Because it briefly changes a weapon into your choice of metals). I know that spells given to you by your Curriculum and Sin get around your anathema, but the mental trait still makes no sense since you're transmuting something, not messing with someone's head.

[Moth Mariner]

- Lesser Ablative Armor Plating (Guns & Gears) is an uncommon item that grants a 1 minute bonus of 5 temporary hp, but takes 10 minutes to install. This is already a very hard-to-make-use-of bonus, but then compare it to a Lesser Numbing Tonic: same price and level, but is common, takes a single action to drink, and grants 5 temporary hp each turn for the same duration.

Gadgets in general need a tune up to make them viable, this was just a notably egregious example.

[Moth Mariner]

- Divine Decree (Player Core) has both a range and an emanation size. Is it meant to be an emanation you can place on another target within range?

[YuriP]

Certainly not because the spell doesn't point a target. But it's confuse written and need an errata.

[calnivo]

Source: Player Core 1, page 274
Abstract: Conditionally inconsistent Buckler feature: Can one hold a light object that's not a weapon, if GM doesn't like that?

In Detail: Section Shield Description for Buckler is clear regarding the buckler's main mechanical advantage, unconditionally: "You can Raise a Shield with your buckler as long as you have that hand free or are holding a light object that's not a weapon in that hand."

However, a paragraph at the top of the same page
(1) deviates from Buckler's description because it makes the "holding a light object"-advantage explicitly dependant on GM discretion.
(2) It also contains weird wording regarding free hands in general.

See the following quote:

Player Core 1, p. 274 wrote:

Raise a Shield is the action most commonly used with shields. All shields [...] must be [...] held in one hand, so you can't hold anything with that hand and Raise a Shield, and you lose the shield's benefits if that hand is no longer free. A buckler, however, doesn't take up your hand, so you can Raise a Shield with a buckler if the hand is free [sic!] (or, at the GM's discretion, if it's holding a simple, lightweight object that's not a weapon).

Italics mine - and I don't understand it.

(1) The part with "at the GM's discretion" is a condition that does not match the Buckler description and could rob the buckler of it's main feature, if GM doesn't like it.

(2) And specifically mentioning being able to Raise a shield with a free hand is confusing to me - as this is exactly how every other shield would work anyway, isn't it?: Grabbing a shield/buckler with a free hand to raise it - thereby occupying the hand with the shield/buckler - that's not what makes a buckler special. The speciality would be raising a shield with a hand that is not free because it already holds mentioned light object. Or am I now lost in English language?

Anyway, the following change would clear up both issues, completely, IMHO:

Correction Suggestion wrote:

Raise a Shield is the action most commonly used with shields. All shields [...] must be [...] held in one hand, so you can't hold anything with that hand and Raise a Shield, and you lose the shield's benefits if that hand is no longer free. A buckler, however, doesn't take up your hand, so you can Raise a Shield with a buckler if the hand is free (or, at the GM's discretion, if it's holding a simple, lightweight object that's not a weapon ) .

[Watery Soup]

Monster: Storm Lord
Entry for which errata is needed: Athletics
The issue: The storm lord is untrained in Athletics, making its Push a likely critical failure.

[Ripley Riley]

On pg 84 of the Player Core, under the Bandit background...

"Choose two ability boosts. One must be to Dexterity or Charisma, and one is a free attribute boost."

That should be attribute boosts, not ability.