Spring Errata 2025 suggestions

[Dubious Scholar]

Exemplar, Horn of Plenty.

This technically isn't anything broken. But I think that the transcend should allow you to still use the item on yourself, in order to move your spark while consuming a potion/elixir with the action compression.

The issue that comes up here is that while it saves an action with it's immanence effect, because you then need to spend an action to transfer your spark to something else afterwards you don't actually benefit from the immanence unless you're going to use it multiple times in a round (i.e. two+ items on self, self+transcend, etc). (At least, without an ikon feat granting it additional Transcend options)

Of course, it allows you to spend two actions to consume two items and give the effects of one to an ally and such still, but it feels like a minor trap that you have to invest further or use multiple items in a turn to actually gain benefit from the immanence at all?

[calnivo]

Player Core p. 456, Trait Extradimensional says

Player Core p.456 wrote:

An extradimensional effect placed inside another extradimensional space ceases to function until it is removed.

I understand why extradimensional containers (e.g. the omnipresent Spacious Pouches) inside extradimensional containers are undesirable in terms of balance and risk of absurd item compression effects (e.g. the fantasy analogon of zip-bomb-attacks).

However, is it really intended that extradimensional containers cease to function when carried into an extradimensional structure (e.g. a Gourd Home) or a spell-created, structure-like place, e.g. a Planar Palace or teleported to a Quandary?

[Terrorforge]

The Advanced Alchemy Feat from the Alchemist archetype (Player Core 2, pg.175) gives the player access to a flat 4 Advanced Alchemy items per day, unlike a full Alchemist who gets 4 + Int modifier.

By taking the Advanced Concoction Feat from that archetype, you can access the Efficient Alchemy Alchemist Feat, which includes this sentence:

Quote:

Increase the number of items you can create each day with advanced alchemy to 6 + your Intelligence modifier.

Advanced Efficient Alchemy has similar wording.

For a base class Alchemist, this just gives them two extra advanced alchemy items. But for a character with the Alchemist archetype, it also reintroduces the Int modifier, likely doubling their number of AA items, which seems unintentional.

And if it is intentional, it would be nice to have some confirmation that it is, because I feel like this is something that I might get into arguments over in PFS.

[Moth Mariner]

- Avoid Notice (Player Core) old but gold: wouldn't this make more sense to have the Secret trait?

[Ravingdork]

Moth Mariner wrote:

- Avoid Notice (Player Core) old but gold: wouldn't this make more sense to have the Secret trait?

Thank goodness it doesn't. Would make it hella difficult to use, what with rolling Initiative and all.

[Lightning Raven]

Something that is grinding my gears and only further cements my opinion that Thrown Weapon builds aren't treated equally:

Despite being introduced as "Thrown Weapon Build" support, the new feat introduced in the Swashbuckler remaster, Twirling Throw does not synergize with the feat that is the backbone of the playstyle, Flying Blade.

Flying blade restricts the Precision Damage to its first range increment, while Twirling Throw is a Finisher with the main benefit being increasing the range of the weapon (by ignoring the penalties for its second and third increments).

This is, no doubt, by design. But I think introducing a Finisher Move that won't deal Finisher damage on the situations where you WANT to use it is not synergistic at all, specially since most thrown weapons (with agile and/or finesse) have range of only 20ft at best (and most of them are 10ft).

Flying Blade is already a feat tax, I really don't think Thrown Builds should have so many hoops to jump.

[Trip.H]

An errata edit to canonize an implied rule could dramatically help throwing builds have a chance at viability.

As of now, throwing attacks are ranged attacks made as reload 0 attacks 95+% of the time, but are incompatible with all abilities that specify "reload 0" in their text.

While imo the ~"real fault" lies within the standard ability text erroneously using "[wielding a] reload 0 [weapon]" instead of the ~truer: "[can make] reload 0 [attacks],"

editing the upstream Reload text once makes much more sense, though there's no getting around some amount of additional words being needed.

There's a second blocker/issue on the Reload side of the text, as it contradicts itself.

Quote:

While all weapons need some amount of time to get into position, many ranged weapons also need to be loaded and reloaded. This entry indicates how many Interact actions it takes to reload such weapons or draw certain thrown weapons, like shuriken. This can be 0 if drawing ammunition and firing or throwing the weapon are part of the same action. If an item takes 2 or more actions to reload [...]

This defines reload X to mean "prep actions" generally, but there's two different meanings of "reload 0;" sometimes it means you can immediately attack with the weapon on your hip, other times you must draw and wield it first. This existing ugh of ~"faulty" design has to be carefully navigated around (and should have been fixed in the remaster). Honestly, by their own rules, Shuriken should use a "reload -1" entry to indicate the free action draw, and it's that item's mistake that screwed up the meaning of Reload.

.

As an example I've re-written that to add the needed compatibility while clarifying & compressing the existing rules method a tiny bit.
By doing this with a properly general rule, this also adds help for repeating weapons, which are similarly an endangered species and in need of some assistance.

Quote:

Many ranged weapons require separate actions to load ammunition or to draw before being ready to throw. A weapon's reload number indicates how many Interact actions outside the attack that the weapon requires to ready. A weapon listing "reload 0" indicates separate preparation is not needed, and is included inside the attacking action. If an item takes 2 or more actions to reload [...]

If circumstances allow for an immediate follow up attack, then you are considered to be wielding a weapon with reload 0 for the sake of abilities that require it for as long as those circumstances are maintained. [optional examples ->] If you wield a javelin which immediately returns to your hand, then you are be eligible to perform Ranger's Hunted Shot. However, an air repeater with only 2 pellets remaining would be unable to complete a Triple Shot.

(this text still sucks to write because of the meaning contradiction in Reload btwn shooting / throwing, but this is as short and unambiguous as I can declare that contextual difference)

This text would be a huge "lifeline" for throwing builds to be possible for classes like Ranger, who really needs that reload 0 feat compatibility, and it would allow many past and future feats to have thrown (and repeating) functionality, even if the same "faulty" requirement text continues to be used.

Note that right now there is real reason to claim this errata is the RaI, as the shuriken shows that there is not some "on principle" reason for thrown weapon to be denied "reload 0" categorization.

The chakri's text goes even further than shuriken's; its text declares the weapon "is reload 0" if worn on the wrist. Meaning that reload 0 is already contextual, and the issue is only that there is a missing general-case rule explaining that contextuality within the Reload text.

It stinks that, by unlucky coincidence, the way abilities like Hunted Shot are written makes this missing rule hurt so much, but that is the present reality.

IMO, it's this use of "wielding a reload 0 weapon" that is a key reason why thrown builds suck so amazingly badly at the moment.
Now that I've had enough play time trying to min-max the crap out of it, I will never recommend anyone attempt a PC who primarily throws.
A returning rune on a melee weapon can be well worth the property rune investment, but the degree to which weapon attacks in pf2e depend upon class feats, throwing is just not good enough to build around.

[Captain Zoom]

Rival Academies

halcyon mists focus spell.

There's a duration listed for the concealment, but not for the temporary hit points.

One could infer that the THP only lasts until the concealment ends, but (1) grammatically it does not say that or even really imply that the two are linked, and (2) that would be pretty sucky (beginning of your next turn - I'm hoping it'll be 1 minute).

[moosher12]

Guns and Gears
Inventor's Otherworldly Protection Initial Armor Modification.

holy damage and unholy damage are not a thing in the remaster system, therefore resistance cannot be granted to holy and unholy damage. Only weakness can be triggered when affected by a holy or unholy effect, but there is no damage to such effects.

[NorrKnekten]

moosher12 wrote:

Guns and Gears

Inventor's Otherworldly Protection Initial Armor Modification.

holy damage and unholy damage are not a thing in the remaster system, therefore resistance cannot be granted to holy and unholy damage. Only weakness can be triggered when affected by a holy or unholy effect, but there is no damage to such effects.

Damage can however still carry the Holy/Unholy trait.

Compare with Kineticist Elemental Resistance Junctions giving resistance to Air, Water, Earth, Metal and Wood.

These trigger whenever the damage comes from an effect with the trait regardless of damage type.

[YuriP]

Holy/Unholy traits works similar to Silver/Cold Iron weapons, they aren't a damage by themselves but the damage that you do with them are considered for IWR.

[moosher12]

No you all are right, I think? Player Core really should do more to talk about non damage traits in resistances. Only example it gives is non-magical bludgeoning. Wish it'd have given an example for, say, silver.

[DMurnett]

Lost Omens: Divine Mysteries pg. 69

Iomedae's Divine Intercessions

Iomedae's Major Boon grants the effects of the holy and axiomatic runes to longswords you wield, but as per the Remaster the latter rune doesn't exist, has no replacement, and has no possible mechanical effect.

[DMurnett]

Secrets of Magic pg. 73

Legendary Summoner

Include a caveat that allows for the learning and use of innately 10th rank spells that otherwise meet the criteria of the feat. There are currently only three of these, all of which are Incarnate and two of which are Mythic, and I don't see any balance reason for not allowing a Summoner to use these while allowing them to heighten others to the same rank, and restricting their use feels against the spirit of the fantasy promoted by the feat line.

[YuriP]

Guys, I was letting this slide because it was kind of vague, but this errata thread is not for reporting everything you don't like or find incomplete or unbalanced, otherwise it will be full of opinions and questionable and contradictory points.

The idea here is to report to the designers things that obviously don't work or are clearly unbalanced or contradictory. We need to be careful not to turn this thread into a wish thread that designers might end up ignoring because of that.

[Lightning Raven]

I admit mine feels very "wish list", but it's kinda hard to deny the anti-synergy between Flying Blade and Twirling Throw, specially considering why TT was introduced in the remaster in the first place (Thrown Build support).

[Moth Mariner]

Ravingdork wrote:

Moth Mariner wrote:

- Avoid Notice (Player Core) old but gold: wouldn't this make more sense to have the Secret trait?

Thank goodness it doesn't. Would make it hella difficult to use, what with rolling Initiative and all.

The Stealth check for Initiative is separate from the Stealth check for sneaking around during Exploration.

[Ravingdork]

Moth Mariner wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

Moth Mariner wrote:

- Avoid Notice (Player Core) old but gold: wouldn't this make more sense to have the Secret trait?

Thank goodness it doesn't. Would make it hella difficult to use, what with rolling Initiative and all.

The Stealth check for Initiative is separate from the Stealth check for sneaking around during Exploration.

What's the point of rolling the first time to Sneak around if you're just going to have to roll a second time against being spotted anyways?

Please cite your source. I was unable to find it in the remaster and was beginning to think it may have been removed.

Insofar as I can tell, you roll Stealth only when there's a chance someone might spot you. There's no point in rolling Stealth to Avoid Notice if the encounter is three rooms away.

I suppose you could roll it in advance, then use that value when you encounter something, but that gets tricky as circumstances, such as cover, might well have changed.

[NorrKnekten]

Ravingdork wrote:

Moth Mariner wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

Moth Mariner wrote:

- Avoid Notice (Player Core) old but gold: wouldn't this make more sense to have the Secret trait?

Thank goodness it doesn't. Would make it hella difficult to use, what with rolling Initiative and all.

The Stealth check for Initiative is separate from the Stealth check for sneaking around during Exploration.

What's the point of rolling the first time to Sneak around if you're just going to have to roll a second time against being spotted anyways?

Please cite your source. I was unable to find it in the remaster and was beginning to think it may have been removed.

Insofar as I can tell, you roll Stealth only when there's a chance someone might spot you. There's no point in rolling Stealth to Avoid Notice if the encounter is three rooms away.

I suppose you could roll it in advance, then use that value when you encounter something, but that gets tricky as circumstances, such as cover, might well have changed.

Avoid Notice comes in two different behaviors, Exploration and Encounter

First Roll is equivalent to Sneak, To see wether or not you can move past undetected in Exploration mode without needing to enter Encounter mode.
Second roll only happens when you enter Encounter Mode both to determine your initiative and to what degree you are detected upon your presence being revealed upon launching an ambush.

It is written into the Action itself and yes..The first roll should be secret and regardless of the presence of creatures. Three Reasons;
Players shouldn't know the existance of creatures.
Players shouldn't know the non-existance of creatures.
Players shouldn't know the result of their stealth check before attempting to 'sneak'.

Likewise, The second roll probably shouldnt be secret as it is initiative. But it determines the success of your ambush.

First roll; Sneak Roll
Second Roll; Ambush Roll

Sneak roll succeeds but Ambush Roll doesnt;
You can sneak up as close as you can but become detected before you move.

Sneak Roll fails but Ambush Succeeds;
They become aware of you the moment you enter detection range, but remain undetected(Not unnoticed) provided you have cover/Concealment.

Further discussion or answers are likely to be found in another thread.

[Moth Mariner]

- Incendiary Aura (Player Core 2) should have the Aura trait based on it’s description (and name). Lasts for a minute and is around you, and is called aura multiple times.

[YuriP]

Aerial Boomerang should state what happens to "boomerang" if the line of effect is blocked by a solid barrier. If it keeps in the maximum possible range or if it is Dismissed/destroyed.

[Red Griffyn]

A strange corner case interaction came up today in a reddit thread concerning the Hand of the Apprentice focus spell. It relates to spells with spell attack rolls that attack using objects not specifically designed to be weapons (e.g., magnetic acceleration or TK projectile).

The improvised weapon rules state that you take a -2 penalty to "attack rolls" with objects not specifically designed to be used as weapons. Since spell attack rolls are attack rolls I think the handful of spells that fling objects would be covered by the broad wording.

Reccomendation: revise the language in improvised weapons from attack rolls to melee and ranged attack rolls so it provides a cutout for spell attack rolls to be unaffected (which is the intended RAI IMO since these spells seem to imply that they should work with random crap you decide to throw from around the room without a weirdly specific rule causing a -2 to to your spell attack roll).

[ElementalofCuteness]

Mythic Rules - Mythic Points

Question/Errata - Are Mythic points suppose to remove the basic ability of Hero Points? Are we not suppose to be able to spend them to reroll Attack or Initiative rolls without the mythic Proficiency boost? This feels like an unintended downgrade of the Mythic rules.

Mythic Rules - Mythic Callings/Rewrite Fate

Question/Errata - I know many have brought this up however I have to ask if this is something that will be errata'd in the future. What is the point/use of all of the Mythic Abilities which let you spend 1 Mythic Point to roll X check at Mythic Proficiency? Doesn't Rewrite Fate (Free-Action) cover this effect but in a much better way? I feel along with others that some where we are miss understanding these. Clarification about why these exist would be nice if that is the only thing we can get.

[ElementalofCuteness]

Mythic Rules - Acrobat's Calling

Anathema - So when do I have to tumble through, can I just move up to an enemy or do I have to tumble through their square immediately as I move up to them. Does this mean I physically can not trigger a flank unless my allies flank with me?

[arcady]

This one might need clarity for Treasure Vault:

Numbing Tonic ( https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=1963 ) gives temp hitpoints with no duration listed. If you drink a vial and manage to never even stub a toe for the next 98 years, do you still have that temp HP?

If it was made by an alchemist as a versatile vial (effects last for 10 mins), does the HP wear off in 10 mins, or does that only apply to the "regain the temp HP every round for 1 minute" part?

Is the lack of a duration for the hit points for that tonic a mistake, or on purpose?

[YuriP]

This thread is not to discus but Temporary Hit Points expects some THP without duration when it "says" "Most temporary Hit Points last for a limited duration".

Anyway it isn't a real problem. If it was made using quick alchemy its duration is limited to 10 minutes, if it was made with advanced alchemy the duration it up to your daily preparations, only if it is a "permanent" (making using money) consumable the duration will be unlimited yet this THP isn't so high to be a problem and PC will loose it sooner or later in combat and just will drink another Numbing Tonic to keep "regenerating" its THP in combat.

The general rule also prevents THP to stack avoids abuses. In practice even without a duration limit it isn't much better than False Vitality scrolls in terms of long duration.

[Oni Shogun]

Are there any threads like this to suggest future products?

[DMurnett]

Oni Shogun wrote:

Are there any threads like this to suggest future products?

We have this thread off the top of my head. Not official but neither is this errata one :P

[Moth Mariner]

- Flames and Blight Oracle Mysteries (Player Core 2 and Divine Mysteries) don’t have the “any immunity or resistance you have to [curse-inflicted damage] is suppressed” the other oracle curses do.

Is this intentional - can they negate/reduce the curse-related damage that other oracles can’t?

[Ascalaphus]

Should spirit damage typically penetrate the resistance to all damage granted by Incorporeal?

On the face of it, spirit damage should be exactly the thing used to hurt spirit critters. However, it typically isn't exempt from the resistance.

The incorporeal trait states that "They usually have resistance against all damage (except force damage and damage from Strikes with the ghost touch property rune), with double the resistance against non-magical damage."

This isn't the whole truth though. Sampling from Bestiary 1-3, almost all incorporeal creatures are undead and positive damage also bypasses their resistance. In the remaster, this pattern continues for incorporeal undead. There are also a handful of not-undead incorporeal critters in the old bestiaries that can be effectively hurt with negative damage.

The real change is that in the remaster, the divine list replaced a lot of force effects with spirit effects. So suddenly there's far fewer things divine casters can do against a type of enemy they were traditionally the go-to people to handle. For example, Spiritual Weapon dealt force damage, but Spiritual Armament deals spirit damage.

Bestiary analysis:

Bestiary 1
Banshee: positive
Ghost: positive
Poltergeist: positive
Wraith: positive
Bestiary 2
Animate Dream: negative
Invidiak/Shadow Demon: positive, but doesn't have negative healing?
Specter: positive
Witchfire: positive
Wraith, Dread: positive
Bestiary 3
Abandoned Zealot: positive
Bebeto-San: positive
Corrupted Relic: positive
Dybbuk: positive
Ioton: mental
Fortune Eater: positive
Gliminal: negative
Stone Lion (Cub): no, but doesn't have strikes while incorporeal
Etioling Blightmage: positive
Nemhaith: positive
Nightmarcher: positive
Phantom: no extra damage type to damage it normally!
Seething spirit: mental, positive
Spirit Guide, Cunning Fox: positive, but is a living creature?
Spirit Guide, Feathered Bear: positive, but is a living creature?
Wyrmwraith: positive

[Tridus]

Living Leaf Weave Undefined Item Bonus

Living Leaf Weave says that when activated it gives an item bonus to several things by consuming an elixir of life. It doesn't specify what that bonus is.

I think a common assumption is that it's going to be the item bonus of the Elixir loaded into the armor, but it should probably be specified.

[dirkdragonslayer]

Did the Air Scamp Familiar from Rage of Elements ever get errata'd to fix their abilities? I didn't see it. All the elemental scamp familiars get Elemental Mobility which give flavorful extra movement options... except the Air Scamp. Scamps already pay for flying, and then Elemental Mobility (Air) makes them take the same flying ability a second time for no benefit. You waste a slot.

Should they get Fast Movement (Fly) instead of Elemental Mobility?

[Nelzy]

Errata and clarification/examples for Battleform functionality and all its spells.

Current rules leave some blank spots/gray areas and are (Depending on interpretation) extremely un-synergistic with everything else and limits creativity.

[YuriP]

An errata or clarification that makes clear if disappearance spell put or not the target in invisible condition (currently the text says "count as invisible" what make some people consider that it not applies an invisibility condition preventing things that interact with such condition like See the Unseen won't work against it).

[Moth Mariner]

Ugh yeah Disappearance is so open to multiple interpretations. Has been a regular issue at many tables for me. I mentioned it here in this thread as well.

Devise a Stratagem (Player Core 2) has the Fortune trait - is this intended to apply to the initial roll, or only to the later use of it to replace an attack roll? Currently see it run as the first option, but no idea how that would interact with any misfortune effect applied to the roll. Also makes hero points less applicable to Investigator play.

[calnivo]

GM Core, p. 226, Fortification Rune: Legacy Text.

GM Core, p. 226 wrote:

This property thickens the armor, increasing its Bulk by 1 and the Strength required to reduce its penalties by 2.

.(italics mine)

The latter phrase is still the exact legacy text of CRB. It apparently refers to old attribute (f.k.a. ability) scores, but can easily be mistaken for attribute modifiers.

Suggested correction:

Correction Suggestion wrote:

This property thickens the armor, increasing its Bulk by 1 and the Strength modifier required to reduce its penalties by +1.

[calnivo]

Treasure Vault, p. 45, Skunk Bomb: Potential License and Balancing Concerns.

(Though I fear that this mention comes either too late or will already be addressed in upcoming remastered Treasure Vault ... )

1. Skunk Bomb description refers to Hezrous, which might not longer be desired since Hezrous (to my knowledge) originate from OGL

2. Skunk Bombs effect, e.g. it's effect in the Splash -- effectively Sickened on fail (or Sickened plus Slowed on Critical Fail) in whole Splash Area, even stronger effect for primary target -- appears exceptionally strong in comparison to other bombs. Request review and reconsideration.

[Ravingdork]

calnivo wrote:

GM Core, p. 226, Fortification Rune: Legacy Text.

Correction of the suggested correction:

Correction Suggestion wrote:

This property thickens the armor, increasing its Bulk by 1 and the Strength attribute required to reduce its penalties by 1.

The + in "+1" contradicts and obfuscates the intent that the attribute be reduced. Also "attribute" is probably more appropriate than "modifier" in this case.

[calnivo]

Ravingdork wrote:

calnivo wrote:

GM Core, p. 226, Fortification Rune: Legacy Text.

Correction of the suggested correction:

Correction Suggestion wrote:

This property thickens the armor, increasing its Bulk by 1 and the Strength attribute required to reduce its penalties by 1.

The + in "+1" contradicts and obfuscates the intent that the attribute be reduced. Also "attribute" is probably more appropriate than "modifier" in this case.

I see what you mean. The text and my correction with the chain of back-and-forth plus/minus (increase ... to reduce ... penalty ... +1) has been unfortunate. They should and probably will find a better wording than either legacy text as well as my attempt to correct it.

Rejoinder / to my excuse (or for my inner know-all):

I'd like to note:
- I think that the rune makes the armor heavier and requires the wearer to have higher strength than normal to negate the usual armor penalties. (However, if there is any debate about this, it's actually a good thing that we brought it to the rule developers' attention and hereby asked them to make it unambiguously clear.)
- Armor statistics, p. 271 f., generally use attribute modifiers since remaster.
- Base armor tables, p. 273, state the strength [modifier] with the plus sign. (I wanted to adhere to that style.)

As said, I find the wording, which effectively constitutes double or triple negation, to be unfortunate and against intuitive brain logic.

Apart from that, I should now heed my own advise and cease further discussion about errata suggestions. Your intervention was still valuable for me though.

[Arachr0ma]

War of Immortals
Artisan's Calling Anathema
The "use a weapon or item crafted by someone else, except for the purpose of learning its function so you can understand how to create it yourself"
part is just downright bad. Kinda cool, but bad since a character with this calling often cannot benefit from found loot, lagging behind allies that instead do.

[Easl]

Spring 2025 errata is out, and it's short.
Better start repeating your requests in a Fall 2025 thread. :)

[Peacelock]

So what was the point of a member of Paizo staff asking us to make this thread if all but like 2 or 3 things that were brought up were completely ignored? Even stuff that is completely divisive and contentious like how Titan Breaker is intended to function went wholly untouched. Did anyone on the team even read this thread or know it existed at all? Or were we just posting into the ether?

Obviously no one expected answers to even a quarter of what was here, but nearly nothing reported here was touched, and some of the few things here that were errated were also reported on elsewhere like the champ runes having their own dedicated thread.

[Gaulin]

Reasons errata isn't as plentiful as some like have been repeated ad nauseum whenever the question comes up. Adjusting expectations to hope for errata for the most common issues is best, and even then there are reasons some of those issues aren't dealt with. It still helps paizo to have a thread to point out issues, especially the easily fixed things, I'm sure.

[Moth Mariner]

Sticking this here for now, ready to duplicate into the Fall thread:
- Blazing Armory (Rage of Elements) when heightened to 10th rank says that “the weapons function as +3 superior striking greater flaming weapons” but no such striking rune exists.
A reasonable assumption would be major striking instead.
Then I looked a little further and found that in Building Items in the GM Core (and Gamemastery Guide) both listed superior striking weapons instead of major striking in their Permanent Magic Item Price table, which could be the source of confusion.

[ElementalofCuteness]

With the end of Spring Errata, I started a new thread for Fall but I honestly feel like we are wasting our breath here. However I feel like if we talk about these issues more and more Paizo will eventually get to them but that seems like a miracle. Let's be real Oracle needs help still...I will not give up hope however that such a thing will be fixed!

Fall Errata Suggestion 2025