| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
From Treasure Vault Remastered:
The Gauntlet Bow, the Rotary Bow, the Sukgung and the Taw Launcher are described as Crossbows, but the table on page 30 lists their weapon group as Bow.
The Crescent Cross and the Lancer are described as being a combination of a weapon and one or more crossbows, but the table on page 31 lists the weapon group of the ranged portion as Bow.
Given that the Remaster rules introduced the Crossbow weapon group, I'm positive these instances are a mistake and all of these weapons should be in the Crossbow group, not Bow.
Tumble Through: Get rid of it since it is just a stride action that doesn't really require you do anything like Tumble Through.
Or make it clear that Tumble Through is an action that requires you actually Tumble Through an enemy.
Clears up confusion with the Liturgist Practice where it has been interpreted that Tumble Through is just a stride that for some reason required a different name.
Be nice to have a more clear ruling that Tumble Through is a separate action requiring you to Tumble Through, so I don't have to argue with people about a rule that used to be clear but apparently hast lost clarity for some reason.
Clear rules make the game easier to run.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tumble Through: Get rid of it since it is just a stride action that doesn't really require you do anything like Tumble Through.
Or make it clear that Tumble Through is an action that requires you actually Tumble Through an enemy.
Clears up confusion with the Liturgist Practice where it has been interpreted that Tumble Through is just a stride that for some reason required a different name.
Be nice to have a more clear ruling that Tumble Through is a separate action requiring you to Tumble Through, so I don't have to argue with people about a rule that used to be clear but apparently hast lost clarity for some reason.
Clear rules make the game easier to run.
FWIW, while I agree with you regarding the action in general, Sayre is on record stating the Liturgist interaction with Tumble Through is completely intended (but it was on Discord, so I can't link to it directly). You can find transcribed quotes here and here
|
Greater Trackless rune (Grand Bazaar pg 145) is written weirdly, it should be the duration that lasts 8 hours not the emanation. I figured that out by referencing the spell it emulates, Vanishing Tracks. Speaking of...
Vanishing Tracks spell (Player Core 1 pg 365) when heightened to 4th rank needs a fix, since it gains a range but also becomes an emanation... Who does it emanate from if it's ranged? Should be a burst.
|
|
Hopeful rune (Grand Bazaar pg 84) is unclear about whether the effect operates like an aura or an emanation:
On a critical hit... allies within 30 feet... gain a +1 status bonus to attack rolls until the end of your next turn.
Does that mean any allies who were within 30ft of you when you critted gain the bonus (emanation style),
or that until the end of your next turn any allies who are within 30ft of you gain the bonus (aura style)?|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Errata to clarify which version of various weapons is the intended one would be great.
A bunch of crossbows have been listed as bows with the remastered Treasure Vault (TV), which is a relatively easy fix for a GM but does throw concern onto general rule of "use the newest-printed version of any particular weapon".
The Panabas seems solid. From being a sword in Impossible Lands (IL) and TV (old), it went to being an axe in Tian Xia Character Guide (TXCG) and TV (new). The change happened and then stayed.
The Chakram has a interesting/confused evolution. In Grand Bazaar (GB) it follows the normal rules for a thrown-only weapon. The reload is —, range is given, and the thrown trait is listed. On its return in TXCG, the reload becomes 1 like it's a weapon that needs ammo loaded into it, and the thrown trait gains a 20ft, like it's a melee weapon that can also be thrown. GB version makes more sense, but TXCG is newer.
The Chakri also confuses. In IL, it's 2 copper, 1d4, 30ft range, reload 0, negligible bulk, and has the traits agile and deadly d8. Then in TV (old) nearly all of that has changed! The price is now 10 times larger at 2 silver, 1d4, 40ft range, reload —, light bulk, and the traits get replaced by just recovery. Seems like an entirely different weapon! And I think it is, since almost all of that is directly copied from the boomerang above it. Especially when the description says "a chakri worn on the wrist is reload 0 instead of reload —", which only makes sense in regards to the IL version of the chakri.
But in TV (new) the most-likely-erroneous one got reprinted, so is that a mistake or a statement of intent?
Summary:
Newest Panabas (TXCG) seems correct, but oldest Chakram (GB) and Chakri (IL) seem correct in context of the rest of the system. Also the Treasure Vault crossbows need to be changed to crossbows.
[reload weirdness]
One thing I noticed when writing homebrew is that there are some "oopsies" in the rules that do not make sense, and that newer devs have to copy (and/or sidestep) for consistency.
.
Because of an intuitive oopsie, Reload right now is split where it does not mean the same thing for thrown vs projectile weapons.
For projectile weapons, Reload: X means that you need X actions of the reload activity to get the weapon ready to shoot again. To even do this action, you need the weapon to be interactible and in-hand.
If we were trying to apply the logic of this to a thrown weapon, we already know it doesn't fit, as there's no Reload.
If we really still want to force that term "Reload", it would only make sense to say that your "default" thrown weapons are already Reload: 0, as if the spear, etc, is in your hand, it's ready to throw w/ 0 extra actions. A "Reload: 1" thrown weapon would then be something like a boom spear with a cartridge that detonates on impact.
.
But, "oopise."
A dev wanted a weapon that could be drawn and flung in the same action, even faster than a reload 0 bow. To be consistent, we might call this idea a Reload: -1.
Instead, the oopise was to set this "fastest type thrown" concept to the same number as the "fastest projectile shooter," so this "-1 thrown weapon" got the same fastest number as a bow, and Shuriken was printed with a Reload: 0.
Which, again, doesn't make any sense. Applying that "0" back to projectiles would mean being able to shoot an arrow for 1A when the bow is still on your hip.
.
The above weirdness/oopsie is why "Reload: -" exists, as it's a non-number that dodges this. For Reload: -, if it's in your hand, it's ready to throw.
As Paizo whiffed the chance to fix it in the remaster,
we have to use that Shuriken as the base comparison point for everything else thrown. If I see a thrown weapon with Reload: 1, I'm going to presume it's actually meaning to say "Reload: -" instead, and does not actually involve the Reload action to prime for a throw.
(Though I still have to read the weapon's description to check there's not actually some mechanism/reason for a Reload, like in that boom spear example.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Chakram has an interesting/confused evolution. In Grand Bazaar (GB) it follows the normal rules for a thrown-only weapon. The reload is —, range is given, and the thrown trait is listed. On its return in TXCG, the reload becomes 1 like it's a weapon that needs ammo loaded into it, and the thrown trait gains a 20ft, like it's a melee weapon that can also be thrown. GB version makes more sense, but TXCG is newer.
I notice that despite citing TXCG as a source, Archives of Nethys doesn't list the Chakram as having a reload time nor does it add the "20ft" onto its Thrown trait. Make of that what you will.
I'll also note that the Tamchal Chakram is a melee weapon with the "Thrown 20ft" trait so I'm guessing that someone accidentally looked up the wrong Chakram when typing up the weapon traits in TXCG.
|
I've noticed two potential issues:
Howl of the Wild pg 80, Wild Mimic Archetype
Additional Feats: 4th Animal Empathy (Player Core
158), Crane Stance (Player Core 2), Gorilla Stance (Player
Core 2), Tiger Stance (Player Core 2), Wolf Stance (Player
Core 2); 8th Crane Flutter (Player Core 2), Gorilla Pound
(Player Core 2), Tiger Slash (Player Core 2), Wolf Drag
(Player Core 2)
Yet when I look at Player Core 2, there is no mention of the Gorilla Stance or Gorilla Pound feats.
Is this some kind of error? Or were the people who worked on Howl of the Wild not informed that Gorilla Stance and its related feats wouldn't be in Player Core 2?| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is this some kind of error? Or were the people who worked on Howl of the Wild not informed that Gorilla Stance and its related feats wouldn't be in Player Core 2?
Probably the latter, since they did exist in the APG and were just never brought forward. But yes, it's definitely an issue right now since Howl of the Wild references feats in a book that doesn't have them.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Horselord's Longbow (Battlecry! pg 128) is a specific magic weapon version of the longbow, that give you a damage bonus to some strikes made with the longbow while mounted. Unfortunately this is a nonfunctional bonus, as longbows cannot be used while mounted. XD (Player Core pg 285)
|
Possible for misinterpretation, but Curse of the Mortal Warrior (PC2, p.135).
Cursebound 1 Spells have an easier time wounding you. You gain weakness 2 to any damage dealt by a spell. *Any immunity or resistance you have to spells is suppressed.* This applies only to spells, not other magical abilities.”
Should probably change it to “Any immunity or resistance you have to spell damage is suppressed.”
This lines it up with how weaknesses from other RM Oracle curses are supposed to work.
Otherwise, it can be misinterpreted as suppressing any immunities to spells which Sure Strike and Guidance’s grant to themselves, meaning the Curse can override these immunities and make them spammable. And I don’t think this along the lines of “the oracle’s curse now just strictly debuffs” (James Case, Jul. 10, 2024). Even if it does help the RM Battle Oracle use one of their subclass function, it’s still not in the spirit of the game.
It means there’s an unintended loophole to getting around the Sure Strike change for the same “degenerate play” that Paizo wanted out of their game. So, since they care so much about it, they should probably make this as unambiguous and consistent as possible in the ruleset.
I've got two. First is sharing the same one I did in spring:
With the change to Sure Strike, I think that allowing potency runes to apply to spell attack rolls would now be balanced without the risk of an easy "get a divination staff with a +3 rune and spam Sure Strike 10 times a day" exploit.
Attack spells are often considered worse than saves and since caster progress in spell proficiency a bit slower than martials do with weapons (though they do end up at legendary eventually) Sure Strike was one of the main way to make use of those spells.
Allowing potency runes to apply to spell attack rolls wouldn't be as big of an accuracy boost as using Sure Strike was (especially against higher AC). It might not necesseraly put on staves but it's likely the simplest way to do it.
R
In either the GM Core or Player Core 1 (or both) section about staves (GM Core page 278) or casting attack spells (PC1 page 303)
GMCore: A magical staff is an indispensable accessory for a spellcaster. A staff is tied to a person during a preparation process, after which the preparer, and only the preparer, can use the staff to produce magic or amplify their own. The spells that can be cast from a staff are listed in bullet points organized by rank. Staves can be found in multiple types, with more powerful types containing more spells—such a staff always contains the spells of all lower-level types of the staff, in addition to the spells listed in its own entry. All magical staves have the staff trait and can be etched with weapon fundamental runes, the effect of potency runes etched on a staff applies to the preparer's spell attack rolls.
PC1: Some spells require you to succeed at a spell attack roll to affect the target. This is usually because they require you to precisely aim a ray or otherwise make an accurate attack. A spell attack roll is compared to the target’s AC. Spell attack rolls benefit from any bonuses or penalties to attack rolls, including a magical staff's potency rune and your multiple attack penalty, but not any special benefits or penalties that apply only to weapon or unarmed attacks. Spell attacks don’t deal any damage beyond what’s listed in the spell description. In rare cases, a spell might have you make some other type of attack, such as a weapon Strike. Such attacks use the normal rules and attack bonus for that type of attack.
Second is regarding Magus:
Issue: there is an issue regarding the community perception of using spellstrike with focus spells as a way to get around the limitations of the class. It has become so common it very much reminds me of the playtest times of loading a staff of divination to spam True Strike on spellstrike as much as possible.
The main issue is that it doesn't work with a lot of the class' features and feats that explicitely call for using spell slots, or explicitely ban cantrips and focus spells.
Erratas:
Option 1- Remove the restriction to focus spells and/or cantrips not working with those features so they remain desirable, or give them a partial effect (like Sustaining Steel giving only the spell rank as a heal for cantrips and focus spells).
Option 2- Rewrite Spellstrike to not function with focus spells anymore. Potentially compensate with allowing any focus spell to recharge Spellstrike instead of solely Conflux Spells. Making them desirable and versatile without warping the class' balance around them sidestepping its design.
In Treasure Vault, clarification on the Spellstriker Staff's shifting rune.
Can it still be used to cast spells when shifted ? Originally thought yes but given that I am seeing a lot of people talking about shifting it into a gauntlet to wield another weapon with the same hand and still cast spells from it, I am not sure this is intended.
The O-Yoroi Heavy Armor (Treasure Vault Page 11). Is just straight up better than Full Plate in every way.
Sure it's one bulk and 5 gp more but both of those diminish in importance quickly with every level.
Full Plate just has Bulwark
O-Yoroi has Bulwark and Laminar with no other drawbacks.
By contrast Fortress Plate and Bastion Plate have 5 bulk and cost a bit more gold than Full Plate. They also have Bulwark and another positive trait. But are each offset with a negative trait.
It's a small imbalance but it is noticeable.
Book: Treasure Vault (Remastered)
Rule: Certain weapons should be moved from the "Bow" group into the "Crossbow" group that exists as of the remaster.
TV (R) weapons that are explicitly described as crossbows or which include crossbows, and which have the Bow group, are
- Crescent Cross (ranged mode)
- Gauntlet bow
- Lancer (ranged mode)
- Rotary Bow
- Sukgung
- Taw Launcher
Updates to this:
All of these were part of the bow group in the first printing of Treasure Vault since the crossbow group didn't yet exist.
The Sukgung was moved to the crossbow group in the Tian Xia Character Guide, but was then moved back to the bow group in the remastered Treasure Vault. Despite this, Archives of Nethys still lists it as being in the crossbow group.
The Gauntlet Bow was moved to the crossbow group in Battlecry!, and Archives of Nethys reflects this.
The other three have not been reprinted since the remastered Treasure Vault came out.
The most parsimonious explanation for this mess is still that all five of these were supposed to be moved to the crossbow group in the remastered Treasure Vault. If you assume that to be true then everything else here makes perfect sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cursebound doesn't specify if it increases before or after using the ability. Which is important for abilities like Meddling Futures, which checks the current height of the value, but doesn't use it as a hard requirement.
It absolutely does, in the Oracular Curse description:
Immediately after the first time you use a cursebound ability, you become cursebound 1, and if you use a cursebound ability while you are already cursebound, you increase the value of your cursebound condition by 1 after the ability resolves.