For Resentment, the main thing reigning it in is that the little familiar is hexing dangerous foes in lethal combat at very short range.
If a familiar is using that ability in an impactful manner, the GM should be attacking it. No excuses for kiddie gloves.
The Witch is absolutely not balanced around a GM that refuses to harm a familiar. That kind of behavior is a self-inflicted problem.
A single save fail can be enough to down a familiar, meaning the existence of the death trait is a significant threat. Familiars are supposed to be fragile and taking big risk to hex foes. A Witch spamming that f.ability uncontested by the GM is not okay.
.
To be clear, yes, the debuff extension hex is "too good" compared to the other options. If it included a "... and the target then becomes immune to this ability for one round" or something, it would be perfect imo.
That way you still get crazy value from doubling 1 turn debuffs, but cannot keep such an effect going indefinitely, as essentially all effects keep ticking at half speed.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Diverse Mystery is rather unclear.
Do you get a second, independent track of "Cursebound" just for this one Focus spell, but it caps out at Cursebound 1?
Does it use the normal limit of Cursebound (4 since the previous level), and any value above 1 also adds the Cursebound 1 effect of the new Mystery?
Does it use your normal Cursebound track, but you only get the Cursebound 1 effect of the second Mystery if you used that spell at least once?
This is perfectly clear. Cursebound is a condition, you either have it or you don't. There's no "other Cursebound." That's not how conditions work.
when you cast it, you gain the cursebound 1 effects of its mystery in addition to your normal curse effects.
If you use the Diverse Mystery spell, your Cursebound goes up as usual (doing what it usually does) and you additionally gain the Cursebound 1 effect of the curse that this spell came from.
Have you considered asking these as rules questions thread instead? This is not errata worthy.
Hex Cantrips (Player Core pg. 182)
The first sentence concludes that you can "use only one hex each round." I think is incorrect, because every other reference to the hex limit is stated to be once per turn, not once per round.
Hex Spells (pg. 181-182), the Hex trait (pg. 183), and the Hex Master feat (pg. 191) all refer to using or casting hexes as limited to once per turn.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Battlecry Page 152
The Name Pendants bonus to saves against mental effects is untyped.
Protective Netting has a Level of 3+ implying it has higher level versions. It does not.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Armor Property Rune: Spellwatch
Source: Treasure Vault Remaster
It's the exemplar One Moment till Glory issue but a thousand times better.
"Counter-runes chip away at unwanted magic that impedes you. You can attempt a new saving throw against one hostile spell affecting you at the start of each of your turns. If you succeed, the spell ends, and if you fail it continues unchanged, with no additional ill effect. If you’re affected by multiple hostile spells, choose only one each turn to attempt the additional save against."
One common armor property rune and it effectively negates the effects of failing a spell that has a duration effect. Won't even get into the debate on the wording that it ends the spell on all that it effected because the spell is ended.
As written this is the most insanely powerful rune in the game and it's common and only 3,000gp. Fail on Confusion, Dominate etc. Get two saves each turn to end it early. Critically fail where you shouldn't be able to roll a save you now can on your turn and potentially never be effected by it at all as it triggers at the top of your turn.
|
For Anadi, can we remove these limitations to their Spider Form:
“You change into your human or spider shape. Each shape has a specific, persistent appearance. In your human shape, you can't use unarmed attacks granted by your ancestry. You aren't flat-footed when climbing in your spider shape. However, in your spider shape you can't use weapons, shields, or other held items of any sort, and you are limited in what actions you can take that have the manipulate trait. The only manipulate actions you can take are to Cast a Spell with somatic components, weave silk or webbing, or simple Interact actions such as opening an unlocked door. Your spider legs can't perform actions that require fingers or significant manual dexterity, including any action that would require a check to accomplish.The GM might determine other manipulate actions are appropriate for your spider legs.”
Here’s Awakened Animal:
“Awakening altered your form, enabling you to speak verbally and stand on two legs. You can wear, hold, wield, and use items. Which limbs you use to manipulate items and how many are determined by you and your GM, but for the rules you function like a humanoid with two hands.”
A Climbing Heritage Awakened Animal is more spider than an Anadi!
|
Do Tiny creatures grant (lesser) cover? The Cover rules (Player Core pg 424) would suggest so, as there is no exception for Tiny creatures when saying that creatures grant lesser cover.
Then the Sprite ancestry and Howl of the Wild turn up and add: "Like other Tiny creatures, the PC doesn't automatically receive lesser cover from being in a larger creature's space" - despite this assumed rule not being listed anywhere else. So we have one exception to Tiny creatures and cover, but it's for gaining cover, not granting it.
Then we get Veil of Bugs from the Swarmkeeper archetype (Howl of the Wild pg 72), where the feat says "You and your allies gain lesser cover when in your swarm's space."
Does this imply swarms (usually a mass of Tiny creatures) never grant cover normally? Or do they only grant cover from either side of the swarm, but not when sharing space with the swarm?
We're missing the base rule which both these additions assume exists.
Do Tiny creatures grant (lesser) cover? The Cover rules (Player Core pg 424) would suggest so, as there is no exception for Tiny creatures when saying that creatures grant lesser cover.
Then the Sprite ancestry and Howl of the Wild turn up and add: "Like other Tiny creatures, the PC doesn't automatically receive lesser cover from being in a larger creature's space" - despite this assumed rule not being listed anywhere else. So we have one exception to Tiny creatures and cover, but it's for gaining cover, not granting it.
Then we get Veil of Bugs from the Swarmkeeper archetype (Howl of the Wild pg 72), where the feat says "You and your allies gain lesser cover when in your swarm's space."
Does this imply swarms (usually a mass of Tiny creatures) never grant cover normally? Or do they only grant cover from either side of the swarm, but not when sharing space with the swarm?
We're missing the base rule which both these additions assume exists.
That rule exists, but it's not stated flat out as such. The cover rule is this (emphasis mine):
Usually, the GM can quickly decide whether your target has cover. If you're uncertain or need to be more precise, draw a line from the center of your space to the center of the target's space. If that line passes through any terrain or object that would block the effect, the target has standard cover (or greater cover if the obstruction is extreme or the target has Taken Cover). If the line passes through a creature instead, the target has lesser cover. When measuring cover against an area effect, draw the line from the effect's point of origin to the center of the creature's space. See the diagram for examples.
Because a tiny creature doesn't actually take up a full square and its nebulous where in the square they actually are, drawing the line never passes through them so they don't provide cover.
Tiny creatures often have this issue where stuff isn't well-defined for them.
Player Core 2 pg. 261
Dread Secret's duration entry and the duration listed in the success result don't match. The duration entry states 'until the start of your next turn' but the success result states 'until the end of your next turn'.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can you choose to not apply a Hightened Effect?
"Read the heightened entry only for the spell rank you're using or preparing" Player Core pg. 297. The Rank it's cast at sets the heightened effect.
Can you choose to use a lower the maximum Rank version of a Cantrip or Focus Spell?
"Focus spells are automatically heightened to half your level rounded up, just like cantrips are" Player Core pg. 298. Both are always at max Rank.
Can you choose not to apply a Fundamental Rune, Weapon Property rune or flat bonus to a Specific Strike?
Activated runes can be turned on and off. Fundamental Rune, for instance, have no Activation so they are always on. It's kind of like asking if you can turn Silver or Cold Iron off your sword off.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Treasure Vault Remastered Edition pg. 156
I'm not sure if an art change counts as an errata, but the picture on this page depicts an owlbear pelt, and Paizo might want to swap that on the next reprinting.
Based on other sources post-remaster, that is most likely a giant owl pelt and totally ORC-legal :)
|
|
Because a tiny creature doesn't actually take up a full square and its nebulous where in the square they actually are, drawing the line never passes through them so they don't provide cover.
Tiny creatures often have this issue where stuff isn't well-defined for them.
Following this line of thought could also lead to theories that tiny creatures can't be flanked. Which, while something I'm sure some players would love to take advantage of, seems unlikely.
Since the remastered Barbarian does not have anathema tied to its instincts, the anathema of the decay, elemental, and ligenous instincts (all published in remaster-compatible products but before the barbarian class itself was remastered) should be removed via errata; or, alternatively, should be errata'd to indicate what happens if that anathema is violated since the class description itself does not provide such rules anymore.
|
Since the remastered Barbarian does not have anathema tied to its instincts, the anathema of the decay, elemental, and ligenous instincts (all published in remaster-compatible products but before the barbarian class itself was remastered) should be removed via errata; or, alternatively, should be errata'd to indicate what happens if that anathema is violated since the class description itself does not provide such rules anymore.
...Except the Superstition Instinct still retains part of its anathema, namely, the No Casting Spells or using items that can cast spells of any kind!, not the can't have allies cast spells on you part.
Also, the Decay, Elemental, and Ligenous Instincts' anathema don't feel as restrictive as some of the instincts that were removed. (Dragon, Giant, and especially the pre-Master Superstition come to mind).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dash of Herbs (Rage of Elements pg. 34)
Dash of Herbs can grant new save attempts against diseases and poisons, similar to another kineticist impulse, torrent in Blood (Rage of Elements pg. 38), except that Dash of Herbs can potentially cause the affliction to worsen.
I think Dash of Herbs should have the same clause as Torrent in the Blood where "on a failed save, the condition doesn't worsen."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since the remastered Barbarian does not have anathema tied to its instincts, the anathema of the decay, elemental, and ligenous instincts (all published in remaster-compatible products but before the barbarian class itself was remastered) should be removed via errata; or, alternatively, should be errata'd to indicate what happens if that anathema is violated since the class description itself does not provide such rules anymore....Except the Superstition Instinct still retains part of its anathema, namely, the No Casting Spells or using items that can cast spells of any kind!, not the can't have allies cast spells on you part.
Also, the Decay, Elemental, and Ligenous Instincts' anathema don't feel as restrictive as some of the instincts that were removed. (Dragon, Giant, and especially the pre-Master Superstition come to mind).
The problem is that the class itself no longer says what anathema do, so RAW they do nothing. That's not a part of an Instinct stat block anymore.
Superstition's Instinct Ability now has the anathema in it and explicitly states what happens if you violate it, so that one still works. The other remaster ones simply had those removed. For the non-remastered ones that are still around, they have an anathema entry but violating it doesn't do anything.
(I expect the most likely fix is "delete the anathema", since thats how everything other than Superstition was treated. But it's definitely a legit errata point.)
Is there some rule chain saying it's entry of 1-H actually disables the light when not in-hand?
That logic would cause a lot of problems elsewhere. For starters, the lanterns would have the exact same issue where putting it on a pack's hook would no longer be in-hand.
I do not think that is explicitly stated anywhere that equipment must be in hand in the way you describe.
The best I can see is that the hands entry is to know when you are *wielding* the item. Wielding is a requirement to use any specific actions, but in this case, we are talking about passive light emission.
Some abilities require you to wield an item, typically a weapon. You’re wielding an item any time you’re holding it in the number of hands needed to use it effectively. When wielding an item, you’re not just carrying it around—you’re ready to use it. Other abilities might require you to be wearing the item, to be holding it, or simply to have it.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2143
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Battlecry! pg. 54
The Aldori Duelist's Dueling Acumen archetype feat should probably be level 4 instead of level 2, as it is only obtainable at that level when using the free archetype rules.
Dueling Acumen is a skill feat so there is no issue with non-free archetype characters as all characters get a skill feat at 2nd.