
![]() |
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?

![]() |
Resentment Witch Patron ability might be hilariously overtuned.
Just about every Spell Save success, every Critical Weapon Effect, every Rouge's Debilitation, every Debilitating Bomb, ignoring the Guardians Taunt, Feint Critical Success - really every effect that applies a condition "for 1 round" or "until the end of the next Turn" - becomes "until the Witch stops spending an action each turn to maintain it".
As written it maintains the Grabbed or Restrained condition from Grapple, without needding to make another Roll.
As written it can extend conditions indefinitely.
As written it affects all conditions on the target at once, allowing a dedicated team to stack all of it.
It puts way too much of a target on the Familiar and people might actively avoid combining it with spells that could benefit, because it just feels out of whack.
Maybe you could limit it to extend only "one condition" per turn?
Or limit it to only doubling the normal duration?
Limiting it to specific conditions, thus excluding stuff like Blinded and Grabbed/Restrained?
Something to rein it in.

Trip.H |

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.

Tridus |
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.

PlantThings |

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.

![]() |
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.
I did say "It puts way too much of a target on the Familiar and people might actively avoid combining it with spells that could benefit, because it just feels out of whack."
All the Familiar abilities put a target on the familiar. But this is a "either you don't use this ability or the familiar will have to get nuked the round after you use it".
So it is to strong to be usable.

![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Animated Armor (Level 2, 17 AC, 20 HP) has ludicrous 9 Hardness.
That is 50% more Hardness then the Level 3 Animated Statue, on par with a Level 7 Giant Animated Statue (10), when you have Striking.
It's as much as a high resistance for level 6 or low for 14 (and hardness is closer to a wide resistance in gameplay effect).
That can't be attritioned with most Level 1-2 Ranged weapon, it is only a 3 in 8 chance to do anything even with a 1D8+4 melee weapon hit.
Its armor is high for the Level and the HP are low, but breaking the armor requires scratching 10 HP off via multiple melee hits, past that mountain of hardness. Even the average Level 2 Martial would barely critical hit on a 19-20. And this is supposed to be PL+1 for for level 1 characters.

Orikkro |
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.

Tridus |

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.

moosher12 |
GM Core pg. 282
I was doing some homebrewing when I noticed there is an error in the Magic Wand pricing. A rank 5 Magic Wand should cost 1,400 gp, instead of 1,500 gp, as the prices adhere to the Permanent Magic Item Price Table on page 133.
Additionally
Secrets of Magic pg. 166
For the same reasons, the rank 2 Personal Magic Staff price should cost 360 gp instead of 250 gp.

![]() |
Can you choose to not apply a Hightened Effect? You might want Rank 4+ Invisibility to defeat Detect Magic or True Sight, without wanting the ability to use Hostile Actions as it comes at shorter duration.
Can you choose to use a lower the maximum Rank version of a Cantrip or Focus Spell?
Like wanting to avoid problematic Heightening or "punching" someone out of confusion with low damage.
Can you choose not to apply a Fundamental Rune, Weapon Property rune or flat bonus to a Specific Strike?

graystone |
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.

![]() |
Inventor Reverse Engineer is a Level 2 Feat, but requires Expert in Crafting.
As such the Inventor can take it earliest at level 4.
It needs Free Archetype shenanigans with the right Archetype to have both Expert Crafting and a Class Feat at level 2.
Vindicator has Domain Initiate as Level 1 Feat, but it is unclear if they can take it on level 1, before the Dedication.
Scrounger Reverse Engineering is annoyingly similar in name and partial function to Inventor Reverse Engineer.

Janos1 |
Munitions Master for Inventor:
- Namely, going through all of the inventor feats and correcting/clarifying which ones (if any) that specifically called out as useable for all 3 of the other Innovations before Should now apply to the Mortar Innovation as well? It seems like they should since these feats were written when only the other 3 Innovations were available. An example of this being Megaton Strike, or any others that list that they can be used by each of the 3 prior innovations.
- Also, maybe add in a line that says if the Munitions Master's Mortar can have/benefit from Fundamental and Property Runes or not?
- To go with this, if if they can use runes, a short explanation on how striking runes would apply to a Munitions Master's Light Mortar since it relies on a Class DC Save to hit and not an actual Attack Roll (despite still affecting MAP like an Attack Roll)?
I admit, I really hope that they can use Runes since any bump up in damage from the very low amount that it gets (combined with a terribly slow growth curve) make the damage bad across the board, especially in Higher levels... and made even worse for a weapon that you can only fire once a round no matter how many actions you have available.

![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gunslinger Munitions Crafter gives 4+1/2 Level daily consumables.
Alchemist gives 4+INT daily consumables.
Thanks to Alchemical Archetype rules, you get to use the higher count and the wider list of options. Meaning a Alchemist with Gunslinger Archetype can easily have more daily consumables then a Alchemist alone.
That feels unintended.

![]() |
Battle Medicine using Treat Wounds table and Degrees of success results in a frustrating amount of questions "Does [thing for Treat Wounds] apply to Battle Medicine?"
While the answer is obviously "No", the amount of questions makes it clear that the rule isn't clear enough.
Any chance you could just move the table/variable DC/degrees of success rule from Treat Wounds into the Medicine Skill itself, so both Activity and Skill Feat can reference it without causing this confusion?

![]() |
Qi Spell and Advanced Qi Spells Feats don't have the "Special" entry that allows you to take it more then once.
But I am 90% sure you wanted to allow that. Everything here makes me think this was just about consolidating the number of feats - not to limit monks to a single Rank 1 and Rank 3 Focus Spell.

![]() |
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.

moosher12 |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Treasure Vault Remastered Edition pg. 170
Makes reference to a Red Dragon instead of a Cinder Dragon. Also makes mention of a Bulette instead of a Benthic Worm (or whatever replaces the Bulette, as Delve Scale changed Bulette to Benthic Worm)
Treasure Vault Remastered Edition pg. 172
Makes reference to a blue dragon.
Treasure Vault Remastered Edition pg. 174
Makes reference to a black dragon. instead of a bog dragon.

AFigureOfBlue |

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.

SpontaneousLightning |
Player Core 2:
I have seen some confusion in whether or not sorcerous potency stacks with the sorcerer's angelic halo focus spell. One is a status penalty to your spell's healing, and one is a status bonus to hp a target regains.
Specifically, the confusion is in whether or not the status bonus applying to you (sorcerous potency) stacks with the status bonus the target has (angelic halo).
Personally, I don't think these are intended to stack as they are both status bonuses, but I have seen enough people be confused about this and argue for both them stacking and not stacking, so I wouldn't mind official clarification to put this debate to rest.

![]() |

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).

![]() |
RAW, Bipod and Tripod usually need 2 Actions to deploy, which seems excessively expensive and possibly unintended.
If you use a 2H weapon (which all current Kickback weapons are) you need to:
1. Release a hand.
2. Deploy Tripod with said hand
3. Regrip the Weapon with 2 Hands to actually use it
The issue also exists in SF2, where it makes multi-armed a serious buff.
It is possible the writer though this part of the Reload rules would apply:
"Reloading a ranged weapon and drawing a thrown weapon both require a free hand. Switching your grip to free a hand and then to place your hands in the grip necessary to wield the weapon are both included in the actions you spend to reload a weapon."
But nothing like that was written.

PlantThings |
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."

Tridus |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |

AFigureOfBlue wrote: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.)

Perpdepog |
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."
Not germane to the thread, but it always makes me smile when I randomly hop into a thread, see a post from PlantThings, and they're talking about plant things.

![]() |
Confused, Controlled, Fleeing - the Action controlling conditions.
How do we resolve someone having more then one of those? Multiple of each, from conflicting parties?
Should there be counteract checks like conflicting Polymorph effects? Shorter effect has priority, so the longer one can stay full duration like Stunned and Slow?
Controlled: If you Dominate a person under Dominate, who ends up in control? Can you confuse them, to hope they attack the right target? Make them Fleeing to deny the actions to the controller?
Confused: It doesn't matter of you have multiple, but can Controlled or Fleeing override it?
Fleeing: What of two enemies on opposite ends of a corridor make you Fleeing, sticking you between them? Can Confused or Controlled override it?

Trip.H |

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

moosher12 |
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.
The Aldori Duelist's Aldori Parry archetype feat kept the action next to the name from World Guide, when the new effect clearly implies that the action was meant to be removed.

graystone |
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.