| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Emanation and Auras, there is still several spells and effects that hints to be auras but dont have the aura trait, this makes play with them vary greatly depending on the GM, and official errata would be appreciated.
to give one example Incendiary Aura.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Battle Mystery is fine. If you want to Errata that then you might as well add a line to Flame Oracle that temporary Hit Points are by-passed as well. It gives the Mystery that little extra something that helps mitigate the downsides.
Player Core pg. 384
Curse of Death's heightened entry needlessly references damage taken on a success since it already states it increases damage for each stage. The success result doesn't deal damage and simply inflicts the curse at a stage like failure and critical failure. The success result likely did raw damage previously and was changed.
"Heightened (+1) Increase the void damage taken on a success and during the first three stages of the curse by 1d6."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I only just became aware of it today but Breath of Life was changed in the remaster from this:
You can't use breath of life if the triggering effect was disintegrate or a death effect.
To this:
You can't use breath of life if the triggering effect was a death effect or an effect that leaves no remains, such as disintegrate.
That doesn't really change Breath of Life at all, but it has a severe side effect on Resurrection and Reincarnation. If Disintegrate's ash no longer counts as remains, a PC killed by Disintegrate can't be brought back until rank 9 Resurrection.
I have a hard time believing "a common attack spell should force a PC to make a new character" is intentional, but that's exactly what happens for several levels between when when creatures can have Disintegrate and when it's actually feasible for PCs to get rank 9 Resurrection.
Halcyon Mists focus spell from Rival Academies.
Grants temporary hit points without listing a duration. Might be intentional (strong, if true), or supposed to be tied to the 1-round Concealed effect.
Could use clarification either way. I've seen several discussion but no consensus.
I don't think it would be OP even if it just lasts till expended but that is pretty unusual.
I don't think it would be OP even if it just lasts till expended but that is pretty unusual.Halcyon Mists focus spell from Rival Academies.
Grants temporary hit points without listing a duration. Might be intentional (strong, if true), or supposed to be tied to the 1-round Concealed effect.
Could use clarification either way. I've seen several discussion but no consensus.
As far as I know it would be the only focus spell that can be cast and recharged to prebuff the whole party.
Very much does break pf2's design principles/ norms to let that tHP be indefinite.
Think about that False Vitality spell that gives tHP for 8hrs.
That's clearly intended as a long-term prebuff, and the slot spell grants way lower tHP than the focus spell.
If you drop a hand when a 2H is loaded, there's no way to avoid paying 1A to get it ready to fire again. You have to do non-shooty 1H stuff only when empty.
1+ H doesn't have that concern. Use that hand for whatever, but it needs to be free at the moments you want to Reload & Shoot. It is kinda a small thing, but it's honestly more significant mechanical impact than a lot of weapon traits are...
I have a hard time believing "a common attack spell should force a PC to make a new character" is intentional, but that's exactly what happens for several levels between when when creatures can have Disintegrate and when it's actually feasible for PCs to get rank 9 Resurrection.
That's odd. A blow from a sword can cause someone to make a new character in my games.
That's odd. A blow from a sword can cause someone to make a new character in my games.I have a hard time believing "a common attack spell should force a PC to make a new character" is intentional, but that's exactly what happens for several levels between when when creatures can have Disintegrate and when it's actually feasible for PCs to get rank 9 Resurrection.
A sword can kill someone beyond Raise Dead's reach? That's one hell of a sword.
A sword can kill someone beyond Raise Dead's reach? That's one hell of a sword.
The spell requires body to be relatively intact. That's an easy condition to clear with a few extra hacks with a bladed object. More effort, sure, but that's just a benefit of using magic for it over doing it manually.
A sword can kill someone beyond Raise Dead's reach? That's one hell of a sword.The spell requires body to be relatively intact. That's an easy condition to clear with a few extra hacks with a bladed object. More effort, sure, but that's just a benefit of using magic for it over doing it manually.
Not in the middle of a fight while the rest of the party is still up, it's not. You've got NPCs spending turns hacking already dead PCs to make them harder to raise while other PCs are still actively attacking? That's... something.
And that's assuming Breath of Life didn't bring them back up.
It's not even remotely the same scenario as "oh you failed a save, you're dead and need to cast a 9th rank ritual requiring 8 secondary casters and the primary caster must be someone that touched you at some point so it pretty well has to be a PC who often isn't high enough level to cast that." aka: Go make a new character.
The fact that you're trying to equate these things is silly.
A "relatively intact" body IMO means a body not torn apart or that most of the body should be provided for resurrection. If the idea is that a body should be in perfect condition before resurrection it would probably spell it out directly, plus it wouldn't make sense for a spell that resurrects people to require the condition of the body to be perfect because...well, if it was in perfect condition it probably wouldn't be dead in the first place.
Both Pollen Pods and Instant Minefield:
Both do crazy damage if you can find a way to trigger all the mines/pods, methods include hitting the pods with an AOE spell or having a rogue with evasion and ideally fire resistance walk over all the mines. These spells deal enough damage to obliterate bosses with i.e. time stop -> lay mines/pods 3x -> next person triggers all the pods/mines.
Familiar of Ongoing Misery
Clarification of what types of conditions are extended—only ones in the Conditions Appendix? Anything at all with a duration, even unnamed "conditions" such as the effect of Agitate?
Drowing Rules/Instadrowning
The drowning rules read like someone was very afraid of pools as a child. The duration before drowning is too short, and much more egregiously you become instantly unconscious if you speak. Besides not making any sense (I would be dead a hundred times over if this was how drowning worked), this enables numerous instadrown combos where you place water on an enemy and hit them with something that makes them lose their air. Methods include laughing fit, mask of uncanny breath, and pointed question. Even without the instadrowing it's very punishing for spellcasters, the number one spell to win a wizard duel is pillar of water because they get one shot at countering you and then they die. Back before remaster it wasn't quite as bad but now that all spells are verbal you're basically screwed unless you have a specific counter to the situation, such as teleportation or one of the several metagame knowledge check items that just let you ignore drowning as a threat (i.e. vital earth). Which also let you avoid instadrowning attacks. It's 1e all over again, have the specific counter prepared or just die.
For a fix I would suggest doubling the drowning duration and making speaking lose half your remaining air. A doubled duration is closer to what I, a non-legendary hero, can do in a pool, and losing half your air on speaking gives it a meaningful cost without just dying for it. There are other possible fixes but whatever the solution the part where you exhale underwater and instantly fall unconscious needs to go.
Marked for Rebuke
What weakness to "all damage" means—if this functions like champion reactions' (Liberating Step, etc) resistance to "all damage" where it applies to each type of damage in the triggering effect, that is very strong. May want to errata to "weakness to Strikes" or similar, otherwise the meta is to have your martials load up with 3 different damage runes and as many other damage types as they can get (Quietus Strikes, Exemplar spirit damage, etc.) to get like 60 weakness per strike. Hell you could still get a good 30 or so on a miss with certain strike. If changed to per strike it's still a great ability, but no longer broken.
Stunned condition
RAW, getting inflicted with stunned as, say, a reaction during your turn prevents you from using any further actions. This seems a bit too good when used with something like Ready a Reaction combined with Stunning Blows, and outright broken with readied power word stun - you can just cancel the boss's turn, no save. Likely worth rewording
Disruptive Stance
Incredibly powerful against enemy casters and anything else that uses Interact a lot. Might want to have a flat check DC 10 flat check on the non-crit-hit disruption.
Juggernaut Charge
Interaction with hazardous terrain. This uses "pull" terminology, so it seems it can "cheese grater" enemies free of consequences if it hits. There's some ambiguity about whether a guardian is also supposed to take the damage due to a line about pulling enemies, though this doesn't make any sense with how the ability works especially if you have the target held with a reach weapon (I grab a guy 10ft away from me, move in a straight line forwards such that I'm parallel to the hazardous terrain while he's going over it 10ft to my right, and somehow I take the terrain damage? That's nonsensical). Regardless, guardian has feats that give it the resistances to cheese grater enemies even if it also takes the damage, doing insane amounts of damage while not taking that much itself.
Strikes with subordinate incap effects
Strikes with subordinate effects that are incapacitation have some ambiguity about whether the incapacitation also applies to the strike, not just the subordinate save. I.e. silencing strike, which is a normal strike with the rider of a save vs a debuff. You should make it clear the incapacitation only applies to the save, not the strike, otherwise these abilities might be double incapacitation, which is clearly unintended and too bad to be true.
Silencing Shot
What's the DC here for? Silence doesn't normally have a DC and if the item is supposed to give it one, it doesn't specify what type. Is it just for counteracting? Additionally, this item is overpowered. One successful bowshot and you silence a spellcaster for the rest of the fight, no save, no counterplay besides having either allies with dispel magic or the conceal spell feat.
Wind Ocarina
Blatantly overpowered, hard counters archers for 50gp. Should be changed to a heavy penalty instead of an outright prohibition on arrow strikes. Maybe -5? Same goes for wall of wind, tbh, but this item is even worse than that.
Reading an action to stride upon targeting with strike
RAW you can ready an action to stride away as soon as the enemy strikes ("I stride when the enemy raises their weapon to hit me after running towards me"), and stride out of their reach before they can hit you - effectively wasting two of their actions, the action to stride up to you in the first place and the action to strike. Then their third action is stuck striding at you again. While this is worthless against hordes it is stupidly effective against solo bosses, especially once you can get a quickened action to strike boss -> stride away -> ready action to stride away. We should get some rules that striding away after a strike is declared still gets you hit with the strike, like how prone gets a special exemption with reactive strike. This shouldn't apply to teleportation or other very quick effects, just normal movement like strides and leaps.
Protector Tree and Timber Sentinel could use another pass.
Protector Tree does not mention how it interacts with Area of Effect damage at all. So table variation from "unaffected" to "always critical fails the save" exist. Which naturally change the usefulness a lot.
Protector Tree is a slot based spell. Yet for the Kineticist, Timber Sentinel is the equivalent of a Cantrip. Those are wildly disparate power levels.
It seems like either Tree should be a Cantrip or Sentinel should have a cooldown.Protector Tree also can plant a ludicrous amount of trees on Exploration and Downtime scale. At the Exploration scale of 1 average Action per turn it is 5 trees a minute. And at 8 Exploration scale hours per downtime day, that would be 2400 Trees per day. Unless it is implied that such a large forest popping out of nowhere could not be supported by the soil?
I agree it should get some saving throw guidance, either uses your saves or just autofails (but not crit fails) everything.
"Fixing" the forest thing is just anti fun though. Like yea that's really cool. Make trees. Why not. You can just do things. There is no need to stop the player from doing something cool.
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.
They might have just wanted to not hit them with the nerf. Crossbow crit spec is a substantial downgrade from bow crit spec.
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.
Tumble through can't be an action that requires you to actually tumble through an enemy because it doesn't have a clean interaction with the stealth rules if you change that.
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.
1 more bulk is a meaningful cost, and if anything gets more important as you level up because you have more gear at higher levels. I'd rather have the full plate, the O-Yoroi is going to put me into encumbered.
The Remastered Automatons Reinforced Chassis does not mention what type of armor (unarmored, light, medium, heavy) it is. Which can be critical for some abilities, like the Guardians, Barbarians, Monks.
The Armor Group for critical specialisation is also missing.
There's a PFS note saying to just treat it as unarmored, so may as well just make that the errata. Gets you into some weird situations if it's not, such as having inbuilt armor you're not proficient in.
|
Since the Fall errata will be coming in a few months, obligatory Weapon Trance errata:
Low Level (1-3) RM Battle Oracle is still disappointing, difficult to play, and confusing on its role to many players, with the focus spell Weapon Trance being a main reason. After playing quite a few various builds for Battle Oracle in PFS, BB, and one-shots, I think these would help players out:
1) Simplest Errata: Remove the Sustained duration and "You automatically Sustain this spell as a free action the first time you hit with a weapon Strike each round." like. Just make it a Free Action and last 1 minute.
Why? Cuts out 23 words from the next reprint, streamlines the spell, makes it less clunky for low level players trying the Battle Oracle early on.
2) Over-the-Top Errata: To make it work for Battle Oracles, keep the Sustained, but add this line: "If you are Cursebound when you cast Weapon Trance, one weapon you are wielding becomes a +1 striking weapon."
This works with Battle Oracle's flow of using Oracular Warning to become Cursebound at the beginning of initiative and this enables the low level Battle Oracle to reliably do something effectively when out of spell slots.
This also prevents Weapon Trance from being broken poaching-wise, as other classes will need to be lvl. 6 to gain both Weapon Trance and a Cursebound ability. And by lvl. 6, a +1 striking rune should already be accessed by all martials. Casters shouldn't mind this as a nice alternative spell. If this is too much, just have it be +status bonus to weapon damage equal to your Cursebound level.
Not to mention, it adds a coolness/flavor factor of the Battle Oracle empowering their blade (separate from the Animist's flavor of being possessed by a warrior). The dev team cooked when they made Embodiment of Battle and after a year of the RM Player Core 2, both pro-RM and anti-RM Battle Oracle players are unhappy with Weapon Trance. Tying Weapon Trance's being an effective buff that isn't overshadowed by a General Feat will help players feel more connected to the subclass.
Hopefully this feedback is meaningful! I personally like the Remaster changes, but I do feel there are a few tweaks needed to make it perfect.
Munitions Master: Other people are allowed to fire your Mortar, while most other Innovations are not usable by anyone else (they lack Proficiency or the ability to command).
Familiar: Pet currently only locks out Strike, not all Attack actions.
Together that means your Familiar can fire your light Mortar.
Edit: On closer inspection, it would not get your DC: "When you Launch your light mortar, the Reflex save is equal to your class DC." However Familiars can still fire it and Aim/Reload it.
Why would you want anyone else to operate it in your stead? Munitions Master has so much action compression working towards it that it would be a steep loss of action economy to have anyone else attempt to operate the mortar.
Also, since it has a Crew of 1, you can't have your familiar or other PCs or NPCs help you to operate it. Literally only one person is permitted to deploy it, aim it, reload it, and fire it.
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
If you don't have the proper amount of hands on it, you can't use it (at least not for its intended purpose). Pretty clear cut.
If you don't have the proper amount of hands on it, you can't use it (at least not for its intended purpose). Pretty clear cut.
Correct, but this does *not* mean that an item's ongoing effects suddenly blink off because it is no longer in-hand.
For the lanterns, I agree that it needs to be wielded in 1H before you are able to "use" it; adjust the shutter, light it, extinguish it, load w/ oil, etc.
But I will more confidently state that I see no RaW reason for the lantern to extinguish if it's on a backpack hook, the ground, etc.
There is a difference between "using" an item, and that item passively providing an ongoing effect.
A number of items operate exactly as a lantern does, where you "use" it to initiate a timed effect.
Sparklers, Glow Rods, etc all work the same way: they required a wielded action to initiate a change in the item itself with a timed duration. There is no target an effect is applied upon.
It is erroneous and more than a little silly to try to claim that all items of this type spontaneously end their ongoing effects when no longer wielded in hand.
If you don't have the proper amount of hands on it, you can't use it (at least not for its intended purpose). Pretty clear cut.Correct, but this does *not* mean that an item's ongoing effects suddenly blink off because it is no longer in-hand.
For the lanterns, I agree that it needs to be wielded in 1H before you are able to "use" it; adjust the shutter, light it, extinguish it, load w/ oil, etc.
But I will more confidently state that I see no RaW reason for the lantern to extinguish if it's on a backpack hook, the ground, etc.
There is a difference between "using" an item, and that item passively providing an ongoing effect.
A number of items operate exactly as a lantern does, where you "use" it to initiate a timed effect.
Sparklers, Glow Rods, etc all work the same way: they required a wielded action to initiate a change in the item itself with a timed duration. There is no target an effect is applied upon.It is erroneous and more than a little silly to try to claim that all items of this type spontaneously end their ongoing effects when no longer wielded in hand.
Good points all. I agree.
What constitutes a "roll"? Is it the moment you would typically roll a die, or actually having to roll the die?
One hypothetical is with Devise a Stratagem. Do you need to cast Guidance before the DaS, or before the attack stratagem? DaS says "you must use the result of the d20 roll for your Strike's attack roll instead of rolling".
A second hypothetical where this is applies is with Assurance (Medicine) and Risky Surgery, which it says "if you roll a success, you get a critical success instead". Assurance says "You can forgo rolling a skill check for that skill to instead receive a result of 10 + your proficiency bonus".
In either case the intent may be for the roll replacement mechanic to count as a roll for the purposes of the rule modification.
-------------
Does a Grapple occupy a hand of the grappler? While it is a requirement to perform the Grapple action, strict RAW says that the hand only needs to be free to perform the action but not maintained.
It is uncertain whether the intent of the Grapple is to allow re-gripping weapons by the grappler and to take advantage of the Off-Guard to balance with other actions or if requiring an enemy to Escape is simply strong enough to occupy a Grappler's hand for the entirety of the effect.
-------------
Is the PFS "Gliminal" willing target rule, i.e. "you can allow an ally to improve their outcome by one degree of success against a willing target or allow the target to worsen the result of their saving throw by one step", intended to apply to an Alchemist's Healing Bomb feat?
-------------
Is a Healing Bomb supposed to be a Bomb and usable with Quick Bomber? Or is it worded to purposely require two actions to use Quick Alchemy + throw even if you have the Quick Bomber feat? The language from the remaster distinctly changed from clearly adding the Bomb trait to dancing around it.
-------------
Magus's Analysis: This makes a secret RK check (so you do not know the results), but Spellstrike gets recharged on Success. If you critically fail (and thus get results as if you succeeded), do you know if your Spellstrike is recharged?
I do not allow things like Assurance to trigger things that require rolls, since there is no roll, in my games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do not allow things like Assurance to trigger things that require rolls, since there is no roll, in my games.
The Fortune effect itself says "A fortune effect beneficially alters how you roll your dice. You can never have more than one fortune effect alter a single roll."
If you argue that "there is no roll" when using Assurance, then the restriction that the Fortune trait imposes-- that only a single roll is altered-- does not take place when using Assurance. The roll is forgone, it never happens.
So you could use Assurance on a skill check and if it fails, use something like Halfling Luck as a fortune effect to "reroll". But you can't "reroll" because there wasn't a first roll, and you're in this weird state of being.
It makes more sense for "roll" to be the common term of the process of determining the Result of an attack roll, skill check, or saving throw.
The Gliminal thing does not affect Healing Bomb, which says to make an attack roll, and specifically lists outcomes for the possible results. It's a non-starter to then edit those listed results while claiming to be following the text's instruction.
A GM is fine to houserule an ability similar to the Gliminal text, but that's not a real mechanic RaW. Items like Life Shot explicitly grant a mechanic where willing targets are off-guard. This shows firstly that a full degree of success upgrade is out of line, and secondly that such mechanics need to be inside their respective ability/item text to exist.
Healing Bomb is 100% compatible with Quick Bomber, in my opinion. Still a trap feat that was already kinda bad before the remaster nerfed it an entire degree of success. Don't forget that bombs are supposed to have an item bonus for their attack roll, meaning your +0 Healing Bombs will be even harder to land on your allies, legit should assume 40% at best to hit when MAP 0.
IMO, don't be a coward and pretend the Gliminal thing is RaW, houserule buff Healing Bomb and shift the results up one degree of success outright. Heck, buff it more than that, allow it to work with more items than Elix o Lf.
The new Avenging Runelord mythic destiny has all its spells based on Charisma, because they're innate spells. This makes this destiny unusable for INT- & WIS-based classes, like Runelord Wizards or Clerics of Lissala. (see here)
Please add a sentence that allows a character to choose INT/WIS/CHA as spellcasting ability modifier for the spells gained from this mythic destiny.
The Gliminal thing does not affect Healing Bomb, which says to make an attack roll, and specifically lists outcomes for the possible results. It's a non-starter to then edit those listed results while claiming to be following the text's instruction.
A GM is fine to houserule an ability similar to the Gliminal text, but that's not a real mechanic RaW. Items like Life Shot explicitly grant a mechanic where willing targets are off-guard. This shows firstly that a full degree of success upgrade is out of line, and secondly that such mechanics need to be inside their respective ability/item text to exist.
Healing Bomb is 100% compatible with Quick Bomber, in my opinion. Still a trap feat that was already kinda bad before the remaster nerfed it an entire degree of success. Don't forget that bombs are supposed to have an item bonus for their attack roll, meaning your +0 Healing Bombs will be even harder to land on your allies, legit should assume 40% at best to hit when MAP 0.
IMO, don't be a coward and pretend the Gliminal thing is RaW, houserule buff Healing Bomb and shift the results up one degree of success outright. Heck, buff it more than that, allow it to work with more items than Elix o Lf.
Well, Pathfinder Society has ruled to adopt exactly the Gliminal text, see https://paizo.com/pathfindersociety/faq :
"Pathfinder Society uses the optional rules published with the liminal on page 143 of Bestiary 3 for this situation, which are reproduced here:
There aren’t default rules for a creature choosing to be hit[...], but you can allow an ally to improve their outcome by one degree of success against a willing target or allow the target to worsen the result of their saving throw by one step."
So it's at least somewhat assumed/intended although a GM can choose to be more lenient (i.e. Healing Bombs just work all the time) or less (i.e. no modifications).
If Healing Bomb is a bomb that is intended to function as the old version of the feat but with the Gliminal rule as sort-of-standard, great, then make the Gliminal rule default/recommended in print. If they want to print a specific rule for Healing Bomb so our best guidance isn't a reference to a specific rule in a pre-remaster bestiary? Also great. Maybe make the healed player use a reaction to change the degree of success? What we have now is variable from table to table.
Whether Healing Bomb is supposed to be an alchemical bomb compatible with Quick Bomber might be obvious, it's only implied. There's wiggle room in the text to let it not be. If it's expected to be allowable with Quick Bomber, make it behave as a bomb in all situations and not just when thrown. Or just add the Bomb trait to it, which conveys nothing mechanically other than that it's a bomb.
If Healing Bomb is a bomb that is intended to function as the old version of the feat but with the Gliminal rule as sort-of-standard, great, then make the Gliminal rule default/recommended in print.
There is just no way that class feat text is written with the PoV of a random monster's sidebar advice. Even inside the Gliminal, that text only encourages, it's not even a proper mechanic there.
There is also no conceivable way that Healing Bomb was nerfed with the Gliminal in mind. Again, some obscure monster that the table may not even have the book for does not affect class feats like that.
Furthermore, the PFS ruling is also made without thinking about Healing Bomb specifically.
I support GMs who want to use the houserule mechanic, and support buffing Healing Bomb by a degree of success if they so choose.
But it is important to not use erroneous justifications for doing so. Pretending that feat text actually instead is wrong, and is instead one degree of success better because of this obscure monster, would set a really bad precedent.
Specific trumps for a reason. Healing Bomb specifically tells you what happens for the roll result.
In my opinion, that feat is so badly performing that GMs *should* edit it, but that must be done without lying about why.
If remastered Healing Bomb wasn't nerfed, and did heal the full amount on miss, people would not be using Gliminal text to justify another buff to ensure full healing even on crit miss.
It's quite apparent that the gliminal text is not genuinely driving this argument.
It is the bad performance of Healing Bomb that drives folk to seek reasons for buffing. And some aversion to houserules further pushes folk away from that response, and toward making erroneous RaW claims.
If Healing Bomb is a bomb that is intended to function as the old version of the feat but with the Gliminal rule as sort-of-standard, great, then make the Gliminal rule default/recommended in print.There is just no way that class feat text is written with the PoV of a random monster's sidebar advice. Even inside the Gliminal, that text only encourages, it's not even a proper mechanic there.
There is also no conceivable way that Healing Bomb was nerfed with the Gliminal in mind. Again, some obscure monster that the table may not even have the book for does not affect class feats like that.
Furthermore, the PFS ruling is also made without thinking about Healing Bomb specifically.
I support GMs who want to use the houserule mechanic, and support buffing Healing Bomb by a degree of success if they so choose.
But it is important to not use erroneous justifications for doing so. Pretending that feat text actually instead is wrong, and is instead one degree of success better because of this obscure monster, would set a really bad precedent.Specific trumps for a reason. Healing Bomb specifically tells you what happens for the roll result.
In my opinion, that feat is so badly performing that GMs *should* edit it, but that must be done without lying about why.
If remastered Healing Bomb wasn't nerfed, and did heal the full amount on miss, people would not be using Gliminal text to justify another buff to ensure full healing even on crit miss.It's quite apparent that the gliminal text is not genuinely driving this argument.
It is the bad performance of Healing Bomb that drives folk to seek reasons for buffing. And some aversion to houserules further pushes folk away from that response, and toward making erroneous RaW claims.
If the text only existed for the Gliminal, that's one thing. But PFS uses that description of modified rolls for ALL situations where a player would willing be a target of a roll, not just when fighting a Gliminal. It's in the Paizo FAQ for official organized play.
In other words, altering a degree of success is how Healing Bomb should work in official games, but lacks the RAW to support that for most tables.
The intent of the remaster Healing Bomb nerf may (or may not) have been because the Gliminal rule being applied in pre-remaster organized games made it so that it was guaranteed not to critically fail, so it always (except on an unconscious target who cannot be willing, but was still -6 AC from unconscious/flat-footed) always healed the full amount of the elixir. Which deserved a nerf.
If the text only existed for the Gliminal, that's one thing. But PFS uses that description of modified rolls for ALL situations where a player would willing be a target of a roll, not just when fighting a Gliminal. It's in the Paizo FAQ for official organized play.
The text does only exist for Gliminal, though. PFS rulings are effectively GM rulings: they only apply in that campaign.
Lots of GMs use them and they're often pretty useful guidance, but they are explicitly not the rules of the game and they only apply to the campaign that GM controls (PFS Organized Play) unless your GM adopts them.
PFS does this a fair bit. They made Manifestation of Spirits limited (which is a defacto ban) because they felt it was overpowered. That doesn't apply to the core rules either, but a GM can also adopt it.
In other words, altering a degree of success is how Healing Bomb should work in official games, but lacks the RAW to support that for most tables.
It's not how Healing Bomb works in the rules. PFS effectively house ruled it to make it functional in the PFS campaign. I highly encourage GMs to do the same thing (or house rule it in some other way) because the official version of the feat is awful and feels bad in play. "The Bard cast Rallying Anthem to bolster my team's defense and that makes them harder to heal" is not a good mechanic.
The intent of the remaster Healing Bomb nerf may (or may not) have been because the Gliminal rule being applied in pre-remaster organized games made it so that it was guaranteed not to critically fail, so it always (except on an unconscious target who cannot be willing, but was still -6 AC from unconscious/flat-footed) always healed the full amount of the elixir. Which deserved a nerf.
We can only guess at why they nerfed it, but I sure hope that isn't the reason why because nerfing a player option in the core rules because of a suggestion for a single creature in a bestiary is definitely a choice. If I had to guess, I'd say it was probably just a mistake on someone's part who didn't think about it a ton and moved on.