| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Created per the request of Maya Coleman
Guidelines:
1) Please be specific about problems
2) Linit discussion of issues to a minimum
3) Be respectful.
4) OGL Dark Archive errata is not particularly helpful as the Remastered version is due to relase at the beginning of next year. Errata for the remastered version when it drops is welcome.
Major unresolved issues from previous threads
The mythic system has a number of compatibility issues
-The Beast Lord Mythic and Apocalypse Destinies have major issues due to companions having limited interaction with the mythic system.
-Kineticists do not have a good way to interact with the mythic system.
-Classes and fighting styles that are disproportionately reliant on "Meta-strikes" like a Swashbuckler's finishers, a Magus's Spellstrikes, or even just a one-handed fighter's many feats are at a major disadvantage compared to classes and styles that do not (e.g. Rogues, Two-hand fighters, barbarians). Summoners have a similar problem with an inability to have their eidilon do Mythic things.
It is unclear how many spells known the oracle is supposed to have per rank.
The Swashbuckler archetype gives the Bravado class feature, but this doesn't do anything on its own.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oracle repertoire size is inconsistent with its own text. Part of it uses the numbers two and three, like the number of spell slots used to. It also says you gain a new repertoire spell every time you gain a new spell slot, which is inconsistent with the numbers given.
Oracle repertoire size is inconsistent with its own text. Part of it uses the numbers two and three, like the number of spell slots used to. It also says you gain a new repertoire spell every time you gain a new spell slot, which is inconsistent with the numbers given.
That's much more eloquently put than how I described it above. Appreciate it.
Apocalypse Rider doesn't make your companion mythic either.-The Beast Lord Mythic Destiny has major issues due to not making the companion mythic, in contrast to the Apocalypse Rider destiny.
... I have no idea where I got that idea, sorry.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Would love clarification about the Rogue Resilience feature. To my knowledge it is the only class that gets the Evasion like effect at Expert level proficiency, aside from classes like Fighters that get it against a specific type of effect. It seems strange that the Rogue gets it on its worst save faster than its secondary save, and is the only class to get it to all saves.
If this is how it should be an affirmation would be clarifying.
Firework Technician.
Whole thing needs a rewrite.
* Only alch archetype to consume resources for actions instead of making items. Conceptually, that makes it not really an alchemy archetype, and the use of that system is itself an "error."
* Poaches recharging VVials otherwise exclusive to a "real Alchemist." This honestly "nerfs the Alchemist" by its very existence, enabling any PC to get recharging VVials without being stuck with Alch's horrible chassis.
* Still refers to infused reagents, which was conceptually deleted in the remaster. Someone didn't even ctrl-f before submitting as professional work, and someone else didn't even ctrl-f to check that work.
* Forgets to put auditory & or visual traits in some of the actions.
* It's the only archetype in the pf2 system with an ability that scales in dmg with the more of your limited resource you spend on that action. Yes, I get the idea, but that is "bad" design that has no place in the existing alchemy subsystem. Damage does not scale like that for a reason.
Adding insult to injury; unlike in the old infused reagents paradigm, alch resources no longer increase with level ups*, making this design "broken" from yet another PoV.
* An F.Tech ability even forces Acrobatics checks on foes else attempted flight fails. A ghost, which only has a fly speed, would need to make untrained Acrobatics checks at -6 below its lowest save, else the movement is lost.
_______________________
The whole thing is a complete mess / embarrassment that shouldn't have been printed. I cannot recall if there's single feat that doesn't have some absurd mistake/ oversight in it.
The entire archetype honestly needs to be deleted/disabled ASAP, then perhaps fixed or wholly replaced.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Would love clarification about the Rogue Resilience feature. To my knowledge it is the only class that gets the Evasion like effect at Expert level proficiency, aside from classes like Fighters that get it against a specific type of effect. It seems strange that the Rogue gets it on its worst save faster than its secondary save, and is the only class to get it to all saves.
If this is how it should be an affirmation would be clarifying.
This was clarified some time ago and it is correct as written.
We as a community aren't sure why that change was made, but we do know that it's deliberate.
Would love clarification about the Rogue Resilience feature. To my knowledge it is the only class that gets the Evasion like effect at Expert level proficiency, aside from classes like Fighters that get it against a specific type of effect. It seems strange that the Rogue gets it on its worst save faster than its secondary save, and is the only class to get it to all saves.
If this is how it should be an affirmation would be clarifying.
This was clarified some time ago and it is correct as written.
We as a community aren't sure why that change was made, but we do know that it's deliberate.
Wait really? Where was it clarified? I haven't seen anything about it when I searched.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait really? Where was it clarified? I haven't seen anything about it when I searched.Would love clarification about the Rogue Resilience feature. To my knowledge it is the only class that gets the Evasion like effect at Expert level proficiency, aside from classes like Fighters that get it against a specific type of effect. It seems strange that the Rogue gets it on its worst save faster than its secondary save, and is the only class to get it to all saves.
If this is how it should be an affirmation would be clarifying.
This was clarified some time ago and it is correct as written.
We as a community aren't sure why that change was made, but we do know that it's deliberate.
In an email reply that got posted to Reddit.
I'm not surprised you couldn't find it.
Oh wow, yeah that is very out of the way. If that is an intentional design choice a more official post would be welcome.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Stop trying to make fetch happen! It's not going to happen!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some classics regarding basic game mechanics rather than class specifics:
-----
How long do Minion creatures follow commands when they are not in combat, but they are given commands? The current rules do not define this at all.
The rules fully define Minion behavior in combat. If commanded, they gain two actions that they use to follow those commands. If not commanded, they do nothing.
The rules do not fully define Minion behavior when not in combat. It only defines what happens if they are not commanded.
-----
We desperately need a definition for "instance of damage". This rule term is used in the rules for damage resistance and weakness, but it is not defined anywhere.
It is unclear what parts of a complex attack should be considered a single instance of damage and which should be separated out and be considered different instances of damage happening at the same time.
For example, a sword with a frost rune swung by a character under the effects of an energy mutagen (fire). We have slashing damage, magical cold damage, and non-magical fire damage. Which of that is part of the same instance of damage?
Does the ruling change if the sword has a flaming rune instead. Now we have slashing damage, magical fire damage, and non-magical fire damage. Which of that is the same instance of damage?
-----
What is the basic definition of a spellcasting character's "your spell list"? A common interpretation is 'all of the spells on the casting tradition list', but that is not specified and is not the only viable option. Alternative options are 'the common spells on the tradition list' and 'the spells on the tradition list up to the Rank of spell that you can cast'.
Each of those ruling options will have a noticeable impact on rules elements that reference 'your spell list' such as Casting a Spell From a Scroll.
-----
Speaking of casting from scrolls...
The rules for Cast a Spell item activation states clearly that successfully activating such items requires a 'spellcasting class feature'. All spellcasting classes have a class feature named 'Spellcasting'. Spellcasting archetypes no longer give a 'spellcasting class feature'. Previously there were rules that stated this, but it was removed quite a while ago. Instead, the current Spellcasting Archetypes rules state on their own that having the "spellcasting ability" from the spellcasting archetype allows using Cast a Spell activation.
What is not clear is which feat from the spellcasting archetype gives this "spellcasting ability". Common ruling options are the Dedication feat and the Basic Spellcasting feat.
Arguments for the Dedication feat are that having the Dedication gives all of the basic benefits of the archetype including the ability to use Cast a Spell item activation items; and that the Dedication feat does allow casting Cantrips, which are a type of spell.
Arguments for the Basic Spellcasting feat include the historical wording where the Basic Spellcasting feat is what gave the character an ability considered equivalent to a spellcasting class feature; the similarity in name between 'spellcasting ability' and Basic Spellcasting; and the note in Focus Spells stating that Cast a Spell item activation requires having spell slots.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Currently the level 11 Inventor class feature "Medium Armor Expertise" says this:
"You've learned to better defend yourself against attacks. Your proficiency ranks for light armor, medium armor, and unarmored defense increase to expert.
If you have a medium or heavy armor innovation, you gain access to the critical specialization effect with your armor innovation."
Since critical specialization effects with armor do not exist, I suggest it be changed to:
"Medium Armor Expertise
Level 11
You've learned to better defend yourself against attacks. Your proficiency ranks for light armor, medium armor, and unarmored defense increase to expert.
If you have a medium or heavy armor innovation, you gain access to the Armor Specialization effect with your armor innovation."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[instance of damage]
As far as I've ever seen, the only ruling that RaW "just works" is to match how trait-weakness triggers, via contact.
Meaning, each impact or hit is "one instance," and inside of that you check all the types and traits to use the single highest applicable weakness & resistance.
And the actual subtracted amount is the "applicable" resistance, so a resist 10 reducing 1 dmg is '1 applicable resistance,' and can get surpassed by a resit 5, etc.
________________
Every permutation of subdividing impacts into more than one instance I have encountered, such as "+type = new instance," had fundamental problems where you legit need to invent rules ex nihilo that do not exist to do that very "grouping" action.
There is no text so say you put all the bonus fire into the same bucket,
so "+type = new instance" folks who want each bonus bit of fire to multi-pop independently have exactly as much rule support as those saying you group all the fire into a single bonus instance for one extra pop.
And whatever ex nihilo rules are used to decided what does create bonus instances, each one I've seen creates rather large "edge" cases that result in bad gameplay outcomes. Not found a single version where the ex nihilo rules create a result that actually is "clean" and works all the time, as the RaW "one instance per impact" does.
Because Foundry caves to community demand, currently as "+type = new instance," you can mess around with it and see how it sometimes cheats the real result of "+type = new instance," and other times where the obvious no bueno result peeks through.
As briefly as I can explain it: if you are creating new instances, then like it or not, those are legit independent instances that'll do their own pops of weak/res.
Sure, if you ex nihilo decide to group dmg chunks into matching types, that'll stop type based res/weakness from multi-popping, but that's 1/3 kinds.
Traits that apply to entire attacks will suffer/benefit from multi-popping for every bonus instance.
Foundry "cheats" to catch common bad outcomes like holy weakness so it will usually not multi-pop when using split dmg, but by those very ex nihilo "+type = new instance" rules, every instance is holy, and that elemental rune, energy mutagen, spell buff, etc, of the holy strike should each pop holy weakness.
The Foundry folk have attempted to rig things to avoid the actual results of their own rule. That is itself perhaps the most damning condemnation of that 'interpretation's' legitimacy, lol.
Because the Paizo devs (imo) are counting on "one instance per impact" they write custom res/weaknesses that are really silly otherwise.
Spellheart passives like "resistance to ranged attacks" now multi-pop that resistance once per type basket, same for resistance to "attacks by demons," etc.
And yeah, multi-popping holy weakness once per damage type is just dumb. (but foundry's rigged to block that one, sometimes. Try adding [water] trait to a weapon and messing w/ those other trait weak/res options if you want to watch the weak/res multi-pop)
_______________________
Compressed summary:
The only version that doesn't create RaW problems is to treat every impact/ swing/ moment of contact as "an instance."
(Not a personal opinion. All variants of "+type = new instance" have to invent "missing" rules, but "one instance per impact" does not.)
Guardian's Intercept Attack lacks information as to whether the guardian is subject to the rider effects of the attack, the way that Protector's Sacrifice or Champion's Sacrifice do.
This leads to some very strange interactions with several monster abilities. Even something such as Grab lead to some unusual interactions. The attack was successful against PC1, but the Guardian intercepted the attack. From a logic standpoint the guardian should be subject to all of those types of things - poisons, debuffs, diseases, paralysis, targeting, and the like.
It does, in that it says explicitly you take the damage and doesn't mention anything else. The lack of anything else happening means you don't take anything else.
It doesn't make much sense if you think about it (how are you taking the damage but they're still getting grabbed/poisoned/etc?), but it's perfectly clear. This came up in the playtest feedback pretty extensively and the fact that it wasn't changed suggests its intentional.
Some classics regarding basic game mechanics rather than class specifics:
-----
How long do Minion creatures follow commands when they are not in combat, but they are given commands? The current rules do not define this at all.
The rules fully define Minion behavior in combat. If commanded, they gain two actions that they use to follow those commands. If not commanded, they do nothing.
The rules do not fully define Minion behavior when not in combat. It only defines what happens if they are not commanded.
-----
We desperately need a definition for "instance of damage". This rule term is used in the rules for damage resistance and weakness, but it is not defined anywhere.
It is unclear what parts of a complex attack should be considered a single instance of damage and which should be separated out and be considered different instances of damage happening at the same time.
For example, a sword with a frost rune swung by a character under the effects of an energy mutagen (fire). We have slashing damage, magical cold damage, and non-magical fire damage. Which of that is part of the same instance of damage?
Does the ruling change if the sword has a flaming rune instead. Now we have slashing damage, magical fire damage, and non-magical fire damage. Which of that is the same instance of damage?
-----
What is the basic definition of a spellcasting character's "your spell list"? A common interpretation is 'all of the spells on the casting tradition list', but that is not specified and is not the only viable option. Alternative options are 'the common spells on the tradition list' and 'the spells on the tradition list up to the Rank of spell that you can cast'.
Each of those ruling options will have a noticeable impact on rules elements that reference 'your spell list' such as Casting a Spell From a Scroll.
-----
Speaking of casting from scrolls...
The rules for Cast a...
I would like to second the instances of damage clarification request.
The presence of fire damage that is magical and fire damage not magical in Finoan's example does create problems for the procedural approach for the 4 damage steps.
In step 2 we would identify the damage types present. Move each damage type to step 3 as instances of damage so we can apply immunities weakness and resitance. If damage type is the only determining factor then we will have one instance of fire when moving to step 3, presumably composed of both magical and not magical fire.
What might happen here against something like a HUNGRY GHOST with resistances that actually treat magic different than non magic like Resistances all damage 5 (except force, ghost touch, spirit, or vitality; double resistance vs. non-magical) is undefined.
If we stick to procedure using the only term actually called out in step 2 we are identifying by types of damage only, and only to establish instances for step 3 consolidated into a single damage sum for step 4. If it is correct to assume the both fire damage amounts are one instance of fire damage that contains both magical and non magical damage then we might have two applicable resistances. Resist 5 all against magical fire and resist 10 against non magical. Since there is more than one that is applicable to the one instance of fire damage we take the highest. Not sure if that is what was intended and it does require some assumptions but that seems to be the procedure.
I think part of the clarification could be for step 2 when we are identifying damage types, is damage of the same type consolidated to create an instance, and is it done even when they have different additional traits that might matter to resistances.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is my third or fourth time asking for this:
For Player Core 2 please add to the feat Qi Spells (also Advanced, etc.) a section that reads "Special You can take this feat multiple times, choosing a different initial qi spell each time."
Other classes that have a "choose a focus spell" feat (e.g. Ranger, Cleric) have the option to take the feat more than once, so it's strange that the Monk lacks this particularly given this was not how it worked pre-Remaster (where Ki Rush and Ki Strike were just different feats.)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still want to know if the nerf was deliberate where Familiars are no longer able to use the Trained-only actions of skills even after getting the Skilled ability in that skill.
Pre-Remaster it was allowed. With the Remaster splitting some of the Familiar rules into Pet, that ability was lost in the shuffle.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the topic of familiars, I'd argue the shoulder-riding "needs" to be put into rules as allowed without penalty.
Due to the "Riding PCs" text, readers have reason to think that there should be an action penalty imposed upon the PC to do that.
Yet, if I recall correctly, paizo pf2 gameplay featured a PC with a shoulder-riding familiar.
It's an incredibly common house rule, but by RaW, the familiars are required to spend their Action to just keep up with their master during combat.
It's not valid to invent and add mechanics like that, and claim it to be RaW. Though, it is a houserule so normalized /essential, that if a GM blocked it, I'd see that as a red flag. But it is still a textless invention of the community.
(and familiar HP scaling is legitimately too low, getting worse and not better with high level play. They can/will get one-shot by AoE, to a seriously problematic degree. Witch being stuck with them puts an increase to their HP as medium priority fix worthy of errata, imo.)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll be honest, I always thought the Carry rules worked for it as familiars are only 1 bulk.
But honestly, it could be much clearer because the question comes up ALL the time and I feel like it's something that should've been default in there.
Also...
Errata: Independent familiar ability to be in line with similar cases with animal companions. Your familiar should be able to take 1 action for free, but you cannot command your familiar if you do so.
It's weird that this got added to many animal companion feats, but the familiar one was left alone.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll be honest, I always thought the Carry rules worked for it as familiars are only 1 bulk.
But honestly, it could be much clearer because the question comes up ALL the time and I feel like it's something that should've been default in there.
Also...
Errata: Independent familiar ability to be in line with similar cases with animal companions. Your familiar should be able to take 1 action for free, but you cannot command your familiar if you do so.
It's weird that this got added to many animal companion feats, but the familiar one was left alone.
AFAIK the Independent Familiar does work that way? It states:
" In an encounter, if you don't Command your familiar, it still gains 1 action each round."
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Change all spellhearts to use spell DC if better than fixed DC for all spells so they’re actually useful for their spells beyond being cantrip batteries.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I posted this in the previous thread, but I don't know how much of the end posts got collected...
Palatine Detective: greater esoteric spellcasting is a 12th level feat but it should be a 10th level feat. Easy to fix at the table, but Demiplane can't change the feat until it gets an errata.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Most of the classic Witch patron Hex Cantrips removed the temporary immunity clause of the spell, including Stoke the Heart, Shroud of Night, Evil Eye, and Nudge Fate. Is it intended that Discern Secrets still has that temporary immunity?
Also is it deliberate that the spell's effect allows an unlimited use Free Action to Seek, Sense Motive, or Recall Knowledge? Take-20 is a relic of a previous edition and even then it took a significant amount of time. Having an effective Take-20 for Seek or Sense Motive at Free Action speed appears to be an error.
Most of the classic Witch patron Hex Cantrips removed the temporary immunity clause of the spell, including Stoke the Heart, Shroud of Night, Evil Eye, and Nudge Fate. Is it intended that Discern Secrets still has that temporary immunity?
Mosquito Witch’s Buzzing Bites and The Unseen Broker’s Pact Broker also kept their temporary immunities, unfortunately.
|
Might as well tilt at this particular wind mill.
Please clarify what does and does not work for characters polymorphed into Battle Forms.
I think you need to be more specific about the edge cases you want solved.
Because "doesn't work" has never been a sufficient problem description.
People have gone into great detail on the issues in the past. Many, many times starting from during the playtest. Given that there is an approximately 110% or so chance that Paizo will continue to totally ignore the issue I'm disinclined to spend any time posting details or even finding links.
They've pretty obviously decided that they will NEVER address this and that they will NEVER publicly admit that fact.
But, for the record, many of the issues are NOT really "edge cases". Different rules interpretations significantly alter how effective pretty much any class other than druid will be (and can affect many druid builds as well)
And yet there are still arguments over the nuances of what these specific terms refer to, including confusion from different designer examples.
Simply saying "but the text is there" when people have clearly been having arguments over the text for years is silly.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And yet there are still arguments over the nuances of what these specific terms refer to, including confusion from different designer examples.
Simply saying "but the text is there" when people have clearly been having arguments over the text for years is silly.
Then those questions should be summarized in a thread and linked here, so the devs have a clear set of questions to answer. "Go look up the posts where people are confused" is in no way helpful to errata writers, especially when we know they're clearly overworked and errata isn't a priority.
It needs to be made as easy as possible, and this isn't it.
Most of the classic Witch patron Hex Cantrips removed the temporary immunity clause of the spell, including Stoke the Heart, Shroud of Night, Evil Eye, and Nudge Fate. Is it intended that Discern Secrets still has that temporary immunity?
Also is it deliberate that the spell's effect allows an unlimited use Free Action to Seek, Sense Motive, or Recall Knowledge? Take-20 is a relic of a previous edition and even then it took a significant amount of time. Having an effective Take-20 for Seek or Sense Motive at Free Action speed appears to be an error.
I think this spell is just worded poorly, and the intention of the spell is that the target(s) can immediately Seek, Sense Motive or Recall Knowledge as a free action once as they are targeted by the spell. If sustained afterwards, the spell just continues to grant the status bonus to those actions if the target(s) take those actions normally on their turns.
I definitely don't think RAI the spell is intended to allow the targets to be able to just constantly make free actions at any time. That would be way too disruptive.
Well sure. That might be the intent. But that isn't what is currently written.
Hence its inclusion in the request for errata.
The focus spells of the draconic bloodline should be revised so that if the sorcerer has a draconic exemplar, he use the exemplar's energy and area type as a barbarian would.
**TL;DR for Ease of Dev Use:** Because most Root Epithets trigger "after you Spark Transcendence" they often can't directly support ikon attacks and in one case with a Root Epithet that is supposed to be supporting melee attacks with one of its functions actually creates anti-synergy with HALF the melee weapon ikons. As it stands The Cunning and arguably The Brave are better with attacks gained from outside the class than the ones from in the class.
Suggestion: Just make all Root Epithets trigger "before or after" like The Deft does.
----
Some of the Exemplar's Root Epithets have awkward timings, chiefly The Cunning.
"after you Spark Transcendence" means you would do the effect after your Transcendence resolves. Since you can't Spark Transcendence more that once a turn that means that other than the one that reloads there's no Root Epithet that can directly support a special attack you gain from your class on the turn you invoke it. Not even The Cunning, which does a Create a Diversion or Feint.
The legendary duelist using his famed Gleaming Blade can't invoke the power of his legend to cannily strike using the signature attack of his signature weapon. Only the attack he does after that. Which is going to be at max MAP because Flowing Spirit Strike counts as two attacks. So the special attack of his weapon actually gets in the way of him using his class feature with the current timing.
Half the melee weapon ikons cause this to happen by the way. A feint class feature has anti-synergy with HALF THE MELEE IKONS.
Another awkwardness is in flavor. The only way any Root Epithet can directly support an ikon special attack is for The Brave to move you into a flank after you hit something or The Cunning to be invoked in a situation Create a Diversion lets you hide. Both need you to wait until next turn to use the weapon ikon attack.
Let me repeat that in another phrasing: the only way for a Root Epithet of the folk hero class to directly support the class' ikon special attacks is to move away from an opponent. One of them requires hiding to do it.
As it stands The Cunning and arguably The Brave both support special attacks from outside the class better than the ones within it.
Arguably the objectively correct way for Thogar the Cunning to get Gleaming Blade's attack and start his legend to prove himself worthy to lead his nomad tribe is to pick a different Weapon Ikon and take Dual Weapon Warrior to get the similar Double Slice.
Which unlike Flowing Spirit Strike he could use every turn and on the same turn as other ikons. With Double Slice he can Thousand Sandals (spark to Fetching Bangles), Feint, Double Slice. Next turn pull an enemy with Fetching Bangles (spark to Mortal Harvest axe), feint, Double Slice. Next turn Double Slice, Reap the Field for three full accuracy attacks and now this is the first time his Epithet whiffs.
Gleaming Blade's Flowing Spirit Strike can't do any of that and can only be done every other turn. So... would being able to Feint or move as a free action before you swing Flowing Spirit Strike be particularly overpowered? Not really IMO.
If it would be then other adjustments should be made so it doesn't rather than a feinting class ability being left working this wonkily with melee weapon ikons.