Community & Social Media Specialist
|
| 32 people marked this as a favorite. |
You all spoke, and we’re changing course! With the Pathfinder Spring Errata blog just around the corner, take a look at this note from our design team about how we're addressing the weakness rules!
We released a clarification on how to apply weaknesses and interpret “instance of damage” with the set of FAQs for the 2nd printing of Pathfinder Player Core. With the overall negative response to the clarification, we want to acknowledge the community's preference for something easier to apply, as well as the particular concerns about the possibility of repeatedly triggering the same weakness multiple times in a way that feels unintuitive and exploitable. We hear you about the wording of the text in Player Core being too vague for all but the simplest situations, so we’re looking at both an erratum to that text and a full clarification with a deeper level of detail for those who want it.
We’re removing the old clarification to avoid further confusion. For GMs looking for immediate guidance, here’s the general idea behind the upcoming version, which should cover most situations: Each Strike, spell, or other effect can trigger multiple weaknesses, but each weakness can be triggered only once. All the damage being done as a part of the effect, regardless of its source, is combined before processing the immunities, weaknesses, and resistances. For example, a Spellstrike using thunderstrike and a shock weapon would combine all the electricity damage. For resistances, you still apply only the highest resistance if more than one resistance would apply to a single source and type of damage. This primarily happens with weapons that have a special material; a Strike with a cold iron spear against a creature with resistance 10 to cold iron and resistance 5 to piercing would reduce the damage by 10. Resistance to "all damage" still works as written, but will be reviewed during the process for consistency with any other revisions.
In reading your responses, we are seeing that many players already apply the rules this way, so hopefully the change will make the rules consistent with a large number of ongoing games. We want to allow creativity, preparedness, and item choice to be able to make a big difference in the right situation, but we don’t want players to feel like they need to stack multiple sets of damage of the same type to maximize weakness triggers.
We’re planning to issue the erratum with the Spring errata batch, most of which will cover Player Core 2. We hope to have the clarification then, but that wording takes a lot of workshopping. Immunities, weaknesses, and resistances are pretty easy to apply in most situations, but their potential complexity and the number of possibilities they need to cover at the extremes can be quite a tangle, so we thank you in advance for your patience
Please let us know what you think about this too in the comments!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hm. I wasn't expecting the need to combine damage from multiple actions of an activity for weaknesses and resistance without an explicit note to do so. I don't think that's necessary for most activities that don't currently do so, such as Spellstrike and Stab and Blast. In the preview given, it feels fine for Spellstrike with thunderstrike and a shock rune to trigger a weakness twice, personally, but not a shock rune and Barbarian draconic rage damage on a single Strike.
It's also worth pointing out that a couple clarifications were made since the posting of the errata: mature animal companions can fly with their one action, and firework technician received written updates to make it more inline with the intent.
Regardless, I'm glad that the team is on top of this and communicating! Thank you to both you, Maya, and the design team.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think there's a bit of a sentiment brewing that a lot of recent erratum (see this), and changes (Psychic nerfs, especially to archetype) have been highly reactive more to what people *think* is strong (ala Imaginary Weapon Magus) than what is actually noteworthy in seen table experience, is this something worth commenting on in y'alls eyes?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Good to see this walked back promptly. The new design goal seems much more sensible.
Could you please tell me where I should direct the pitchfork-wielding mob to get the remastered Rogue's totally unneeded success to crit success upgrade on Fortitude saves reverted?
This ^
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's good to see this get responded to so quickly. I know one friend of mine who will be particularly happy.
Think the resistance example is still bit confusing. Nothing to my knowledge resistance special material, special material is usually the exception to resistances to physical damage. So the example should never show up.
I think a low resistance physical and a larger resistance slashing would be a good example that can show up in play easily.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Awesome! The encounter balance is no longer in danger. My fears as a DM are mollified; back to enjoying the system!
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Great news overall! It felt like the clarification stood somewhat in violation of one of the core design principles of pf2 where it rejects vertically stacking bonuses in that way.
The primary thing that was an issue for me was how there was no distinction made between sources that "added" or were "extra damage" to the strike (see vicious swing or cascade) versus instances that were separate and happened on their own without adding to the strike itself in text (Flame wisp, spell strike).
Whatever new clarification comes I think has to keep this in mind to preserve some of the advantages features and spells like flame wisp held over simple energy typed damage boosters like dragon rage, energized spark, energy mutagen, etc. The way to look at these two is similar to how we would compare status vs circumstance bonuses, ideally you want one of each, but stacking multiple status bonuses (dragon rage and energy mutagen in this example) shouldn't give you a linearly multiplied payoff.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It was fun to think about while it lasted.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The whole controversy seemed like a tempest in a teapot to me. The (now-removed) errata seemed like in would happen in edge cases, requires an uncommonly high degree of coordination between players and foreknowledge of enemies.
To my understanding, some of the more dramatic issues would have been: triggering resistance multiple times per attack (if you had multiple sources of the same damage type in your attack), the monk ruling making flurry of blows worse than just doing single attacks, and finally the existence of a number of player-accessible items, spells, and abilities that put weaknesses onto enemies. That last one means you don't need foreknowledge, you just apply the chosen weakness onto whatever enemies you attack, and then trigger it as much as you want.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Awesome!
So my understanding now is that all damage of the same type across the entire action (and even its subordinate actions) gets added together before applying immunities, weaknesses, and resistances.
So how will it work with weakness/resistance to traits? Particularly things like water and holy, as those aren't tied to damage types like fire and force.
The rescinded clarification tried to divorce the holy trait from the rest of that Strike, presumably to prevent holy weakness/resistance from being triggered by every type of damage the holy weapon dealt.
This new guidance seems to indicate that holy still shouldn't trigger it more than once, but it would be nice to know which damage the weakness/resistance applies to. The cold iron slashing damage? The spirit damage? And what about those area spells with the holy trait and two damage types?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I appreciate the team actively listening to feedback. It's an important driver of the trust needed to invest in the game for the long haul.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What do I think? I think this sounds great! It feels more intuitive for an action or an activity to only trigger each weakness and resistance that a creature has once, with weakness or resistance to all applying once per damage type.
I'm also wondering how it should work when an effect would encounter resistance to non-magical types of damage. For instance, a +1 flaming sword with a nonmagical fire buff being used against a monster with resistance 5 to non-magical fire.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is fantastic to hear, thank you for the quick response! I'm very glad to see that particular bit of errata redone in this way, and so promptly too. A big thank you to the devs, and to you for the excellent communication, Maya!
Does this mean that a flaming sword could potentially do less damage against a creature with Resist Fire 10 than a creature immune to fire?
Say the hit is 9 slashing and 3 fire, combined they are 12 damage less the 10 fire resistance is 2 damage.
If I understand immunity correctly the same hit would do 9 damage since the immunity would apply before combining damage.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know that this thread's informal message from the design team isn't polished like the formal errata text is getting workshopped to be,
But I just feel obligated to echo Xethik and Nisviik's question about the team message's single sentence on Spellstrike. To my understanding, the status quo since 2019 has been that the majority of GMs have interpreted the RAW text of abilities like spellstrike ammunition, Eldritch Shot, and Spellstrike to consist of a pair of two non-combined effects (Cast a Spell, then Strike), just like Sudden Charge consists of three unrelated effects (a Stride, a Stride, and Strike). The "Spellstrike specifics" sidebar even reads, "The spell takes effect after the Strike deals damage".
That is, if you Spellstrike to stab a skeleton with your sword and telekinetic projectile a shard of glass at it, I believe the majority of GMs have always interpreted resistance once to the Strike, then applied resistance once to the spell. But the OP's message seems to describe "combining the two different attacks' damage for resistances and weaknesses", even though Spellstrike doesn't have the combining instructions that Flurry of Blows has. I'm reading that the OP's example would seem to buff Spellstrike to power through the skeleton's resistance (and nerf Spellstrike's previously common interpretation against weaknesses).
|
|
Does this mean that a flaming sword could potentially do less damage against a creature with Resist Fire 10 than a creature immune to fire?
Say the hit is 9 slashing and 3 fire, combined they are 12 damage less the 10 fire resistance is 2 damage.
If I understand immunity correctly the same hit would do 9 damage since the immunity would apply before combining damage.
The OP isn't saying that. No matter what, the hit does 9 slashing and 0 fire.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to admit, I’m confused now. The essence of the Magus has always been triggering a weakness twice. For example, using a cantrip like Ignition and entering Arcane Cascade, then on the next round using Spellstrike with Ignition — this has always triggered a creature’s weakness (like a troll’s) twice.
In Crunch McDabbles’ video, he explains this in a very clear and visually didactic way so people can understand how it works.
It doesn’t seem correct to me for the damages to be merged into a single instance. The spell damage and the weapon’s physical damage should be treated as separate instances of damage.
Speaking of things that were changed and really should be fixed: in the past, the Magus could use Recall Knowledge on the first turn and cast a cantrip, and then on the second round, with their first action, already enter Arcane Cascade. Multiple errata have made this no longer function, which feels like an unnecessary restriction.
At my own tables, I’ll continue playing with weaknesses triggering only once — applying only the highest weakness.
Another thing that bothered me was the examples given. Zombies would have been a much better example, since they’re recurring enemies. The GM needs to know that only a single weakness should be applied if, for example, a cleric uses Infuse Vitality.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does this mean that a flaming sword could potentially do less damage against a creature with Resist Fire 10 than a creature immune to fire?
Say the hit is 9 slashing and 3 fire, combined they are 12 damage less the 10 fire resistance is 2 damage.
Given the example listed in the rule, I don't think that is the intent.
All the damage being done as a part of the effect, regardless of its source, is combined before processing the immunities, weaknesses, and resistances. For example, a Spellstrike using thunderstrike and a shock weapon would combine all the electricity damage.
Strangeness of combining Strike and Spell damage from Spellstrike aside, the intent is to group the damage by damage type before applying weaknesses and resistances. Not to combine all of the damage and then apply the weaknesses and resistances to the entire total.
So in my standard example of Blazing Armory sword, Flaming Rune, and Energy Mutagen (fire) - all of the fire damage would be combined and be reduced by resistance once.
If it was a regular sword with a Flaming Rune ad Energy Mutagen (fire) - then still only the fire damage would be combined and reduced by the resistance. The slashing damage from the sword would only have any slashing or physical resistance applied.
This is great to hear! The rough preview clarification makes it a lot more clear how Thaumaturge's weaknesses work, and how being prepared with the real weakness is still advantageous for them (being able to stack that with a personal antithesis).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm glad you're revisiting this. While we need better clarity of some of corner cases, I don't think anyone expected such a complete shift of the meta in a way that felt antithetical to most of the rest of the system design.
Please, though, focus on actually defining the term(s) first. Then give a couple of examples showing the definition and procedure in action. The now-rolled back errata acknowledged the lack of a definition, but still didn't attempt to provide one, only to define by example in a way that still left about as much confusion as before.
|
|
You all spoke, and we’re changing course! With the Pathfinder Spring Errata blog just around the corner, take a look at this note from our design team about how we're addressing the weakness rules!
...We released a clarification on how to apply weaknesses and interpret “instance of damage” with the set of FAQs for the 2nd printing of Pathfinder Player Core. With the overall negative response to the clarification, we want to acknowledge the community's preference for something easier to apply, as well as the particular concerns about the possibility of repeatedly triggering the same weakness multiple times in a way that feels unintuitive and exploitable. We hear you about the wording of the text in Player Core being too vague for all but the simplest situations, so we’re looking at both an erratum to that text and a full clarification with a deeper level of detail for those who want it.
We’re removing the old clarification to avoid further confusion. For GMs looking for immediate guidance, here’s the general idea behind the upcoming version, which should cover most situations: Each Strike, spell, or other effect can trigger multiple weaknesses, but each weakness can be triggered only once. All the damage being done as a part of the effect, regardless of its source, is combined before processing the immunities, weaknesses, and resistances. For example, a Spellstrike using thunderstrike and a shock weapon would combine all the electricity damage. For resistances, you still apply only the highest resistance if more than one resistance would apply to a single source and type of damage. This primarily happens with weapons that have a special material; a Strike with a cold iron spear against a creature with resistance 10 to cold iron and resistance 5 to piercing would reduce the damage by 10. Resistance to "all damage" still works as written, but will be reviewed during the process for consistency with any other revisions.
In reading your responses, we are seeing that
While the team are on it, can you please add a clarification for combining persistent damage? If I have critical specialization Knife and a wounding rune, the 1d6 persistent from the specialization is lost because the wounding rune does 2x (1d6 persistent) on a critical?
And what's the rule to chose what's the bigger persistent damage when dealing with something like 2d10 ( min 2, max 20, avg 11 ) and 5d4 ( min 5, max 20, avg 12.5 )
I look forward to seeing the new method. The stated goals sound great.
Thank you Maya for sharing this!
I would love it if the deeper dive FAQ clarification makes sure to address whether nonmagical damage gets to stack in with magical damage in the case of resistances like the resist all that ghosts have.
I also think it might be good to look specifically at the spell flame wisp and say whether something like that is definitely a separate instance of damage, or if it stacks in with the attack that triggered its damage.
Lastly, and perhaps most messily, it kind of seems now like this new direction is going to make all the text in abilities and spells like force barrage unnecessary, as that will now be the default way that damage works. Will the Errata change or erase that text to make it look less like a special exception rather than just the default way damage is calculated?
And alternately, will abilities that don't combine damage in this way now need to explicitly have that written into their text, whereas before it was the other way around?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The ability to trigger weakness or resistance a bunch of times within an attack was odd... but I feel ilke this is a slightly overcorrection in the other way by having unrelated elements combine, but disconnected sources, like the spell and strike in spellstrike or the damage from flame wisp (which seems phrased to be a separate thing) could still trigger weakness multiple times.
The spellstrike example is especially odd because strictly speaking they're not even the same source (one is spell damage, the other is a strike).
Is this going to mean that every activity that includes multiple attacks should treat combining weakness/resistance all flurry as a general rule?
Or is this more unique to Spellstrike because of the underlying idea that you're delivering the spell through the strike?
TBH I had always thought being good at double tapping weaknesses with spells and stuff like arcane cascade was an intended benefit to being a magus, but eh.
Thank you so much for the further clarifications on weakness and resistance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We’re planning to issue the erratum with the Spring errata batch, most of which will cover Player Core 2.
Oracle errata coming soon-ish after all?
Awesome! Thx for the information.
Back to regular then :)
Glad to see Paizo listening to player feedback and changing course on this.
It's awesome that serious thought and effort are applied to the issue!
Interesting to see what will come out.
And I'd reiterate a lot of already mentioned things:
- strange that all activities would now seem to work like Flurry of Blows? Even if it's just two Strikes at the same target (but without old mention of combining damage)?
- in general: the term 'effect' was used a bit unclearly. Yes, everything which results from an activity is an effect. But can a big effect from an activity contain separate smaller effects? Like, Strike and spell from a Spellstrike? Would damage from all smaller (but distinct, like runes, spells, items, other external effects) effects always combine or would there be exceptions?
- when one type of damage is combined how this would work with weaknesses/resistances which depend on other qualities or traits of the damage which aren't its type. Like magical/non-magical damage with ghosts. Maybe there are more exotic examples. Maybe it's possible to mix area and non-area damage in one effect.
- btw, maybe unrelated, but more accurate description for persistent damage also would help: is persistent damage from area effect of area type itself (and would trigger area weakness)? Or persistent damage is always just itself, a condition which either exists or not.
Does persistent damage inherit qualities or traits of effect that applies it? Area for example. Or holiness/unholiness.
- With holiness/unholiness and other traits and qualities that aren't damage type. They trigger once. Ok. What do they attach to? Nested effects in activity? The whole activity? Meaning, for activities which didn't combine damage before: two holy Strikes in one - two holy triggers or one? Archetype Spellstrike with a holy/sanctified spell from a sanctified character: holy Strike plus a holy spell - two holy triggers or one?
These are more or less the same questions I asked myself after reading the news and trying to explain to my group what was going on.
I hope the Spellstrike thing is just a wrongly picked example.