Marketing & Media Specialist
|
Hello 'Finders! The Spring 2026 Errata blog is here! Errata FAQ pages have also been updated!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the alchemist section of the errata there seems to be an implication that has sparked some controversy.
The mutagenist field vials imposed too much of an action cost, especially since you would likely need to spend 2 actions per round to suppress your mutagen’s drawbacks repeatedly. The benefit has a new duration, changing the first sentence as follows. “You can drink the contents of one your versatile vials to suppress the drawback you take from one mutagen currently affecting you for 1 minute.”
Currently, Versatile vials are stored in the alchemist toolkit which specifies that you can draw your tools and vials as part of the actions that use them, in the past, this was basically only quick alchemy, however with the remaster, the field vials themselves were given actions that use them.
If the vials need to be drawn independently to be able to use the field benefits as it is implied in the errata, that should probably be clarified explicitly somewhere and made so quick alchemy is the exception or have it be defined in its rules.
As it stands, the alchemist toolkit lets you draw as part of an action that uses versatile vials, whether that is quick alchemy or a field benefit action.
With regards to the clarification on equipping and unequipping shields, where does that leave options that explicitly manipulate the action economy of shields, like Lightning Swap or the Viking Dedication's Second Shield feat?
As written, the clarification forbids you from putting away an equipped Shield with Lightning Swap, and also doesn't allow you to equip the shield when you "draw a weapon and a shield" as specified in the feat. It also forbids you from removing/dropping/putting away a broken but not destroyed shield while using Second Shield and prevents you from using Raise a Shield afterward without spending additional actions because the feat doesn't equip the shield. (I assume that you don't need to unequip a destroyed shield, because I assume a destroyed item ceases to exist as far as determining whether it's worn or equipped is concerned.)
It also makes shields built for throwing, such as the Razor Disc, Meteor Shield, and shields with the Shield Throw trait largely pointless. Even if those shields have a Returning rune etched to them, they won't be equipped when they return to your hand, so you would have to use four actions each turn to make use of them as both a weapon and a shield. (Unequip shield, throw shield, equip shield, raise shield) You also wouldn't be able to unequip the shield to throw it if something was in your other hand, and you wouldn't be able to equip it when it returns to you in that instance, either.
That is, of course, only true if I interpret those abilities exactly as they're written, word-for-word. Perhaps the intent is that options like the Second Shield and Lightning Swap feats are intended to include equipping/unequipping shields properly as part of their action(s), and that shields built for throwing are intended to be re-equipped for free on return. Either way, I would appreciate if we could receieve additional clarification on the shield errata with respect to abilities like this, or for the errata to be altered in some fashion to better reflect the intent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I think that is the correct reading, it would only apply for using field benefits with your standard, capped, 2/10 minute rechargeable (not infinite via Quick Alchemy Quick Vial action) Versatile Vials. While it's not impossible for a mutagenist to think it's a good idea to spend a single action and 1 VV in combat to get rid of a mutagen penalty for one round, it's much more likely you're reserving VVs for Create Consumable and never doing the 2a investment of Quick Vial on free research vial uses.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, so close on the Alchemist changes.
The original Healing Bomb was a bomb Strike for a good reason, and changing it to a 20ft Interact is worse than the pre-master version that still healed on miss.
Now, Alchemists cannot boost the range with Far Lobber, etc, and will be hard stuck at 20ft with no range increment, yikes.
But more importantly, it breaks the combo with Quick Bomber. Previously, one could chuck a freshly made Healing Bomb as if it were any other bomb, in the same action used to Quick Alch it.
To rephrase, Healing Bomb used to be 1A total, now it will always require 2A. Doubling the action cost is about as "yikes" of a problem as it gets. The monkey's paw really curled a finger on that one.
I'm also a bit worried about Toxicologist getting to use their immunity override with any poison trait item, as that means Skunk Bombing ghosts, constructs, etc, is the go-to strategy, but only for Toxicologists.
Toxicologist might have jumped up well above its peers with the action economy changes and permission to go nuts with all poison trait items. (and because of the 'nerf')*
Tox is also the only Alchemist that has means to alter the effective DC of their imposed saves thanks to feats like Pinpoint Poisoner.
Revivifying Mutagen got a huge buff. Now that the item level of the mutagen is irrelevant, we should expect to see a lot more Alchs taking the feat and loading a Collar of the Shifting Spider with L1 mutagens at 4gp a pop.
Happy to see the changes, and interested to watch how they shake out with more time.
*(and brace yourselves for Bombers crying "nerf!" due to the Sticky Bomb clarification. I did what I could to explain that it used only the item's number to folks, but yeah. The sooner that bandaid got ripped off, the better, imo.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With regards to the clarification on equipping and unequipping shields, where does that leave options that explicitly manipulate the action economy of shields, like Lightning Swap or the Viking Dedication's Second Shield feat?
As written, the clarification forbids you from putting away an equipped Shield with Lightning Swap, and also doesn't allow you to equip the shield when you "draw a weapon and a shield" as specified in the feat. It also forbids you from removing/dropping/putting away a broken but not destroyed shield while using Second Shield and prevents you from using Raise a Shield afterward without spending additional actions because the feat doesn't equip the shield.
It also makes shields built for throwing, such as the Razor Disc, Meteor Shield, and shields with the Shield Throw trait largely pointless. Even if those shields have a Returning rune etched to them, they won't be equipped when they return to your hand, so you would have to use four actions each turn to make use of them as both a weapon and a shield. (Unequip shield, throw shield, equip shield, raise shield) You also wouldn't be able to unequip the shield to throw it if something was in your other hand, and you wouldn't be able to equip it when it returns to you in that instance, either.
That is, of course, only true if I interpret those abilities exactly as they're written, word-for-word. Perhaps the intent is that options like the Second Shield and Lightning Swap feats are intended to include equipping/unequipping shields properly as part of their action(s), and that shields built for throwing are intended to be re-equipped for free on return. Either way, I would appreciate if we could receieve additional clarification on the shield errata with respect to abilities like this, or for the errata to be altered in some fashion to better reflect the intent.
Those throwing shields also tend to not technically work with a Returning rune at all, without some houserule. You get outcomes like this:
1. Meteor shield is a shield, not a weapon. It cannot have weapon runes.
2. An attached shield boss on the the meteor shield can take weapon runes, but a shield boss is not a Thrown weapon, so it can't take a Returning rune.
3. The Shield Throw trait on the meteor shield accounts for making a thrown attack, but doesn't have any rules that bridge the gap to make the shield boss be a thrown weapon to put the Returning rune on.
Totally separate from this, Investigators also have a new problem with thrown weapons.
When you make this substitution, you can add your Intelligence modifier to your attack roll instead of your Strength or Dexterity modifier, provided you Strike with an agile or finesse melee weapon, an agile or finesse unarmed attack, a ranged weapon (which must be agile or finesse if it's a melee weapon with the thrown trait), or a sap.
Replace the final sentence with the following two sentences. “When you make this substitution, you can add your Intelligence modifier to your attack roll instead of your Strength or Dexterity modifier. If you Strike with a melee weapon, melee unarmed attack, or thrown weapon, it must have the agile or finesse trait to benefit from the substitution.”
The errata claims that this does not change the weapons that the INT substitution applies to, but Thrown weapons that are NOT normally melee, like javelins or bombs, have been excluded.
Those throwing shields also tend to not technically work with a Returning rune at all, without some houserule.
You're right, I'd been operating under the mistaken assumption that the Shield Throw trait explicitly allowed for the etching of weapon runes, but there's nothing that says anything about it affecting runes that can be etched at all.
I can't say I know at this point whether it would be better to reword the recent clarification and add clarifications for affected feats and for how throwing shields are intended to work, or if it would be better to remove the clarification and leave it to GM interpretation. I don't know other people's tables well enough to know if there's a lot of contention about shield action economy; all I can say is I've never once questioned the idea that a shield is equipped as part of an action that draws it (probably by slipping an arm into an already properly-adjusted strap).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pages 119, 121, 126, and 127: The monk feats granting qi spells can be taken multiple times. In Qi Spells, Advanced Qi Spells, Master Qi Spells, and Grandmaster Qi Spells, add the following Special line. “Special You can select this feat more than once, choosing a different spell each time.”
KermitFlailingArms.Gif
I can finally stop asking about this!
"likely need to" is probably refering to Quick Alchemy a Field Vial instead of using one of the stored VVs in the kit, since it is kinda expensive (in resources) to use one of your normal VVs just for the Field benefit.In the alchemist section of the errata there seems to be an implication that has sparked some controversy.
The mutagenist field vials imposed too much of an action cost, especially since you would likely need to spend 2 actions per round to suppress your mutagen’s drawbacks repeatedly. The benefit has a new duration, changing the first sentence as follows. “You can drink the contents of one your versatile vials to suppress the drawback you take from one mutagen currently affecting you for 1 minute.”
Currently, Versatile vials are stored in the alchemist toolkit which specifies that you can draw your tools and vials as part of the actions that use them, in the past, this was basically only quick alchemy, however with the remaster, the field vials themselves were given actions that use them.
If the vials need to be drawn independently to be able to use the field benefits as it is implied in the errata, that should probably be clarified explicitly somewhere and made so quick alchemy is the exception or have it be defined in its rules.
As it stands, the alchemist toolkit lets you draw as part of an action that uses versatile vials, whether that is quick alchemy or a field benefit action.
Possibly! But it still did reignite the debate on the topic of VVials being free to draw from the toolkit with their actions. Just hoping we get clarification that it was nothing but a quick example.
Nice, Alchemist changes look amazing!
In what way? Making them TOTALLY useless?
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
*(and brace yourselves for Bombers crying "nerf!" due to the Sticky Bomb clarification. I did what I could to explain that it used only the item's number to folks, but yeah. The sooner that bandaid got ripped off, the better, imo.)
Yeah I'd definitely call that a nerf. What's the biggest splash damage on any (common) bomb? This is a level 8 feat. At the time you get it, you're throwing bombs that do 2 splash damage, so it earns you 2 persistent damage. Wow. But by level 17 or so, your bombs do... 4 splash damage?
*(and brace yourselves for Bombers crying "nerf!" due to the Sticky Bomb clarification. I did what I could to explain that it used only the item's number to folks, but yeah. The sooner that bandaid got ripped off, the better, imo.)Yeah I'd definitely call that a nerf. What's the biggest splash damage on any (common) bomb? This is a level 8 feat. At the time you get it, you're throwing bombs that do 2 splash damage, so it earns you 2 persistent damage. Wow. But by level 17 or so, your bombs do... 4 splash damage?
That's just how passive damage boosts feats in pf2 scale dude. Sticky doesn't cost an action or a resource.
There are a few bombs built around dealing more than normal splash iirc, looks like Crystal Shards does 4 splash at L4. Which is basically a 1d8. That's a good passive boost.
Gravity Weapon is a focus spell that takes 1FP and 1A to buff up for 1 minute. That adds 2 --> 4 --> 6, etc damage to the first Strike each round. And it's a status bonus that can run into stacking issues.
Even when using normal 2 splash bombs at L3, Sticky Bomb is still a good feat.
It's just not going to literally double your damage, lol. Like come on guys, we all knew that Paizo would not let a feat do that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*(and brace yourselves for Bombers crying "nerf!" due to the Sticky Bomb clarification. I did what I could to explain that it used only the item's number to folks, but yeah. The sooner that bandaid got ripped off, the better, imo.)Yeah I'd definitely call that a nerf. What's the biggest splash damage on any (common) bomb? This is a level 8 feat. At the time you get it, you're throwing bombs that do 2 splash damage, so it earns you 2 persistent damage. Wow. But by level 17 or so, your bombs do... 4 splash damage?That's just how passive damage boosts feats in pf2 scale dude. Sticky doesn't cost an action or a resource.
There are a few bombs built around dealing more than normal splash iirc, looks like Crystal Shards does 4 splash at L4. Which is basically a 1d8. That's a good passive boost.
Gravity Weapon is a focus spell that takes 1FP and 1A to buff up for 1 minute. That adds 2 --> 4 --> 6, etc damage to the first Strike each round. And it's a status bonus that can run into stacking issues.
Even when using normal 2 splash bombs at L3, Sticky Bomb is still a good feat.
It's just not going to literally double your damage, lol. Like come on guys, we all knew that Paizo would not let a feat do that.
This would be relevant if you ignore that runes are basically useless to alchemists, this was a way to bridge that gap. It’s not like the alchemist was an OP class. Now it’s honestly not worth even playing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm perplexed at the idea that the resistance to all damage, a single, very complete and very easy to understand paragraph of three sentences, was somehow incomprehensible or even a little difficult to understand. I'm even more baffled at how, despite undoing the ridiculous first attempt at this, and correctly so, due to all of the backlash, Paizo has decided to carry forward with, somehow, an even poorer version of this ill-thought change.
There are entire categories of creatures and major class features balanced around how resistance to all damage currently works, and this will be a significantly detriment to all of them.
This is decidedly -not- how resistance to all damage worked previously. In fact, here's the full text:
"It's possible to have resistance to all damage. When an effect deals damage of multiple types and you have resistance to all damage, apply the resistance to each type of damage separately. If an attack would deal 7 slashing damage and 4 fire damage, resistance 5 to all damage would reduce the slashing damage to 2 and negate the fire damage entirely."
In what universe does this translate to the absolutely inane concept that's been concocted here? Did you have an LLM explain this to you and then spit out the meandering and bizarrely inaccurate 'clarification' that's been penned?
I suppose that, on top of all the price changes, this is even more reason to stop purchasing or following any Paizo products, considering that the current team clearly has no idea what they're doing. Alas, I'll have to find a workaround to prevent this change from being enabled in Foundry.
“We hear your feedback and decided to completely ignore it and make it even worse” ~ Paizo
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This would be relevant if you ignore that runes are basically useless to alchemists, this was a way to bridge that gap. It’s not like the alchemist was an OP class. Now it’s honestly not worth even playing.
RaW is RaW.
Claiming that a class is low damage does not justify cheating the rules to make feats deal more damage dude.
If you don't like Alchemist, houserule and homebrew to make it fun. That's the point of it being a ttrpg.
I would still recommend other changes to improve Alch over buffing Sticky specifically.
I'd start with adding something like a Bomber's Ring item that you etch with potency & property runes and conveys them to bombs or something.
I'm still disappointed (and a lil salty) that Paizo changed the Alch Goggles and removed the item bonus to bomb throws, that was a needed mechanic to make low level bombs usable.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This would be relevant if you ignore that runes are basically useless to alchemists, this was a way to bridge that gap. It’s not like the alchemist was an OP class. Now it’s honestly not worth even playing.RaW is RaW.
Claiming that a class is low damage does not justify cheating the rules to make feats deal more damage dude.
Before the errata, the feat was ambiguous. The other interpretation wasn't cheating, just a different interpretation.
In fact, based on the "ambiguous rules" principle, it was a very reasonable one, because the (post-errata) alternative is so bad that you can believe it to be too bad to be true.
The errata firmly makes a choice on how to resolve the ambiguity and IMO a bad choice. Paizo drastically overvalues persistent damage from the player-side. Focus firing enemies is generally one of the best tactics for various reasons, but it means persistent damage rarely lasts more than 1-3 rounds. For persistent damage to be close to as good as regular damage, it needs to be pretty high.
If you don't like Alchemist, houserule and homebrew to make it fun. That's the point of it being a ttrpg.
I would still recommend other changes to improve Alch over buffing Sticky specifically.
I'd start with adding something like a Bomber's Ring item that you etch with potency & property runes and conveys them to bombs or something.
Runes seem a bit out of place for alchemist, and persistent damage fits the theme. But if the class needs a damage boost (and it probably does) it would be better if it's a class feature than a feat. Your base chassis should get you the numbers you need and feats are for variety.
What would make Sticky Bombs a lot cooler is if it caused the persistent damage to also apply to creatures splashed by the bomb. That would make it more compatible with focus fire tactics, because then you're doing multi-target damage over time while focusing on one main target.
I'm still disappointed (and a lil salty) that Paizo changed the Alch Goggles and removed the item bonus to bomb throws, that was a needed mechanic to make low level bombs usable.
Why would you use low level bombs now that you can just make higher level ones without having to buy new formulas?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can see the paid instigators are at it again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So wait, who actually asked for this change to Resist All and complained about it? It looks like you’ve once again taken a non-issue people were happy with and done surgery with a chainsaw to it to solve a problem that didn’t exist. Now a ton of feats that give Resist All are extremely overleveled if not outright dead, Ghost Touch runes are way less valuable, etc, etc.
If you’re going to make huge errata changes to core parts of the rules, please at least put out a survey or *something* first instead of the current policy of “do whatever and then wait to see if the backlash makes us have to change it or if it’s quiet enough to ignore”.
The rest of the errata looks largely fine to great, so there’s really no reason you couldn’t have had an easy win there for most of us without this…
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*(and brace yourselves for Bombers crying "nerf!" due to the Sticky Bomb clarification. I did what I could to explain that it used only the item's number to folks, but yeah. The sooner that bandaid got ripped off, the better, imo.)Yeah I'd definitely call that a nerf. What's the biggest splash damage on any (common) bomb? This is a level 8 feat. At the time you get it, you're throwing bombs that do 2 splash damage, so it earns you 2 persistent damage. Wow. But by level 17 or so, your bombs do... 4 splash damage?That's just how passive damage boosts feats in pf2 scale dude. Sticky doesn't cost an action or a resource.
There are a few bombs built around dealing more than normal splash iirc, looks like Crystal Shards does 4 splash at L4. Which is basically a 1d8. That's a good passive boost.
Gravity Weapon is a focus spell that takes 1FP and 1A to buff up for 1 minute. That adds 2 --> 4 --> 6, etc damage to the first Strike each round. And it's a status bonus that can run into stacking issues.
Even when using normal 2 splash bombs at L3, Sticky Bomb is still a good feat.
It's just not going to literally double your damage, lol. Like come on guys, we all knew that Paizo would not let a feat do that.
It absolutely costs a resource: you can only have one additive. On something like a major alchemist fire at level 20, this is 4 damage.
Debilitating Bomb is right there and is DRASTICALLY better for the same additive slot now. Sticky Bomb is a dead feat at this point and it's not a good decision to have it just ignore all the field benefits.
It's not like Alchemist is some powerhouse damage class that needed reining in.
Bomber was already in a good spot, while the clarification hurts, it doesn't change that.
It makes Sticky Bomb a dead feat as it's not in the same league as Debilitating Bomb, now.
Healing bomb overall I'd take it as a buff as well. While not working with quick bomber is a downgrade, not missing is a bigger upgrade. When i try to heal someone, not healing them is a bigger issue (to the point of assurance medicine for battle medicine being so popular). Losing both a vial and an action on a crit-failed strike is much worse than having to plan that it'll always cost an action.
Healing bomb is still nerfed in the remaster. They should have just reverted this fully back to the legacy version. It's been improved from "unusably awful unless the GM uses a sidebar suggestion as a rule" to "actually usable at close range", but it's still not good vs the original version due to the lack of range and lack of interaction with Quick Bomber.
Like, at 20' range you could just take Medic and Doctors Visitation instead. That'll get you healing in less actions and won't use up VVs to do it.
As other's have said, resist/all was easy.
Personally, I'm going to mentally edit any resist/all to now be resist/any. It feels like it better describes the new rules.
Yeah the Software Developer in me agrees. "Resist Any" is what this does.
They can't really rename it at this point without an errata to effectively every book (the remaster was the time to do that), but for anyone confused about how it works now, "Resist Any" is clearer I think.
The new rule will take some getting used to. I'm mostly just surprised at the change after so long, and unhappy that my wife's Thaumaturge is eating a nerf at level 17 into Spore War, heh. But maybe they felt these abilities sometimes resisting over double their standard amount of damage was just too much.
Before the errata, the feat was ambiguous. The other interpretation wasn't cheating, just a different interpretation.
Sticky Bomb genuinely was not ambiguous if you know the wider norms of how pf2 is written. It was written exactly in line with how Paizo wrote everything else. The ONLY part that was abnormal was that bombs don't have "number of damage dice" to use as a key value;
if you swap "the bomb's splash damage" for that, it would match 1:1 with many other effects. That's as unambiguous as it gets for trying to decrypt pf2 abilities, lol.Paizo is very careful about things keying off the 'final' values like "... of your attack..."
versus keying off 'base' numbers like "... the weapon's number of weapon damage dice ..."
And wording like Expanded Splash giving a status bonus to the throw's damage was just 100% cannot affect the bomb's damage, full stop.
There is just no way to apply consistent logic and conclude that would interact with Sticky. A bonus is a separate number that is adjacent to that base value, rofl.
Like, I just cannot phrase this differently; anyone claiming a status bonus would edit the bomb's number to boost Sticky was just lying about what a status bonus does, or was repeating someone else's lie.
This minor hullabaloo around Sticky doubling your damage genuinely is a textbook case to study for understanding how collective delusions form and are perpetuated. Where the desire for the tiniest little lie becomes "truth." But anyone stumbling in blind without that social conditioning has the chance to have a "wait a minute..." moment.
Seriously, swap the context from Alchemist to another class like Necromancer.
How would someone claiming caster feat that passively doubles your damage via multiplying with other boosts be treated?
It makes Sticky Bomb a dead feat as it's not in the same league as Debilitating Bomb, now.
Sticky is still top tier any time a foe has a weakness, and Alchemists can create (small) weaknesses via Inflammation Flask as a fallback.
Debilitating is now actually competitive. Even Healing Bomb is really good on Bombers, as they are the most likely to keep both hands open for Double Brew, and the action compression of Quick Bomber + Bomb throw means H Bomb offers them a pseudo-1A ranged heal. The 20ft range limit is really, really crummy though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why would you use low level bombs now that you can just make higher level ones without having to buy new formulas?
It is getting close to becoming "lost ways of the old ones" at this point, but with how big the level gap is btwn the L3 and L12 bombs, that static gp cost of the 2dx bombs meant that carrying a stack of hard crafted bombs was/is a good idea.
You would be 1 die of damage behind, but your to hit would be on par thanks to Alch Goggles, and the on-hit debuff effect would be the exact same.
At the time, Adv Alch didn't get scaling DC, so you'd pick options like Dread Ampoule, Bottled Lightning, etc.
Ghost Charges still are another I'd super recommend to carry to this day, as getting out some positive splash damage of any number is exactly the thing to keep in your bandolier just in case.
Now that your number of alch items is so much lower after the remaster, this idea kinda actually got more helpful in some ways, but the loss of the Alch Goggle attack bonus seriously obscures it from the possibility space. As does the "but I could just wait for VV recharge" temptation.
Plus, Skunk Bombs got added in Trsr Vlt, and they are nuts-o powerful, but are one of the DC bombs, further entrenching the idea to disregard "hard crafted" alch bombs as valid tools.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I support nerfing champion’s reaction to resist any but it should have just been champion’s reaction. And then you can have resist any as a category for new abilities.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like, I just cannot phrase this differently; anyone claiming a status bonus would edit the bomb's number for Sticky is just lying about what a status bonus does, or repeating someone else's lie.Don't assume malice where just genuinely having a different reading of an issue will suffice.
It's not about malice, and the point/problem is that self-deception is still lying.
If you learn how all the "equal to the number of damage dice" and similar abilities work, and that you DO NOT get too boost them with all the many different strike damage boosters,
and put that right next to a reading of Sticky, it's not possible to get the super-Sticky without breaking the rest of those abilities. Those abilities teach that the damage of "your attack" is veeery different from "the weapon's ___"
It may take a while to learn that when Paizo does want scaling with 'final' stuff, they use "damage of your attack," etc, but I will repeat that this is not one of the many cases of Paizo having missing or inconsistent rules text.
The real "problem" with Sticky's text was that the lack of explicit callout ban meant there was the temptation for a 'not-misinterpretation,' aka a delusion, where folks would apply the rules differently just for Sticky Bomb.
(Again dude, a status bonus to the throw's splash dmg. That's like arguing Gravity Weapon boosts weapon's base dmg numbers...)
|
“When you make this substitution, you can add your Intelligence modifier to your attack roll instead of your Strength or Dexterity modifier. If you Strike with a melee weapon, melee unarmed attack, or thrown weapon, it must have the agile or finesse trait to benefit from the substitution.” The new wording applies to the same weapons as before, but also works on ranged unarmed attacks like the leshy’s seedpod.
This is false in every way.
"The new wording applies to the same weapons as before"
Nope, earlier it worked with bombs (ranged weapons), but now it does not, as bombs are neither finesse nor agile.
"also works on ranged unarmed attacks like the leshy’s seedpod"
Nope, ranged unarmed attacks are not even in the list.
Now I am wondering when an Errata comes to the Errata.
“When you make this substitution, you can add your Intelligence modifier to your attack roll instead of your Strength or Dexterity modifier. If you Strike with a melee weapon, melee unarmed attack, or thrown weapon, it must have the agile or finesse trait to benefit from the substitution.” The new wording applies to the same weapons as before, but also works on ranged unarmed attacks like the leshy’s seedpod.This is false in every way.
"The new wording applies to the same weapons as before"
Nope, earlier it worked with bombs (ranged weapons), but now it does not, as bombs are neither finesse nor agile."also works on ranged unarmed attacks like the leshy’s seedpod"
Nope, ranged unarmed attacks are not even in the list.Now I am wondering when an Errata comes to the Errata.
The point is there is no list of allowed weapons now, just a restriction for specific weapons. Ranged unarmed attacks not being on the list means its allowed. Bombs getting caught by the restriction is an issue that should be called out, but the rest of your post is not accurate.
|
|
I support nerfing champion’s reaction to resist any but it should have just been champion’s reaction. And then you can have resist any as a category for new abilities.
I do not think nerfing champions was necessary. It happens once per round (twice on high levels)
However, I support making high level melee characters having meaningful runes. On a +3 weapon (level 16) you can have Caustic, Frost and Flaming, and all of them were basically wasted on a level 4 Shadow (resist all 5). Regardless of how many times you can hit per round.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I support nerfing champion’s reaction to resist any but it should have just been champion’s reaction. And then you can have resist any as a category for new abilities.I do not think nerfing champions was necessary. It happens once per round (twice on high levels)
However, I support making high level melee characters having meaningful runes. On a +3 weapon (level 16) you can have Caustic, Frost and Flaming, and all of them were basically wasted on a level 4 Shadow (resist all 5). Regardless of how many times you can hit per round.
I’ve seen multi champion’s reaction parties fight monsters with split damage. It’s slaughter. This change removes that without seriously nerfing the ability in most normal circumstances.
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gods, the negativity for a batch of errata that was 99% really good is exhausting to read through. So I'll just say:
So wait, who actually asked for this change to Resist All and complained about it? It looks like you’ve once again taken a non-issue people were happy with and done surgery with a chainsaw to it to solve a problem that didn’t exist. Now a ton of feats that give Resist All are extremely overleveled if not outright dead, Ghost Touch runes are way less valuable, etc, etc.
If you’re going to make huge errata changes to core parts of the rules, please at least put out a survey or *something* first instead of the current policy of “do whatever and then wait to see if the backlash makes us have to change it or if it’s quiet enough to ignore”.
The rest of the errata looks largely fine to great, so there’s really no reason you couldn’t have had an easy win there for most of us without this…
I absolutely have asked for this. I've always run Resist All as just decreasing the damage by the amount listed, because otherwise it arbitrarily gets way, way better for no reason for the enemies that have it in a way that it pretty clearly isn't balanced around. There's no reason for a Ghost to just hard counter a PC that uses multiple different damage types, it's unnecessarily punitive. Similarly, I've never had a champion at my table find it unreasonable to "only" reduce enemy damage by the listed number in their reaction, and not double-to-triple that. It was very clear that Resist All did reduce damage by that much - I'm not arguing that this isn't a new rule. But this is a rule that makes more sense, and I don't know why everyone is assuming that this is inherently less balanced; Paizo themselves stated here that these enemies weren't designed with this interaction in mind.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gods, the negativity for a batch of errata that was 99% really good is exhausting to read through. So I'll just say:
I absolutely have asked for this. I've always run Resist All as just decreasing the damage by the amount listed, because otherwise it arbitrarily gets way, way better for no reason for the enemies that have it in a way that it pretty clearly isn't balanced around. There's no reason for a Ghost to just hard counter a PC that uses multiple different damage types, it's unnecessarily punitive. Similarly, I've never had a champion at my table find it unreasonable to "only" reduce enemy damage by the listed number in their reaction, and not double-to-triple that. It was very clear that Resist All did reduce damage by that much - I'm not arguing that this isn't a new rule. But this is a rule that makes more sense, and I don't know why everyone is assuming that this is inherently less balanced; Paizo themselves stated here that these enemies weren't designed with this interaction in mind.So wait, who actually asked for this change to Resist All and complained about it? It looks like you’ve once again taken a non-issue people were happy with and done surgery with a chainsaw to it to solve a problem that didn’t exist. Now a ton of feats that give Resist All are extremely overleveled if not outright dead, Ghost Touch runes are way less valuable, etc, etc.
If you’re going to make huge errata changes to core parts of the rules, please at least put out a survey or *something* first instead of the current policy of “do whatever and then wait to see if the backlash makes us have to change it or if it’s quiet enough to ignore”.
The rest of the errata looks largely fine to great, so there’s really no reason you couldn’t have had an easy win there for most of us without this…
I hopped in just to ask for clarification on one line of text from the errata and come back to all this...
I agree with what you said, and because it has clearly not been said enough, thank the devs on a good round of errata, there is plenty to love in the lastest pass.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes I wonder if errata being out of context to the rest of the rules encourages negativity. Since you only see the change and not the hundreds of pages around it, a small change can feel massive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it was always intended that way, why do some monsters have "Hardness 10" instead of just "Resist All 10 (except adamantine)" or something? Why have two entirely different types of rules if they were meant to be the same effect?
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If it was always intended that way, why do some monsters have "Hardness 10" instead of just "Resist All 10 (except adamantine)" or something? Why have two entirely different types of rules if they were meant to be the same effect?
1: The original rules were clear, and the devs were clear this was a change, not a clarification. The claim isn't that the devs never intended for Resist All to double-dip on damage types, but that the monsters with it weren't balanced around it.
2: Hardness and Resist All are slightly different under this new ruling; Resist All reduces one damage type by the listed number (and so could prevent something that triggers when you deal/take a certain type of damage), Hardness reduces the total damage taken by a set amount.3: Hardness has specific narrative implications of it being a material property, and therefore able to by bypassed by something like adamantium. A ghost's resistances to damage shouldn't be bypassed by adamantium.
It just occurred to me that the new Take Cover stat block might have an unintended change.
[one-action]
Source Player Core pg. 418
Requirements You are benefiting from standard cover, are near a feature that allows you to take cover, or are prone.You press yourself against a wall or duck behind an obstacle to take better advantage of cover. If you would have standard cover, you instead gain greater cover, which provides a +4 circumstance bonus to AC; to Reflex saves against area effects; and to Stealth checks to Hide, Sneak, or otherwise avoid detection. Otherwise, you gain standard cover (a +2 circumstance bonus instead). If you're prone, you gain greater cover against ranged attacks. Take Cover lasts until you move from your current space, use an attack action, become unconscious, or end it as a free action.
My understanding has been that the greater cover against ranged attacks was instead of standard cover against all attacks. But it doesn't look like these things are mutually exclusive under the new stat block, if indeed they ever were.
So if you are prone and out in the open, you can Take Cover (being prone is enough), gaining a +2 circumstance bonus to your AC against all attacks and a +4 circumstance bonus against ranged attacks to offset your -2 circumstance penalty.
Or perhaps not? The way Take Cover is phrased seems to indicate that the cover relies on the obstacle you are using. So if an enemy were behind the same obstacle as you, you still wouldn't have cover against them. So without anything to use as cover, only the greater cover vs ranged attacks applies, and you don't get the standard cover vs all attacks.
So I guess all is right with the world? I was starting to question things when a Reddit post said you could use the cover from Take Cover while prone to Hide in plain sight, and I had to revisit the new stat block.
It could be made more clear that the general cover only applies for obstacles that allow the cover by rewording the first half. Something like "If you have standard cover, you gain greater cover (see page 424). If you don't have standard cover but are near a feature that allows you to take cover, you gain standard cover."
If it was always intended that way, why do some monsters have "Hardness 10" instead of just "Resist All 10 (except adamantine)" or something? Why have two entirely different types of rules if they were meant to be the same effect?
It wasn't always intended that way. This is an active change from the original rule to a new rule. When these two things were created they were more distinct. The blog post mentions that.
As for how it works now? Adamantine Weapons can ignore half the hardness on an object, so it'll interact differently than resistance. Otherwise it's not a huge difference anymore.
S'pose that i have resistance to fire 5 and I take a strike that does 2 fire and 2 silver-fire damage. do i resist all of that or just 2?
If I'm understanding the clarification correctly, you would resist all of it, because all of it is fire coming from a single combined effect.
If you instead had "Resistance: fire 5 (except silver)", then you'd only resist 2, because the other 2 is both fire and silver. (I'm pretty sure this one isn't something that's achievable, but it's just a thought experiment.)
If you had "Weakness: silver 5" and "Resistance: fire 5", it becomes a little unclear. When you add damage due to your weakness, the damage is the type of that weakness.
Logically, I would expect that means that the damage's type is only the weakness's type and not any other type, meaning that you would take 5 additional silver damage that is not fire, and you would take up to 5 less fire damage, which would be 5 total damage, all of which is just silver.
I could potentially see someone trying to say that the weakness damage is both silver and fire because the damage that triggered the weakness was silver and fire, therefore setting the total incoming damage at 4, but I think with the way this clarification specifies that you apply both damage type and special material weaknesses separately, each amount of damage taken due to a particular weakness is intended to be only of the weakness's type.
(This one's niche, but still technically possible, if you're a werewolf wearing a Charm of Fire Resistance and somebody shoots you in the face with a Moonlit Spellgun.)