ADDITIONS/ERRATA: -The Core books are perfectly usable. The errata is small in light of how much is in the books. For the 2019 Core Rulebook, after 4 rounds of errata which have been more extensive than this, I still use my 1st printing Core Rulebook all the time. For people coming from D&D 5E, the rules are much clearer and consistent than in 5E. Methinks some of the discontent is connected to also being unhappy that there is a Remaster at all... but there are good reasons for why Paizo did it. -I forgot to mention that their explanation of why the Death + Dying rules were wrong doesn't really make sense... Anyway, regardless, we're at where most players and GMs wanted to be! The "wounded condition" wasn't changed; the Recovery Rule changed. *shrug* -The champion's class features are buffed, but a couple "extra damage vs. evil" feats are nerfed/more situational, saying the target MUST be unholy: Smite Evil, Aura of Faith -One commenter says that removing spellcasting ability modifier goes together with the new universal spellcasting proficiency - when you pick up spells from other traditions via Archetypes or Feats, it is not inherently weaker than spells in your base tradition. I think this is the best explanation! -One commenter writes: "Someone needs to tell them to pull their fucking finger out, hire some goddamn proofreaders and don't seend the book to print until they are sure it doesn't have any errors in it." ... I'm happy I don't get as angry as some people! lol. There is no evidence that the people at Paizo were slacking. (And even if they had extra money to hire people, you can't just hire an outside "proofreader" to vet 500 pages of rules. That kind of needs to stay within your core of designers.)
I think it's fine they made day 1 Errata, just look at you errata-ing every video you release! Anyway it would be worse if they released something without acknowledging it's problems. (especially since there was no playtesting. And they had plenty of time since they sent it to the printers and got to watch all the youtubers pick it apart in the last two weeks)
The stupid thing about the new Wounded rules was that it made things more complicated. They could have run with the relatively simple RAP (Rules As Played), and simply set the D-E-ded threshold to 3, or 2 and let tables adjust to taste.
It is a matter of speed. They couldn't have had good proofreading and playtesting in the time they were planning to get this remaster out. We can either like the swiftness or dislike the sloppiness, that an individual call I won't make for anyone but myself. I will only say a day one patch for a book like a modern video game is somethign I hope doesn't become normalized.
"One commenter says that removing spellcasting ability modifier goes together with the new universal spellcasting proficiency - when you pick up spells from other traditions via Archetypes or Feats, it is not inherently weaker than spells in your base tradition." Yeah but that doesn't make any sense? Like you still use Wisdom for your DC if you archetype into druid as a Wizard, so I don't really see why they then needed to remove adding your spellcasting mod to the damage? Your Electric Arc you got from the druid class is still going to be worse than your Wizard Electric Arc.
Seems intended for Champions to require to 'sign up for the holy war' by being sanctified as Holy/Unholy, as opposed to Clerics who have it as an option. Which makes sense to me.
Don't exactly like that "Neutral" deities, especially Deities that don't care about Sanctification, are barred from raising up Champions of their own. IMHO, it doesn't address the issue that removing Alignment was supposed to solve: limiting player options by not allowing the player to make decisions.
I know they replaced Paladins with Champions, which makes sense, as an Unholy Champion makes more sense than an Unholy Paladin. But I would almost think "Crusader" as an even cooler vibe to it. "Unholy Crusader!" Sounds bad ass (and also bad.)
@@slaapliedje They've done a very good job of woke-ifying their vocabulary and mechanics and the term "crusader" might hurt someone with too much time and not enough sense's feelings.
As someone with experience in book publishing, both in TTRPGs and other industries, I can promise you, there are no books of this size and scope printed without errors anywhere, ever. Some errors might be smaller than others, and some might only be obvious to the people that work on the books, but they exist, it's an inevitable part of working on such a complex product.
Totally agree. There was maybe 500 pages of dense rules that went through a revision, requiring more than "proofreading" but also an extensive knowledge of the overall balance and the ramifications of every word to the whole system. I'm sure that the folks in Paizo feel 100x more pain than any of us do when a mistake goes out to print. That isn't even "giving Paizo excuses" - it's just human nature.
I believe the removal of the Ability Mod from damage is connected to spellcasters having the same proficiency in all spell traditions. In this way a Wizard with Druid Ded won't care about his lower Wisdom Mod when casting Druid spells. The same goes for feats that give you cantrips that always use the Charisma Mod for damage and DC. It's a good change imho.
Unfortunately, it also lowers the damage by creating a lower floor and not a higher ceiling for several of the cantrips. It is an overall nerf on spells that already were weak for damage.
You are still using your archetype stat to hit. So it's actually doesn't matter in terms of damage, since you will be 2-3 points behind just to hit targets
@@deadpoolegoryeah I was about to say, spellcasting from an archetype is always gonna be lower rank than spellcasting from a class gesture so there's a damage disparity regardless?
@@deadpoolegorTrue, but this kind of "double-docking" is kind of precisely why they went to universal spellcasting proficiency also. They kind of figured, why have the character suffer in more than one way from casting spells from another tradition? Currently one is penalized from: 1. Lower proficiency 2. Less access to spells and spell slots 3. (possibly) lower accuracy, AND 4. (possibly) lower damage
Personally, I'm incredibly proud of how Paizo is handling this year. They really stepped up and had to deal with a lot of stuff all at once. I'm guessing many people at Paizo had to don additional hats they weren't used to wearing in order to make all this possible. This has been their busiest year, and hopefully their most profitable year to date. I appreciate that they're willing to put out Errata, or even take the time to write it. Rules Lawyer, thank you for making videos covering this whole thing. Many (but probably not all) of the factors on Paizo's plate this year: - 2023 ** with Hasbro trying to pull the rug out from under third party devs, especially Paizo. - They had to on-the-fly figure out a solution to keep their business afloat, which spread across many aspects of what they do. They realized (as did many developers - and content creators) that their product is based on the backbone of something that could go away at any moment, at the whim of a corporation like Hasbro. - They needed to rally the troops for support (Community, other creators, etc.) - Work with Azora Law to develop the ORC License - Change every single one of their pre-published books to remove the OGL from them for any future printings - Change their website - Write and focus on PR to candidly AND tastefully respond to what WotC tried to do - Develop new products to replace their core rulebooks, because you can't just have books published with no license (if you want third party creators to iterate), which meant cleaning things up and renaming many aspects of their verbiage, but also changing some rules (for instance, scrapping Ability Scores altogether, and just using Modifiers) - Several mechanics changes which, some of them were probably already in the works as planned errata, but now they had to get their butts in gear - All the design and PR that's involved in a new product line... times four. Not to mention they delivered TWO of those products in the same Calendar year - only months after their inception. - Redesign elements of books they had not yet published (like Rage of Elements, or supplements and adventures we've yet to see) to make them immediately relevant to the remaster - Handle the shitstorm of internet crybabies who don't like change - Restructure one of the core aspects of their game world: Dragons, and come up with new lore, flavor, designs, artwork, and mechanics to replace something that is definitively Wizards' own thing - Playtest (Somewhere in this chaos) - Work with Online tools like Archives of Nethys and Pathbuilder to accommodate the remaster - Work with Demiplane Nexus on a product that was to revamp it significantly. - Still go to conventions, drum up support, and give the people what they want (content... always content) - Manage the highest product sales and delivery they've literally ever had (bless the world for buying their stuff, but bless Paizo for putting things out on a steep discount, that was smart) - Handle inquiries from LGS's about why they couldn't ship any more of their most popular book - especially increased calls from LGS's who maybe didn't have Pathfinder in stock before, but tried to get on board when several customers came in and said "I'm done with D&D I want this Pathfinder thing". Which, by the way, I heard from my local LGS owner that after a couple weeks nobody cared anymore, even though he'd already bought dozens of different Pathfinder books because customers said they wanted them but then didn't come in to actually buy them, so now he's wary about it as a product. - So on - So forth
I can explain the champion for you You can choose the tennents of Good if your deity allows you to sanctify as holy You can choose the tennents of Evil if your deity allows you to sanctify as unholy As a champion you MUST obtain tennents as part of your class - you MUST make a choice there - that being said I do agree with you that there probably is a stopgap for the handful of dieties that don't let you sanctify at all for current time
I've watched every one of these videos and I still don't fully understand spirit damage and the holy war. I would really enjoy a single video dedicated to that topic. Thank you for everything you do!
Paizo should absolutely hire you as a QA tester (is that just an "editor" in this industry?). This huge list of day 1 errata just makes me want to hold off on buying the remastered pdfs even more. At least to when they release the updated pdfs.
And if I'm reading it right, the typo is in title block it's telling you to replace the text in the book with, meaning it's currently officially called Arcade Cascade. ...Not complaining.
Okay, Paizo errating old "+ Spellcasting mod" is a sucker punch to me. I mean, adding a spellcasting modifier was the whole point of leaving old spells in the first place! Is there even a point to use produce flame now if we have ignition?
There is literally no reason to keep using Produce Flame, this is what's so confusing about this situation. Like, they both now do the same amount damage now, sure, but Ignition has the aditional benefit of the dice raising to d6s in melee, so I have no idea why anyone would use Produce Flame.
This is something that I expect to be solved in PC2. When champions were tied to alignment, sure, it's a little bit weird. But Pharasma has an ethos, declares edicts and forbids anathemas. It even has a cause to crusade against (undeath). It should absolutelly be possible to champion those ideas.
The way I understand it is as follows: - Champions must sanctify if their deity requires it, just like with Clerics - if their deity doesn’t require it, they don’t need to sanctify but can if they chose to - if they chose to sanctify even if their deity doesn’t ask for it, they can only sanctify in a specific way depending on their deity’s tenets ; e.g. if a deity has the tenets of good but doesn’t require sanctification, their champions can only sanctify themselves as holy, or not sanctify at all - a champion whose deity doesn’t require sanctification can do so voluntarily anyway, but they must sanctify themselves in a way that doesn’t go against the deity’s tenets In other words, some deities require sanctification, others do not. Either way, a champion mustn’t sanctify themselves in a way that goes against their God’s tenets, unless the deity’s tenets are neutral in which case they can chose either way. For example, a warrior-deity might have neutral tenets in the form of exhorting one’s martial prowess but nothing about using said prowess to protect the weak or to subjugate them. This warrior-deity probably won’t require sanctification, meaning their champions still can sanctify voluntarily but the deity doesn’t care which way.
Regarding the change to the interaction between the Dying and Wounded conditions. Perhaps they originally intended on someone's death threshold -- the point at which they die -- to be a number added to their Constitution modifier? Like, maybe 3 + Con? Most adventurers are going in with a +1 at least, which means they would die at Dying 4... but if you have someone who's extra tough like a barbarian or kineticist, maybe they have a +4 Con and can go all the way to Dying 7 before they keel over. That would make the "add + Wounded each time" part still threaten those characters.
Your coverage of the Remaster has been so helpful in getting prepared for the changes. Also have to say that while I didn't personally like the New/Mistaken Death and Dying rules as the default, I did want them as a Variant Rule. Increased lethality in a game is something that you have Variant Rules for, in my opinion. I'm also wondering if the Champion in Player Core 2 is going to be significantly different then what now exists with the Erratas, or if its going to be largely the same with a few edits to clear up some points (Like if Sanctifying is optional or not). What would be cool if they added a Tenant option that didn't Sanctify you directly, but also didn't prevent you from being Sanctified, Tenants of Balance or something. Think those existing would also clear up what I assume is meant to be a flow chart of, "You may choose to be Sanctified by your god and then you may be automatically Sanctified depending on your Tenant choice," But that's what I assume is meant to happen based on my own reading of the Errata, we'll just have to wait for the real rules.
Paladin champions specifically also got a stealth buff: they're allowed to lie now lmao. Preremaster had the tenet "You must act with honor, never taking advantage of others, lying, or cheating", but their new anathemas are just "take advantage of another, cheat".
Yeah not being able to lie AT ALL was a bit much. It would also render the deception skill, one that scales with one of your main ability scores completely useless. However, don't be fooled, lying for your personal gain is still taking advantage of someone else.
@@StabYourBrain Yes, but this put to rest the old, stupid debates about paladins not being able to lie to the Evil Empire about where the innocents hide. "Oh, crap. Sure, you're going to put little girl Anna from the Frank family in an extermination camp, but.. you know... not being truthful is also bad, so there's that. She hides in the attic". Don't take advantage of another, or cheat, is enough to cover all the relevant situations where lying to for personal gain would be wrong (which is what a paladin shouldn't do). Not telling the bad guys about your Underground Railroad operation to save enslaved people is perfectly ok with paladinhood, and I'm glad the removal of the word lying destroys any attempt to rules-lawyering it by bad faith actors.
I like the Champion buff, but your thinking about what they said about giving the errata on Dying/Wounded is a bit..... What??? I'll just use either the new scarier one as originally given in the Remaster, and on my GM's Screen, or something else. It's all good. Yes, get some rest dude. Thnx for all you've been giving like crazy for us all!! 👍🤓
One thing not mentioned is the change to Arcane Shroud. They removed Heroism from the possible spells it can give you. It now lets you choose three spells when you take the feat and any time you cast a spell from a spell slot, you get to choose one of those three. BUT... before the remaster, it said that the spell lasts until the end of your next turn or its normal duration whichever is LONGER. Now it reads whichever is SHORTER, meaning you only get this benefit for one round.
Strongly dislike replacing the static +4 to damage for Ignition with an additional D4 (2D4)...makes the spell more random, randomness is not always what you want
Guess it's more for GM's convenience. Makes it easier to use cantrips for monsters with innate magic That being said, isn't Produce Flame not only "just" viable, but also PFS viable? Like use whatever you like, Paizo is cool with that
@@nolanstrife7350they errata’d the old spells, so now when people say “just use produce flame”, thanks to the errata, means produce flame is still 2d4.
It's not just more random, it's worse, because the average is worse. Average of 2d4 is 5, average of 1d4+4 is 6.5. Actually a closer average would have been 3d4 (average 7.5). On the long run, once you get a +1 to your spellcasting MOD at level 5 it would be equal, and beyond level 10 it would be slightly worse. I don't think slightly buffing spellcasters during levels 1-4, when they are at their worst, would be problematic. But Paizo is absolutely obsessed with the idea that any improvement to spellcasting, no matter how small it is, would break balance and instantly transform PF2e into a game riddled with Pun Pun and Djinn Simulacrum Factories.
Ignition replacing produce flame for the psychic cantrip (with reach on the melee version) make it very attractive for rogue with magical trickster, because it means you get more sources to off-guard an enemy than with ranged attacks
One thing about the magus is that arcane shroud also changed a bit, seems people are kind of split on it. Now you choose 3 possible effects when you get the feat, and whenever you cast a slotted spell (any spell) you can trigger one of those effects until the end of your next round (or the effects normal duration, whichever is shorter) and heroism got removed from that list. Given that it takes an extra action to use, and that it changed "whichever is longer" to "whichever is shorter" i see a lot of people calling that a nerf to an already meh feat given how starved for actions magus can be.
According to some Paizo folks on a Discord I am in, apparently there was a consensus when 2e first came out that the Dying rules were meant to be the harsher ones, but at a point they changed their minds and decided on the gentler ones. HOWEVER the person punching in the information didn't know that and everyone else thought everyone knew. So the book ended up clarifying the mismatching text to the older, no longer true one and not the one they'd decided to go with for the Remaster.
The weird way the Champion's stuff is worded in regard to sanctification makes me wonder if Player Core 2 is finally going to introduce "Neutral" Causes, in the form of an option for deities that don't offer Sanctification and/or if you choose not to Sanctify. It's just that since this errata is only fixing what we already have from the original Core and the APG, which is only the stuff that would now be tied to Sanctification, we're not seeing that complete picture yet.
I remember that champions had errata for their reactions pretty soon after the original PH came out too. It seems like you can't be a champion of a deity that doesn't allow sanctification. I think it would *narratively* make sense to play a "champion" of Pharasma, aka one that went around smiting undead and protecting the river of souls. Maybe you just have to be a warpriest under the Cleric though.
I think such ideas will mean that there is probably going to be options for champions of deities that don't allow santification. The undead and anti-undead themed ones are the most obvious options, but one beholded to a powerfull caster or magical creature also makes sense, all of them seem like they would have a clear place in Golarion.
The one thing I'm still confused about is the wording of spirit damage in the rulebook. Everyone says it has an affect on all living creatures with souls unless otherwise noted (e.g. it would work on a peasant but not a zombie) but the way it is described in the rulebook on its page makes no mention of what it could damage besides "creatures projecting their consciousness" or "possessing another creature". The wording even further confuses me because it says when used to attack a creature possessing another creature it would not affect the possessed creature. It does expressly say that it does not affect creatures without a soul, like constructs, but I would like one more sentence of specific information as to if it can affect any run of the mill person.
I hope that the issue with Champions and neutral deities is just the consequence of this being a stopgap measure to deal with a class that's heavily tied to alignment, and that they're going to present options for champions of neutral deities in player core 2, because I want my champion of Pharasma, dammit!
The conflagration around Produce Flame, as it happens, took place on Discord an hour ago. And a psychic using produce flame is now not just not better, it's actively worse because you don't get the double range from Ignition.
This seems like a good place to look for clarification, as it went unlisted in the Secrets of Magic FAQ. Is there somewhere that Paizo clarified the impact remaster would have on the "Fey Gift Spells" Eidolon feature?
I was expecting that Paizo are going to do something with the Swashbuckler’s Disarm Flair feat in the errata. With the changes to disarm it doesn’t really give anything to non-gymnast Swash
I would actually consider the changes to champion as an overall nerf, at least at my table. We mostly fight evil creatures that won't be weak to holy, so holy strikes and good damage being changed to spirit damage won't be particularly relevant. On the other hand, the changes to Smite Evil, Aura of Faith, and Blade of Justice, where they now only work on unholy targets changes them from generally useful to almost completely useless. Naturally this varies a lot between campaigns but my current champion is going almost exclusively negatively affected.
Unless im personally missing something here, unless the evil creatures at your table are for some reason resistant to Good damage (not Holy damage), I am not sure how this is could be viewedas a nerf? The compatability here basically makes nearly all alignment based damage (good/evil) into Holy/Unholy spirit damage, which states in their entry that it deals damage to anything harmed by spirit damage that doesnt share the same trait as your sanctification. So the only things a Holy Champion shouldnt be geting its spirit damage against are things such as Constructs, or against opposing targets who are also Holy. Frankly this is a pretty big buff to Champions 'general' usability given it would be gaining its bonuses to damage it otherwise normally didn't have against non-evil targets. Its basically as if they changed good champions doing bonus damage to anything that had the evil alignment to instead doing bonus damage to anything that isn't a construct, or that doesnt have the good alignment (and then add to that a number of evil celestials, like demons/devils/daemons, typically having a weakness against this damage type, meaning it would do 'further' damage.) But thats my understanding of it.
I stand corrected.. i now noticed the "must be unholy text" Had to read through the entries a bit mote clearly to notice it, seems the majority of the entries specify unholy, which yes there could be a number of enemies prior to this change would have been evil, but in the remaster may not be considered Unholy.. like say an Evil Fey probably wouldnt have the unholy trait, likely. Okay you are correct, I retract my previous statement--this may actually be a.. HOPEFULLY unintentional nerf.
Ah, good point. (I don't think Blade of Justice is straight-up nerfed though; it also replaces doing good damage to all creatures with spirit damage.) I'll include this wrinkle in my pinned comment.
I would guess most tables won't be switching right away. At least for our group we're keeping our current rules until the end of the campaign we're going through (mostly we don't accidentally break anything updating foundry.) Although we do plan our next one to be the current rules whatever those may be when we get there.
Have I got this straight: if reduced to 0 hit points you are dying 1. When you get to dying 4 you're dead - if you fail a save your dying level increase by one step. If you recover, you gain Wounded 1. If you are reduced to 0 hit points subsequently, you go straight to dying 2 (dying 1 + 1 Wound)?
yes, that looks about right. further, if you're already in dying condition and take damage, you automatically progress the dying condition by 1 (or by 2, if it was a critical hit that dealt the damage)
Yes, that's how it has always worked. However, in the new rules that was printed in the remaster, which apparently were the original intended rules, whenever you gain or increase the dying value, you add your wounded value to it as well. This means that when you go down a second time, you go to dying 2 (by adding your wounded 1 value to your dying 1 value), and in addition, if you take *any* point of damage, or fail a *single* recovery flat check, you instantly die, since both of those things increase your dying value by 1, and since you add your wounded value to your dying value when you increase it, you increase your dying value by another 1, in total increasing it by 2, which means 2 + 2 = 4 = dead. Most players did not run the wounded condition this way, most people only added the wounded value to the dying value only when you *gain* the dying condition, i.e. when you fall under 0 HP.
Coming from DnD (yet to run my first session) but having bought all "old" books (well pdfs, cause europe), the only "dislike" towards the remasters I have, is reading/learning the books, and then having to look through the errate to see what newly learned stuff is different now and hoping I do not mix it up too much. I am sad they could not update the pdfs, but I also understand why.
If it wasn’t for supporting my local game store, I certainly would be tempted to give up on the physical books. It’s next to impossible to keep up with the errata non-electronically, even if you print out the pages and shove them in the back for reference. Thanks for the great videos.
I believe the magus‘ arcane cascade requirement was changed from „your most recent action was a spell / spellstrike“ to „your most recent action _this turn_ was a spell / spellstrike“, sliiiiightly nerfing them
Gotta keep in mind that the Psychic's 2 point Refocus is per 10 minutes, whereas the 3 point Refocus available to everyone is still 1 point per 10 minutes. It's still a bit lackluster, but it's not a TOTAL hijack of that ability.
That reminds me of the Champion subclass from Sinclair's Almanac being powered by "friendship" instead of gods or such. I wonder how we'd work that around the new mechanics of needing to sanctify to even be a Champion? Gonna be interesting to see how playing an agnostic Champion gets justified at the tables lol
Nerfing spell damage seems especially strange to me, since direct damage is already one of the weaker things you can do with spells. It's a very strange choice. Even if removing the ability modifier is for another reason, some of these cantrips are losing like 20% of their damage and a lot of consistency, which is massive!
This video makes me reconsider my decision to switch to Pathfinder, so much errata to a book that is not even available yet makes buying the new books feel useless.
I wonder how Pathfinder CRB errata (remaster compatability will effect PFS organized play... It seemed clear before the Ignition and Produce Flame would exist side by side but this pretty much with slight exceptions makes Legacy spells the Remaster spells in all but name.
Not all of them. Shocking Grasp and Thunderstrike are still fairly different despite one just being the updated version of the other. Shocking Grasp is still a touch range attack roll that deals 2d12 Electricity Damage with Persistent Damage for Metal Armor wearing targets, while Thunderstrike is a 120 ft. range Reflex Save that deals 1d12 Electricity + 1d4 Sonic Damage with Clumsy 1 for Metal Armor wearing targets.
Yeah, the lack of any compensastion to the Psychic's focus points is very disappointing. Especially since you're supposed to just remove the level 18 feat ("Deepest Wellspring" in the case of psychic) and have the level 12 feat give you the "recover all 3 focus points in 10 minutes" effect, which psychics actually do not even have. So is psychic now actually the caster that's potentially worst at using focus points after level 12?
For Champions, it seems reasonable that certain options could just not be available. For example, it doesn't make sense for Torag to have Redeemers as the entire idea is anathema to him. Something like that wouldn't have been an issue previously as Torag just couldn't have a NG Champion. For Player Core 2, it might be possible to just include a list of any incompatibilities.
I'm very curious to see how common the holy/unholy trait is for the updated Monster Core. While the good damage from, say, smite evil only affected evil creatures, at least it affected *all* evil creatures. If unholy is pretty uncommon, say just things like fiends and other things with weakness to good damage now, the new smite evil only affecting unholy creatures is actually a nerf compared to the previous version. On the other hand, if unholy is pretty common (i.e. most undead, many abberations, all fiends, evil dragons, etc.) this might not be a big deal or even a buff. I was hoping they'd get rid of aligned damage completely, but "spirit damage IF holy/unholy" is just an even more (potentially) restrictive version of the old alignment damage, and I'm not a big fan (will probably remove this via house rule if so).
Fairly new GM here. At one point in my discovery of Pathfinder, cantrips were 1d4 + spellcasting mod. Then when heightened, it read "Increase the damage by 1d4." My thoughs as I remember them below. Wait. So, the heightened cantrip becomes 2d4 + spellcasting mod? That can't be right! It doesn't scale well at all. That means at level 1, your modifier does a lot of the lifting but at level 20, it's almost meaningless the little it contributes. Like, why even invest in your spellcasting modifier if it pays off less and less over the levels? Surely your modifier must increase together too! At that point, I didn't know anything about the underlying math of Pathfinder. I just heard it was tight math. A fair balance between modifier and dice numbers is the thing I gravitated towards in my conclusions. I then asked on the Pathfinder Discord, and yes, I understood the spellcasting modifier didn't increase. It was meant as just a small bonus, and the real power of the spellcasting modifier was to increase your attacks and DCs. With the new rules of 2d4 damage instead of 1d4 + spellcasting modifier, I think it's easier to read for first timers trying to understand that the extra 1d4 damage from 1st level is just a bonus, leaving spellcasting modifiers to dedicate to purely attacks and DCs.
There is, unfortunately, no way to know for sure whether stunned removes reactions or not, I think. Not because what you quote about being unable to act is wrong, but because it is contradicted by another section of the rules. From the Gaining and Losing Actions sidebar: "Quickened, slowed, and *stunned* are the primary ways you can gain or lose actions on a turn. The rules for how this works appear on page 462. In brief, *these conditions alter how many actions you regain at the start of your turn; thus, gaining the condition in the middle of your turn doesn’t adjust your number of actions on that turn.* If you have conflicting conditions that affect your number of actions, you choose which actions you lose. For instance, the action gained from haste lets you only Stride or Strike, so if you need to lose one action because you’re also slowed, you might decide to lose the action from haste, letting you keep your other actions that can be used more flexibly. Some conditions prevent you from taking a certain subset of actions, typically reactions. Other conditions simply say you can’t act. *When you can’t act, you’re unable to take any actions at all. Unlike slowed or stunned, these don’t change the number of actions you regain;* they just prevent you from using them. That means if you are somehow cured of paralysis on your turn, you can act immediately." As you can see, this goes directly against the section of the stunned condition stating that "You can't act." The rules referenced on page 462 contain no further clarification. I can't find anything that indicates which of these versions of stunned, both supported by the rules, I am intended by the designers to run. It's frustrating!
does pf2 also have the "specific rules trump general rules" guideline, or am i transplanting that from my 5e experience? if so, could the above quote be the general rules for that "family" of conditions, with stun having its own specific rules?
@bamfalu it does, but the rules i quote specifically outline stunned as a condition that only takes effect on your turn and even list it as an example of a condition that *does not* make you unable to act, directly contradicting the description of the condition itself. Both simply can't be right, and there's no indication of which is the typo. It's a mistake in the rules, unfortunately.
I think we may have another case of the designers thinking different things in different parts of the book... (Btw "You can't act" is definitely rules text when it is the 2nd sentence of both the Petrified and Unconscious conditions. And one would think it has the same rules effect under different conditions, including Stunned.)
@TheRulesLawyerRPG Yep, that's what I'm inclined to believe as well. It's frustrating given that there is a mechanical definition for "act," which is laid out on page 469 and supports your take on Stunned: *"If you can’t act, you can’t use any actions, including reactions and free actions."* I'm inclined to believe that if they clarify it, that's the direction it goes. It just gets under my skin when another part of the book contradicts it, you know? Makes things muddy, haha. I can't be sure whether the line about not being able to act was intended to remain in stunned or not! With luck, the paragraph I quote didn't survive into Player Core 1. I haven't had the time to check. That would be good enough for now.
If you, and everyone else at your table, like the new system, just use that, no one is forcing you to follow Paizo's official rules. Pathfinder 2e is already kind of notorious for being a deadly game, so most people don't want it becoming even deadlier.
@@eamk887 ive always found that notoriety a little crazy. its difficult. its not deadly. i guess if you're coming from 5e it seems deadly, but its honestly not really that deadly.
My magus has the psychic archetype for ignition ocillating wave. At lv 5 this starlit spqn shoots a 2d8 arrow that explodes on a focus point into 4d12+4 splash witha. Deadly d10 on crit and 4d4 persistent fire damage? Oh my. . . we delete things even harder.
@@TuariD I am no expert on Magus nor Starlit Span, but my interpretation is that the melee versions of Produce Flame nor Ignition work for ranged Spellstrikes. I'll explain my reasoning: The first thing we need to do, is read the description for Starlit Span, which reads: "You can deliver the spell even if its range is shorter than the range increment of your ranged attack." Basically, if a spell has a range that's shorter than your weapon's range, you can use it. Now you may think that this should work then, since PF and Ignition have a range of 30ft, but while the ranged versions have that range, you might notice that the melee versions... don't actually have a range. Under PF it says "This is normally a ranged attack, but you can also make a melee attack against a creature in your unarmed reach." Under Ignition it says "If the target is within your melee reach, you can choose to make a melee spell attack." As you can see, the melee versions of these spells do not have ranges, not even the ranges of touch, they specifically state that the target *has to be in your melee reach*. In my mind, this means that the melee versions of these spells do not work for a ranged Spellstrike, since they don't have range increments, and specifically state that the target has to be in your melee reach for the dice to increase. In order for the melee versions to work with Starlit Span, in my opinion, the spells should say something along the lines of "you can choose to cast another version of this spell with the range of touch, in which case the damage dice increase to d6s." As I said, I'm no expert, so I could absolutely be wrong, but this is how I interpret the rules. I did try to find some kind of comment section that also confirms my opinion, to make sure I'm right, and while I didn't find one for this exact same case, I did find a reddit thread talking about using Reach Spell on the melee version of Ignition, and in that comment section the redditors came to the same conclusion as I; the melee version of Ignition (and PF as well) does not have a range, so things that mention a spell's range, does not apply to them. Here's a link to the thread: www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/15ab9gu/deleted_by_user/ A good quote from the thread: "A range of touch and a spell having a special effect when used within your melee reach are not the same thing. If you want to use melee ignition at "range," you need to be looking for things that extend your melee reach." But even after all that, if your GM is okay with it, you can continue using melee versions of PF and/or Ignition in your ranged Spellstrikes, if that's what you want.
After seeing the day one errata I canceled my printed books order. I will buy the PDFs and wait until next year and the 2nd print run. I can't stand it to have such glaring issues in my books.
The speed at which they did it doesn't excuse the lack of proof reading. There is no excuse for a book needing a patch in the first 6 months of release. If the original pf2e needed a patch within 2 weeks of release all that tells me is that some dipshit in charge at paizo doesn't think hiring a proofreader is worth the money. And making excuses for them will only encourage them to be slack in their editing and publish books that become paperweights withing weeks of being released. Someone needs to tell them to pull their fucking finger out, hire some goddamn proofreaders and don't seend the book to print until they are sure it doesn't have any errors in it
I believe the confusion with the champion “can santify” language is probably cause you were skimming through it. Those references were for gods that don’t have an updated description. And may have, to some degree, been trying to define gods choices more than the champion having them. This could also be used for Clerics then as well.
There is no choice in Sanctification as a Champion. You can only champion a deity that allows Sanctification whether it be holy, unholy, or both (in cases of neutral deities). Because you must choose a tenet (Good or Evil) as part of being a Champion, that means you must be sanctified as Holy or Unholy. Besides the explicit exception for deities not covered yet of course.
3:36 wasn't stunned always different from slowed? But they can't stack to make you loose your whole turn though except if you slowed/stunned 3+(explained in the description of the stunned condition).
There has been some conversation about what in the Stunned condition rules is flavor text and what's actual rules. Like, is the "You can't act" part flavor text or not? What about the "You become senseless" part? It's just really confusingly put together.
Gonna copy my other comment here cause it's relevant. Sorry for length! There is unfortunately no way to know for sure whether stunned removes reactions or not, I think. Not because what you quote about being unable to act is wrong, but because it is contradicted by another section of the rules. From the Gaining and Losing Actions sidebar: "Quickened, slowed, and stunned are the primary ways you can gain or lose actions on a turn. The rules for how this works appear on page 462. In brief, these conditions alter how many actions you regain at the start of your turn; thus, gaining the condition in the middle of your turn doesn’t adjust your number of actions on that turn. If you have conflicting conditions that affect your number of actions, you choose which actions you lose. For instance, the action gained from haste lets you only Stride or Strike, so if you need to lose one action because you’re also slowed, you might decide to lose the action from haste, letting you keep your other actions that can be used more flexibly. Some conditions prevent you from taking a certain subset of actions, typically reactions. Other conditions simply say you can’t act. *When you can’t act, you’re unable to take any actions at all. Unlike slowed or stunned, these don’t change the number of actions you regain;* they just prevent you from using them. That means if you are somehow cured of paralysis on your turn, you can act immediately." As you can see, this goes directly against the section of the stunned condition stating that "You can't act." The rules referenced on page 462 contain no further clarification. I can't find anything that indicates which of these versions of stunned, both supported by the rules, I am intended by the designers to run. It's frustrating!
Player Core 1 (page 415, under "Gaining and Losing Actions") actually has a pretty definitive statement on "can't act": "The most restrictive form of reducing actions is when an effect states that you can’t act: this means you can’t use any actions, or even speak. When you can’t act, you still regain your actions unless another effect (like the stunned condition) prevents it." So it's pretty clear from this that whenever an effect says "you can't act", this has actual mechanical effect and is not just flavor text.
Oh ok I thought this was about the actions you loose/gain but it's about reactions. Stunned does say "you can't act while stunned" so I would probably say that you can't take any free action/reaction if you are stunned until it becomes your turn and you are not stunned anymore but I see how it can lead to debates. The only real flavor text i see is the "you've become senseless" at least on AON. Most other conditions also only have 1 phrase flavor text and the rest is relevant (like sickened has "you feel ill" and then the description on how it works). It also alligns with the unconscious condition that has the "you can't act" just after the flavor text.
@@MrNegetZ The root of the problem is that another section of the rules says that stunned only takes effect at the beginning of your turn and even lists it as an example of something that *does not* leave you unable to act. No way to know which is correct at the moment. I'd love clarification from Paizo.
It seems you do NOT have to have Tenets of Good or Tenets of Evil in the stopgap... that is one *option* associated with the Paladin/Redeemer/Liberator. You could be a Paladin without those Tenets (and therefore not Sactified and Holy) but still uphold your diety's Tenets. See the paragraph right before the Paladin [9:20] "Use the following text for the three causes that must follow the tenets of good **in the Core Rulebook. These are no longer strictly proscribed by alignment."**. They used to require it, now they do not.
I kind of wish they did do a limited volume release, errata, and then go to a reprint with fixes But that costs a lot of money because of how the printing industry works, and prevents people from buying
Yeah, those "updated" death rules were pretty obviously wrong. You don't make a scale that goes 1-4 and then say "but you go through it exponentially."
Removing the spellcasting ability modifier and replacing it with a random solution is taking away from character differentiation. To me it makes no sense that if a master is casting a spell, it's no better than if their simple minded apprentice cast it, you basically ruin that mechanic. If anything, I'll toss out the extra dice on spells and replace it across the board with spellcasting ability modifier.
If you want to continue with the ability modifiers, just do it, as long as everyone at your table agrees to that. And the analogy you made doesn't quite work. While yes, the damage of a spell is the same if a master caster did it or an apprentice did it, but everything besides that would still be different. If a spell is a spell attack, then a master caster will hit more often than an apprentice. If a spell has a saving throw, foes will fail at them more often against a master caster than an apprentice.
While I understand that they needed to put out the game at somepoint, it feel like just sending out the game to a dozen of person for a week before prinitng would have been enougth to do a lot of proofreading. Plus hireing someone to actually proofread a bit more. But hey, pathfinder still rules. Do you know if the pdf version is available with updated errata once bougth or is it a one time buy then add the errata yourself?
I think i see a strange loophole for champions of deities like gorum, who offer both holy or unholy sanctification. The last sentence before the bolded "Page 106" suggests that you may choose either side of the holy war independant of your tenants of good/evil. So if you, as a follower of Gorum follow the tenants of good, but then seperately choose ro become unholy through that one sentance, you can simultaniously be both holy and unholy. Lol
Honestly i think it makes sense that a deity like Pharasma would not empower Champions, neither a holy crusading paladin nor an unholy blackguard really fits with her themes
I do like the intent of the deadlier interpretation of the dying rules. It helps stop the weird yo-yo that pcs can do, especially in 5e with Healing Word, where you can back and forth from dying to 'healthy' several times a fight. The way i was planning to work around the more deadly dying rules was firstly to ignore persistant damage increasing your dying value. The second was to let wounded add to increases in dying value, but you die at dying 6 (7 with diehard). So going down the first time is still not a big sweat, you got lots of time to make your saves and get picked up. The second time you only have 3 rounds, so still doable but much tighter. The third time you have 2 rounds, which is much more of a butt clencher and hopefully makes you really consider your tactics going forward. If you somehow manage to go down 4 times in one fight, I think you earned those consequences.
@@dedalesigma6755 the general case of spirit damage is less restrictive. However a lot of things seem to be labeled as (paraphrase) "spirit damage if the target has the unholy trait" so there is no spirit damage if the target isn't unholy. One example from Smite Evil is |replace "good damage" with "spirit damage if the target is unholy"| so it now only deals damage to unholy.
ADDITIONS/ERRATA:
-The Core books are perfectly usable. The errata is small in light of how much is in the books. For the 2019 Core Rulebook, after 4 rounds of errata which have been more extensive than this, I still use my 1st printing Core Rulebook all the time. For people coming from D&D 5E, the rules are much clearer and consistent than in 5E. Methinks some of the discontent is connected to also being unhappy that there is a Remaster at all... but there are good reasons for why Paizo did it.
-I forgot to mention that their explanation of why the Death + Dying rules were wrong doesn't really make sense... Anyway, regardless, we're at where most players and GMs wanted to be! The "wounded condition" wasn't changed; the Recovery Rule changed. *shrug*
-The champion's class features are buffed, but a couple "extra damage vs. evil" feats are nerfed/more situational, saying the target MUST be unholy: Smite Evil, Aura of Faith
-One commenter says that removing spellcasting ability modifier goes together with the new universal spellcasting proficiency - when you pick up spells from other traditions via Archetypes or Feats, it is not inherently weaker than spells in your base tradition. I think this is the best explanation!
-One commenter writes: "Someone needs to tell them to pull their fucking finger out, hire some goddamn proofreaders and don't seend the book to print until they are sure it doesn't have any errors in it." ... I'm happy I don't get as angry as some people! lol. There is no evidence that the people at Paizo were slacking. (And even if they had extra money to hire people, you can't just hire an outside "proofreader" to vet 500 pages of rules. That kind of needs to stay within your core of designers.)
That was the part that left a sour taste in my mouth... I kinda liked the change, but something that met it between the two would have been preferred
I think it's fine they made day 1 Errata, just look at you errata-ing every video you release!
Anyway it would be worse if they released something without acknowledging it's problems. (especially since there was no playtesting. And they had plenty of time since they sent it to the printers and got to watch all the youtubers pick it apart in the last two weeks)
The stupid thing about the new Wounded rules was that it made things more complicated. They could have run with the relatively simple RAP (Rules As Played), and simply set the D-E-ded threshold to 3, or 2 and let tables adjust to taste.
It is a matter of speed. They couldn't have had good proofreading and playtesting in the time they were planning to get this remaster out. We can either like the swiftness or dislike the sloppiness, that an individual call I won't make for anyone but myself. I will only say a day one patch for a book like a modern video game is somethign I hope doesn't become normalized.
"One commenter says that removing spellcasting ability modifier goes together with the new universal spellcasting proficiency - when you pick up spells from other traditions via Archetypes or Feats, it is not inherently weaker than spells in your base tradition."
Yeah but that doesn't make any sense? Like you still use Wisdom for your DC if you archetype into druid as a Wizard, so I don't really see why they then needed to remove adding your spellcasting mod to the damage? Your Electric Arc you got from the druid class is still going to be worse than your Wizard Electric Arc.
Seems intended for Champions to require to 'sign up for the holy war' by being sanctified as Holy/Unholy, as opposed to Clerics who have it as an option. Which makes sense to me.
Makes sense to me too. Champions ARE the Holy War.
Don't exactly like that "Neutral" deities, especially Deities that don't care about Sanctification, are barred from raising up Champions of their own. IMHO, it doesn't address the issue that removing Alignment was supposed to solve: limiting player options by not allowing the player to make decisions.
@@devcrom3 I took it as you must sanctify as a champion also
I know they replaced Paladins with Champions, which makes sense, as an Unholy Champion makes more sense than an Unholy Paladin. But I would almost think "Crusader" as an even cooler vibe to it. "Unholy Crusader!" Sounds bad ass (and also bad.)
@@slaapliedje They've done a very good job of woke-ifying their vocabulary and mechanics and the term "crusader" might hurt someone with too much time and not enough sense's feelings.
As someone with experience in book publishing, both in TTRPGs and other industries, I can promise you, there are no books of this size and scope printed without errors anywhere, ever. Some errors might be smaller than others, and some might only be obvious to the people that work on the books, but they exist, it's an inevitable part of working on such a complex product.
Totally agree. There was maybe 500 pages of dense rules that went through a revision, requiring more than "proofreading" but also an extensive knowledge of the overall balance and the ramifications of every word to the whole system. I'm sure that the folks in Paizo feel 100x more pain than any of us do when a mistake goes out to print. That isn't even "giving Paizo excuses" - it's just human nature.
Your dedication to Pathfinder and its community is unparalleled, thank you for this!
Seriously man, take a freaking break. You deserve it.
I believe the removal of the Ability Mod from damage is connected to spellcasters having the same proficiency in all spell traditions. In this way a Wizard with Druid Ded won't care about his lower Wisdom Mod when casting Druid spells. The same goes for feats that give you cantrips that always use the Charisma Mod for damage and DC. It's a good change imho.
I think is this is a fair explanation! Adding to my pinned comment
Unfortunately, it also lowers the damage by creating a lower floor and not a higher ceiling for several of the cantrips. It is an overall nerf on spells that already were weak for damage.
You are still using your archetype stat to hit. So it's actually doesn't matter in terms of damage, since you will be 2-3 points behind just to hit targets
@@deadpoolegoryeah I was about to say, spellcasting from an archetype is always gonna be lower rank than spellcasting from a class gesture so there's a damage disparity regardless?
@@deadpoolegorTrue, but this kind of "double-docking" is kind of precisely why they went to universal spellcasting proficiency also. They kind of figured, why have the character suffer in more than one way from casting spells from another tradition? Currently one is penalized from:
1. Lower proficiency
2. Less access to spells and spell slots
3. (possibly) lower accuracy, AND
4. (possibly) lower damage
Personally, I'm incredibly proud of how Paizo is handling this year. They really stepped up and had to deal with a lot of stuff all at once. I'm guessing many people at Paizo had to don additional hats they weren't used to wearing in order to make all this possible. This has been their busiest year, and hopefully their most profitable year to date. I appreciate that they're willing to put out Errata, or even take the time to write it.
Rules Lawyer, thank you for making videos covering this whole thing.
Many (but probably not all) of the factors on Paizo's plate this year:
- 2023 ** with Hasbro trying to pull the rug out from under third party devs, especially Paizo.
- They had to on-the-fly figure out a solution to keep their business afloat, which spread across many aspects of what they do. They realized (as did many developers - and content creators) that their product is based on the backbone of something that could go away at any moment, at the whim of a corporation like Hasbro.
- They needed to rally the troops for support (Community, other creators, etc.)
- Work with Azora Law to develop the ORC License
- Change every single one of their pre-published books to remove the OGL from them for any future printings
- Change their website
- Write and focus on PR to candidly AND tastefully respond to what WotC tried to do
- Develop new products to replace their core rulebooks, because you can't just have books published with no license (if you want third party creators to iterate), which meant cleaning things up and renaming many aspects of their verbiage, but also changing some rules (for instance, scrapping Ability Scores altogether, and just using Modifiers)
- Several mechanics changes which, some of them were probably already in the works as planned errata, but now they had to get their butts in gear
- All the design and PR that's involved in a new product line... times four. Not to mention they delivered TWO of those products in the same Calendar year - only months after their inception.
- Redesign elements of books they had not yet published (like Rage of Elements, or supplements and adventures we've yet to see) to make them immediately relevant to the remaster
- Handle the shitstorm of internet crybabies who don't like change
- Restructure one of the core aspects of their game world: Dragons, and come up with new lore, flavor, designs, artwork, and mechanics to replace something that is definitively Wizards' own thing
- Playtest (Somewhere in this chaos)
- Work with Online tools like Archives of Nethys and Pathbuilder to accommodate the remaster
- Work with Demiplane Nexus on a product that was to revamp it significantly.
- Still go to conventions, drum up support, and give the people what they want (content... always content)
- Manage the highest product sales and delivery they've literally ever had (bless the world for buying their stuff, but bless Paizo for putting things out on a steep discount, that was smart)
- Handle inquiries from LGS's about why they couldn't ship any more of their most popular book - especially increased calls from LGS's who maybe didn't have Pathfinder in stock before, but tried to get on board when several customers came in and said "I'm done with D&D I want this Pathfinder thing". Which, by the way, I heard from my local LGS owner that after a couple weeks nobody cared anymore, even though he'd already bought dozens of different Pathfinder books because customers said they wanted them but then didn't come in to actually buy them, so now he's wary about it as a product.
- So on
- So forth
No rest for the wicked huh. Thanks for hitting us with the news as quick as you did.
I can explain the champion for you
You can choose the tennents of Good if your deity allows you to sanctify as holy
You can choose the tennents of Evil if your deity allows you to sanctify as unholy
As a champion you MUST obtain tennents as part of your class - you MUST make a choice there - that being said I do agree with you that there probably is a stopgap for the handful of dieties that don't let you sanctify at all for current time
There's a fairly popular homebrew of neutral champions on wanderer's guide, wonder what that author's gonna do with that.
I've watched every one of these videos and I still don't fully understand spirit damage and the holy war. I would really enjoy a single video dedicated to that topic.
Thank you for everything you do!
I see your 7th Continent boardgame in the background. From one explorer to another...respect. 🤜🤛
Paizo should absolutely hire you as a QA tester (is that just an "editor" in this industry?). This huge list of day 1 errata just makes me want to hold off on buying the remastered pdfs even more. At least to when they release the updated pdfs.
And if I'm reading it right, the typo is in title block it's telling you to replace the text in the book with, meaning it's currently officially called Arcade Cascade.
...Not complaining.
That would be funnt, but they'll probably edit it later.
Superb job with these videos, been great to get information and clarification this fast.
Okay, Paizo errating old "+ Spellcasting mod" is a sucker punch to me. I mean, adding a spellcasting modifier was the whole point of leaving old spells in the first place! Is there even a point to use produce flame now if we have ignition?
There is literally no reason to keep using Produce Flame, this is what's so confusing about this situation. Like, they both now do the same amount damage now, sure, but Ignition has the aditional benefit of the dice raising to d6s in melee, so I have no idea why anyone would use Produce Flame.
One final "fuck you" from your friendly neighborhood nice guy publishers.
Champion of Pharasma: "What fills a champion's heart with neutrality?"
This is something that I expect to be solved in PC2. When champions were tied to alignment, sure, it's a little bit weird. But Pharasma has an ethos, declares edicts and forbids anathemas. It even has a cause to crusade against (undeath). It should absolutelly be possible to champion those ideas.
What can neutral the nature of a man
Thanks so much for getting this out so quickly.
The way I understand it is as follows:
- Champions must sanctify if their deity requires it, just like with Clerics
- if their deity doesn’t require it, they don’t need to sanctify but can if they chose to
- if they chose to sanctify even if their deity doesn’t ask for it, they can only sanctify in a specific way depending on their deity’s tenets ; e.g. if a deity has the tenets of good but doesn’t require sanctification, their champions can only sanctify themselves as holy, or not sanctify at all
- a champion whose deity doesn’t require sanctification can do so voluntarily anyway, but they must sanctify themselves in a way that doesn’t go against the deity’s tenets
In other words, some deities require sanctification, others do not. Either way, a champion mustn’t sanctify themselves in a way that goes against their God’s tenets, unless the deity’s tenets are neutral in which case they can chose either way. For example, a warrior-deity might have neutral tenets in the form of exhorting one’s martial prowess but nothing about using said prowess to protect the weak or to subjugate them. This warrior-deity probably won’t require sanctification, meaning their champions still can sanctify voluntarily but the deity doesn’t care which way.
You woke up from a coffin? Wow, you *are* a real lawyer!
Regarding the change to the interaction between the Dying and Wounded conditions.
Perhaps they originally intended on someone's death threshold -- the point at which they die -- to be a number added to their Constitution modifier? Like, maybe 3 + Con? Most adventurers are going in with a +1 at least, which means they would die at Dying 4... but if you have someone who's extra tough like a barbarian or kineticist, maybe they have a +4 Con and can go all the way to Dying 7 before they keel over. That would make the "add + Wounded each time" part still threaten those characters.
Your coverage of the Remaster has been so helpful in getting prepared for the changes. Also have to say that while I didn't personally like the New/Mistaken Death and Dying rules as the default, I did want them as a Variant Rule. Increased lethality in a game is something that you have Variant Rules for, in my opinion.
I'm also wondering if the Champion in Player Core 2 is going to be significantly different then what now exists with the Erratas, or if its going to be largely the same with a few edits to clear up some points (Like if Sanctifying is optional or not). What would be cool if they added a Tenant option that didn't Sanctify you directly, but also didn't prevent you from being Sanctified, Tenants of Balance or something. Think those existing would also clear up what I assume is meant to be a flow chart of, "You may choose to be Sanctified by your god and then you may be automatically Sanctified depending on your Tenant choice," But that's what I assume is meant to happen based on my own reading of the Errata, we'll just have to wait for the real rules.
Paladin champions specifically also got a stealth buff: they're allowed to lie now lmao. Preremaster had the tenet "You must act with honor, never taking advantage of others, lying, or cheating", but their new anathemas are just "take advantage of another, cheat".
Yeah not being able to lie AT ALL was a bit much. It would also render the deception skill, one that scales with one of your main ability scores completely useless. However, don't be fooled, lying for your personal gain is still taking advantage of someone else.
@@StabYourBrain Yes, but this put to rest the old, stupid debates about paladins not being able to lie to the Evil Empire about where the innocents hide.
"Oh, crap. Sure, you're going to put little girl Anna from the Frank family in an extermination camp, but.. you know... not being truthful is also bad, so there's that. She hides in the attic".
Don't take advantage of another, or cheat, is enough to cover all the relevant situations where lying to for personal gain would be wrong (which is what a paladin shouldn't do). Not telling the bad guys about your Underground Railroad operation to save enslaved people is perfectly ok with paladinhood, and I'm glad the removal of the word lying destroys any attempt to rules-lawyering it by bad faith actors.
Lol day 1 errata...i wish they released pdfs first to the community so we could review it before print.
I like the Champion buff, but your thinking about what they said about giving the errata on Dying/Wounded is a bit..... What??? I'll just use either the new scarier one as originally given in the Remaster, and on my GM's Screen, or something else. It's all good. Yes, get some rest dude. Thnx for all you've been giving like crazy for us all!! 👍🤓
One thing not mentioned is the change to Arcane Shroud. They removed Heroism from the possible spells it can give you. It now lets you choose three spells when you take the feat and any time you cast a spell from a spell slot, you get to choose one of those three.
BUT... before the remaster, it said that the spell lasts until the end of your next turn or its normal duration whichever is LONGER. Now it reads whichever is SHORTER, meaning you only get this benefit for one round.
Paizo please let this man finish his long rest, it's been a week!
Awesome videos Ronald, always love your videos
Strongly dislike replacing the static +4 to damage for Ignition with an additional D4 (2D4)...makes the spell more random, randomness is not always what you want
Guess it's more for GM's convenience. Makes it easier to use cantrips for monsters with innate magic
That being said, isn't Produce Flame not only "just" viable, but also PFS viable? Like use whatever you like, Paizo is cool with that
@@nolanstrife7350they errata’d the old spells, so now when people say “just use produce flame”, thanks to the errata, means produce flame is still 2d4.
@@TrueLimeyhoney yeah, I know... I was commenting mid-video, so, you know...
That was a sucker punch for sure
Its not only "more random" it is, in fact, weaker
It's not just more random, it's worse, because the average is worse. Average of 2d4 is 5, average of 1d4+4 is 6.5. Actually a closer average would have been 3d4 (average 7.5). On the long run, once you get a +1 to your spellcasting MOD at level 5 it would be equal, and beyond level 10 it would be slightly worse.
I don't think slightly buffing spellcasters during levels 1-4, when they are at their worst, would be problematic. But Paizo is absolutely obsessed with the idea that any improvement to spellcasting, no matter how small it is, would break balance and instantly transform PF2e into a game riddled with Pun Pun and Djinn Simulacrum Factories.
The day one errata is more than some entire rule systems lol! 😂
16:10 thank you Ronald, you are very understanding, thank you Ronald, really, thank you ^^ !!!
Ignition replacing produce flame for the psychic cantrip (with reach on the melee version) make it very attractive for rogue with magical trickster, because it means you get more sources to off-guard an enemy than with ranged attacks
Figment getting subtle puts it more in line with minor illusion in D&D - it’s appropriate for what that spell is supposed to do.
One thing about the magus is that arcane shroud also changed a bit, seems people are kind of split on it.
Now you choose 3 possible effects when you get the feat, and whenever you cast a slotted spell (any spell) you can trigger one of those effects until the end of your next round (or the effects normal duration, whichever is shorter) and heroism got removed from that list.
Given that it takes an extra action to use, and that it changed "whichever is longer" to "whichever is shorter" i see a lot of people calling that a nerf to an already meh feat given how starved for actions magus can be.
According to some Paizo folks on a Discord I am in, apparently there was a consensus when 2e first came out that the Dying rules were meant to be the harsher ones, but at a point they changed their minds and decided on the gentler ones. HOWEVER the person punching in the information didn't know that and everyone else thought everyone knew. So the book ended up clarifying the mismatching text to the older, no longer true one and not the one they'd decided to go with for the Remaster.
Hahaha Pinkertons.... Definitely more of a LE move... Good thing Paizo left alignments behind.
Holy champions are now required to play the Doom theme on their phone when the fight involves fiends.
The weird way the Champion's stuff is worded in regard to sanctification makes me wonder if Player Core 2 is finally going to introduce "Neutral" Causes, in the form of an option for deities that don't offer Sanctification and/or if you choose not to Sanctify. It's just that since this errata is only fixing what we already have from the original Core and the APG, which is only the stuff that would now be tied to Sanctification, we're not seeing that complete picture yet.
we appriciate your sacrifice!
I remember that champions had errata for their reactions pretty soon after the original PH came out too.
It seems like you can't be a champion of a deity that doesn't allow sanctification. I think it would *narratively* make sense to play a "champion" of Pharasma, aka one that went around smiting undead and protecting the river of souls. Maybe you just have to be a warpriest under the Cleric though.
I think such ideas will mean that there is probably going to be options for champions of deities that don't allow santification. The undead and anti-undead themed ones are the most obvious options, but one beholded to a powerfull caster or magical creature also makes sense, all of them seem like they would have a clear place in Golarion.
@@Ditidos Hopefully that will be coming in Player Core 2.
Stay strong, Ronald!
The one thing I'm still confused about is the wording of spirit damage in the rulebook. Everyone says it has an affect on all living creatures with souls unless otherwise noted (e.g. it would work on a peasant but not a zombie) but the way it is described in the rulebook on its page makes no mention of what it could damage besides "creatures projecting their consciousness" or "possessing another creature". The wording even further confuses me because it says when used to attack a creature possessing another creature it would not affect the possessed creature. It does expressly say that it does not affect creatures without a soul, like constructs, but I would like one more sentence of specific information as to if it can affect any run of the mill person.
I hope that the issue with Champions and neutral deities is just the consequence of this being a stopgap measure to deal with a class that's heavily tied to alignment, and that they're going to present options for champions of neutral deities in player core 2, because I want my champion of Pharasma, dammit!
There's some fuss about pathfinder infinite on subreddit rn, because of Paizo decisions with licensing. Could you make a video about it?
The conflagration around Produce Flame, as it happens, took place on Discord an hour ago.
And a psychic using produce flame is now not just not better, it's actively worse because you don't get the double range from Ignition.
Oracles recover additional focus points innately as well, they just get that ability at a later level compared to psychics.
This seems like a good place to look for clarification, as it went unlisted in the Secrets of Magic FAQ. Is there somewhere that Paizo clarified the impact remaster would have on the "Fey Gift Spells" Eidolon feature?
I feel like the idea with Champions is that if you're a Champion of a deity, you are DOWN for the Holy War. At least for now.
I was expecting that Paizo are going to do something with the Swashbuckler’s Disarm Flair feat in the errata. With the changes to disarm it doesn’t really give anything to non-gymnast Swash
I promise you, I would still watch your videos even if they weren't topical and timely! If you need rest you should take it, D:
Paizo saying one thing and delivering something else? Never would have expected that AGAIN! /sarcasm
I would actually consider the changes to champion as an overall nerf, at least at my table.
We mostly fight evil creatures that won't be weak to holy, so holy strikes and good damage being changed to spirit damage won't be particularly relevant.
On the other hand, the changes to Smite Evil, Aura of Faith, and Blade of Justice, where they now only work on unholy targets changes them from generally useful to almost completely useless.
Naturally this varies a lot between campaigns but my current champion is going almost exclusively negatively affected.
Unless im personally missing something here, unless the evil creatures at your table are for some reason resistant to Good damage (not Holy damage), I am not sure how this is could be viewedas a nerf?
The compatability here basically makes nearly all alignment based damage (good/evil) into Holy/Unholy spirit damage, which states in their entry that it deals damage to anything harmed by spirit damage that doesnt share the same trait as your sanctification. So the only things a Holy Champion shouldnt be geting its spirit damage against are things such as Constructs, or against opposing targets who are also Holy.
Frankly this is a pretty big buff to Champions 'general' usability given it would be gaining its bonuses to damage it otherwise normally didn't have against non-evil targets. Its basically as if they changed good champions doing bonus damage to anything that had the evil alignment to instead doing bonus damage to anything that isn't a construct, or that doesnt have the good alignment (and then add to that a number of evil celestials, like demons/devils/daemons, typically having a weakness against this damage type, meaning it would do 'further' damage.)
But thats my understanding of it.
I stand corrected.. i now noticed the "must be unholy text"
Had to read through the entries a bit mote clearly to notice it, seems the majority of the entries specify unholy, which yes there could be a number of enemies prior to this change would have been evil, but in the remaster may not be considered Unholy.. like say an Evil Fey probably wouldnt have the unholy trait, likely.
Okay you are correct, I retract my previous statement--this may actually be a.. HOPEFULLY unintentional nerf.
Ah, good point. (I don't think Blade of Justice is straight-up nerfed though; it also replaces doing good damage to all creatures with spirit damage.) I'll include this wrinkle in my pinned comment.
I was going to get he physical books, but I guess I have to wait until at least 2nd printing. More likely I will just give up on physical books.
I would guess most tables won't be switching right away. At least for our group we're keeping our current rules until the end of the campaign we're going through (mostly we don't accidentally break anything updating foundry.) Although we do plan our next one to be the current rules whatever those may be when we get there.
Have I got this straight: if reduced to 0 hit points you are dying 1. When you get to dying 4 you're dead - if you fail a save your dying level increase by one step. If you recover, you gain Wounded 1. If you are reduced to 0 hit points subsequently, you go straight to dying 2 (dying 1 + 1 Wound)?
yes, that looks about right.
further, if you're already in dying condition and take damage, you automatically progress the dying condition by 1 (or by 2, if it was a critical hit that dealt the damage)
Yes, that's how it has always worked. However, in the new rules that was printed in the remaster, which apparently were the original intended rules, whenever you gain or increase the dying value, you add your wounded value to it as well. This means that when you go down a second time, you go to dying 2 (by adding your wounded 1 value to your dying 1 value), and in addition, if you take *any* point of damage, or fail a *single* recovery flat check, you instantly die, since both of those things increase your dying value by 1, and since you add your wounded value to your dying value when you increase it, you increase your dying value by another 1, in total increasing it by 2, which means 2 + 2 = 4 = dead.
Most players did not run the wounded condition this way, most people only added the wounded value to the dying value only when you *gain* the dying condition, i.e. when you fall under 0 HP.
Thanks for the clarification - that's how I played it@@eamk887
Coming from DnD (yet to run my first session) but having bought all "old" books (well pdfs, cause europe), the only "dislike" towards the remasters I have, is reading/learning the books, and then having to look through the errate to see what newly learned stuff is different now and hoping I do not mix it up too much.
I am sad they could not update the pdfs, but I also understand why.
If it wasn’t for supporting my local game store, I certainly would be tempted to give up on the physical books. It’s next to impossible to keep up with the errata non-electronically, even if you print out the pages and shove them in the back for reference. Thanks for the great videos.
You do good thank you for video
I believe the magus‘ arcane cascade requirement was changed from „your most recent action was a spell / spellstrike“ to „your most recent action _this turn_ was a spell / spellstrike“, sliiiiightly nerfing them
Not even books are immune to day 1 patches.
"They aren't going to send the Pinkertons to our door". XD That dig on Wizards of the Coast.
Gotta keep in mind that the Psychic's 2 point Refocus is per 10 minutes, whereas the 3 point Refocus available to everyone is still 1 point per 10 minutes. It's still a bit lackluster, but it's not a TOTAL hijack of that ability.
That reminds me of the Champion subclass from Sinclair's Almanac being powered by "friendship" instead of gods or such. I wonder how we'd work that around the new mechanics of needing to sanctify to even be a Champion? Gonna be interesting to see how playing an agnostic Champion gets justified at the tables lol
Nerfing spell damage seems especially strange to me, since direct damage is already one of the weaker things you can do with spells. It's a very strange choice. Even if removing the ability modifier is for another reason, some of these cantrips are losing like 20% of their damage and a lot of consistency, which is massive!
This video makes me reconsider my decision to switch to Pathfinder, so much errata to a book that is not even available yet makes buying the new books feel useless.
just use the core books if you can get them.
In the GM core hazard of Ghostly choir it still references good/evil
i dont work on rulebooks, but on academic books, and editing them is the devil's own nightmare
Well, now I have to build a Magus with the Inventor Archetype so I can make Arcade Cascade an actual thing!
Thanks for the typo, Paizo!
I'm literally not surprised that this happened.
Mistakes on top of mistakes to fix mistakes because of making mistakes.
It' be good to do a little PDF for these classes to adapt it to the remaster, especially if they are not in the advanced players guide.
i'll wait for a new printing with these applied.
I'm waiting for the remaster to be more complete before updating.
I agree. This is the problem with rushing. no matter the excuses.
I wonder how Pathfinder CRB errata (remaster compatability will effect PFS organized play... It seemed clear before the Ignition and Produce Flame would exist side by side but this pretty much with slight exceptions makes Legacy spells the Remaster spells in all but name.
It seems only limited to the spells that added the attribute modifier, from what I can tell
Not all of them. Shocking Grasp and Thunderstrike are still fairly different despite one just being the updated version of the other. Shocking Grasp is still a touch range attack roll that deals 2d12 Electricity Damage with Persistent Damage for Metal Armor wearing targets, while Thunderstrike is a 120 ft. range Reflex Save that deals 1d12 Electricity + 1d4 Sonic Damage with Clumsy 1 for Metal Armor wearing targets.
Paizo should hire Ronald at this point.
Yeah, the lack of any compensastion to the Psychic's focus points is very disappointing. Especially since you're supposed to just remove the level 18 feat ("Deepest Wellspring" in the case of psychic) and have the level 12 feat give you the "recover all 3 focus points in 10 minutes" effect, which psychics actually do not even have. So is psychic now actually the caster that's potentially worst at using focus points after level 12?
For Champions, it seems reasonable that certain options could just not be available. For example, it doesn't make sense for Torag to have Redeemers as the entire idea is anathema to him.
Something like that wouldn't have been an issue previously as Torag just couldn't have a NG Champion. For Player Core 2, it might be possible to just include a list of any incompatibilities.
actually the Oracle was the first that has the feat to restore more Focus point build in in the class
Ronald, thank you so much for your hard work. You've been going like an absolute work horse.
So get some good rest so you don't burn out 😀
I'm very curious to see how common the holy/unholy trait is for the updated Monster Core. While the good damage from, say, smite evil only affected evil creatures, at least it affected *all* evil creatures. If unholy is pretty uncommon, say just things like fiends and other things with weakness to good damage now, the new smite evil only affecting unholy creatures is actually a nerf compared to the previous version.
On the other hand, if unholy is pretty common (i.e. most undead, many abberations, all fiends, evil dragons, etc.) this might not be a big deal or even a buff. I was hoping they'd get rid of aligned damage completely, but "spirit damage IF holy/unholy" is just an even more (potentially) restrictive version of the old alignment damage, and I'm not a big fan (will probably remove this via house rule if so).
Fairly new GM here. At one point in my discovery of Pathfinder, cantrips were 1d4 + spellcasting mod. Then when heightened, it read "Increase the damage by 1d4." My thoughs as I remember them below.
Wait. So, the heightened cantrip becomes 2d4 + spellcasting mod? That can't be right! It doesn't scale well at all. That means at level 1, your modifier does a lot of the lifting but at level 20, it's almost meaningless the little it contributes. Like, why even invest in your spellcasting modifier if it pays off less and less over the levels? Surely your modifier must increase together too!
At that point, I didn't know anything about the underlying math of Pathfinder. I just heard it was tight math. A fair balance between modifier and dice numbers is the thing I gravitated towards in my conclusions.
I then asked on the Pathfinder Discord, and yes, I understood the spellcasting modifier didn't increase. It was meant as just a small bonus, and the real power of the spellcasting modifier was to increase your attacks and DCs.
With the new rules of 2d4 damage instead of 1d4 + spellcasting modifier, I think it's easier to read for first timers trying to understand that the extra 1d4 damage from 1st level is just a bonus, leaving spellcasting modifiers to dedicate to purely attacks and DCs.
Do you have a video on your point regarding stunned and slowed? I didn't quite grasp that in the quickfire round.
In my "10 things I dislike about the Remaster" video I go over it (complaining that it hasn't been clarified)
There is, unfortunately, no way to know for sure whether stunned removes reactions or not, I think. Not because what you quote about being unable to act is wrong, but because it is contradicted by another section of the rules. From the Gaining and Losing Actions sidebar:
"Quickened, slowed, and *stunned* are the primary ways you can gain or lose actions on a turn. The rules for how this works appear on page 462. In brief, *these conditions alter how many actions you regain at the start of your turn; thus, gaining the condition in the middle of your turn doesn’t adjust your number of actions on that turn.* If you have conflicting conditions that affect your number of actions, you choose which actions you lose. For instance, the action gained from haste lets you only Stride or Strike, so if you need to lose one action because you’re also slowed, you might decide to lose the action from haste, letting you keep your other actions that can be used more flexibly.
Some conditions prevent you from taking a certain subset of actions, typically reactions. Other conditions simply say you can’t act. *When you can’t act, you’re unable to take any actions at all. Unlike slowed or stunned, these don’t change the number of actions you regain;* they just prevent you from using them. That means if you are somehow cured of paralysis on your turn, you can act immediately."
As you can see, this goes directly against the section of the stunned condition stating that "You can't act." The rules referenced on page 462 contain no further clarification. I can't find anything that indicates which of these versions of stunned, both supported by the rules, I am intended by the designers to run. It's frustrating!
does pf2 also have the "specific rules trump general rules" guideline, or am i transplanting that from my 5e experience?
if so, could the above quote be the general rules for that "family" of conditions, with stun having its own specific rules?
@bamfalu it does, but the rules i quote specifically outline stunned as a condition that only takes effect on your turn and even list it as an example of a condition that *does not* make you unable to act, directly contradicting the description of the condition itself. Both simply can't be right, and there's no indication of which is the typo. It's a mistake in the rules, unfortunately.
ah, i see...
I think we may have another case of the designers thinking different things in different parts of the book...
(Btw "You can't act" is definitely rules text when it is the 2nd sentence of both the Petrified and Unconscious conditions. And one would think it has the same rules effect under different conditions, including Stunned.)
@TheRulesLawyerRPG Yep, that's what I'm inclined to believe as well. It's frustrating given that there is a mechanical definition for "act," which is laid out on page 469 and supports your take on Stunned:
*"If you can’t act, you can’t use any actions, including reactions and free actions."*
I'm inclined to believe that if they clarify it, that's the direction it goes.
It just gets under my skin when another part of the book contradicts it, you know? Makes things muddy, haha. I can't be sure whether the line about not being able to act was intended to remain in stunned or not!
With luck, the paragraph I quote didn't survive into Player Core 1. I haven't had the time to check. That would be good enough for now.
And when i just had a new waveof respect for Paizo for the new dying rules...
If you, and everyone else at your table, like the new system, just use that, no one is forcing you to follow Paizo's official rules.
Pathfinder 2e is already kind of notorious for being a deadly game, so most people don't want it becoming even deadlier.
@@eamk887 ive always found that notoriety a little crazy. its difficult. its not deadly. i guess if you're coming from 5e it seems deadly, but its honestly not really that deadly.
My magus has the psychic archetype for ignition ocillating wave. At lv 5 this starlit spqn shoots a 2d8 arrow that explodes on a focus point into 4d12+4 splash witha. Deadly d10 on crit and 4d4 persistent fire damage? Oh my. . . we delete things even harder.
Small correction, Amped Ignition only uses d12s when used in melee, in ranged it uses d10s. But still, that is a very powerful attack.
@@eamk887You can use the melee mode on a ranged spellstrike, no? Arrow delivers melee range attack spells all the time.
@@TuariD I am no expert on Magus nor Starlit Span, but my interpretation is that the melee versions of Produce Flame nor Ignition work for ranged Spellstrikes. I'll explain my reasoning:
The first thing we need to do, is read the description for Starlit Span, which reads: "You can deliver the spell even if its range is shorter than the range increment of your ranged attack." Basically, if a spell has a range that's shorter than your weapon's range, you can use it.
Now you may think that this should work then, since PF and Ignition have a range of 30ft, but while the ranged versions have that range, you might notice that the melee versions... don't actually have a range.
Under PF it says "This is normally a ranged attack, but you can also make a melee attack against a creature in your unarmed reach." Under Ignition it says "If the target is within your melee reach, you can choose to make a melee spell attack."
As you can see, the melee versions of these spells do not have ranges, not even the ranges of touch, they specifically state that the target *has to be in your melee reach*. In my mind, this means that the melee versions of these spells do not work for a ranged Spellstrike, since they don't have range increments, and specifically state that the target has to be in your melee reach for the dice to increase.
In order for the melee versions to work with Starlit Span, in my opinion, the spells should say something along the lines of "you can choose to cast another version of this spell with the range of touch, in which case the damage dice increase to d6s."
As I said, I'm no expert, so I could absolutely be wrong, but this is how I interpret the rules. I did try to find some kind of comment section that also confirms my opinion, to make sure I'm right, and while I didn't find one for this exact same case, I did find a reddit thread talking about using Reach Spell on the melee version of Ignition, and in that comment section the redditors came to the same conclusion as I; the melee version of Ignition (and PF as well) does not have a range, so things that mention a spell's range, does not apply to them. Here's a link to the thread: www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/15ab9gu/deleted_by_user/ A good quote from the thread: "A range of touch and a spell having a special effect when used within your melee reach are not the same thing. If you want to use melee ignition at "range," you need to be looking for things that extend your melee reach."
But even after all that, if your GM is okay with it, you can continue using melee versions of PF and/or Ignition in your ranged Spellstrikes, if that's what you want.
After seeing the day one errata I canceled my printed books order.
I will buy the PDFs and wait until next year and the 2nd print run. I can't stand it to have such glaring issues in my books.
The speed at which they did it doesn't excuse the lack of proof reading.
There is no excuse for a book needing a patch in the first 6 months of release. If the original pf2e needed a patch within 2 weeks of release all that tells me is that some dipshit in charge at paizo doesn't think hiring a proofreader is worth the money.
And making excuses for them will only encourage them to be slack in their editing and publish books that become paperweights withing weeks of being released.
Someone needs to tell them to pull their fucking finger out, hire some goddamn proofreaders and don't seend the book to print until they are sure it doesn't have any errors in it
I believe the confusion with the champion “can santify” language is probably cause you were skimming through it. Those references were for gods that don’t have an updated description. And may have, to some degree, been trying to define gods choices more than the champion having them. This could also be used for Clerics then as well.
There is no choice in Sanctification as a Champion. You can only champion a deity that allows Sanctification whether it be holy, unholy, or both (in cases of neutral deities). Because you must choose a tenet (Good or Evil) as part of being a Champion, that means you must be sanctified as Holy or Unholy.
Besides the explicit exception for deities not covered yet of course.
The removal of the modifier in cantrip damages is really painfull. This really reduces the damage of some classes which rely on cantrip for dps.
Likely a lot of this errata - specifically the compatibility stuff - was to keep WotC trademarks out of the printed book.
3:36 wasn't stunned always different from slowed? But they can't stack to make you loose your whole turn though except if you slowed/stunned 3+(explained in the description of the stunned condition).
There has been some conversation about what in the Stunned condition rules is flavor text and what's actual rules. Like, is the "You can't act" part flavor text or not? What about the "You become senseless" part? It's just really confusingly put together.
Gonna copy my other comment here cause it's relevant. Sorry for length!
There is unfortunately no way to know for sure whether stunned removes reactions or not, I think. Not because what you quote about being unable to act is wrong, but because it is contradicted by another section of the rules. From the Gaining and Losing Actions sidebar:
"Quickened, slowed, and stunned are the primary ways you can gain or lose actions on a turn. The rules for how this works appear on page 462. In brief, these conditions alter how many actions you regain at the start of your turn; thus, gaining the condition in the middle of your turn doesn’t adjust your number of actions on that turn. If you have conflicting conditions that affect your number of actions, you choose which actions you lose. For instance, the action gained from haste lets you only Stride or Strike, so if you need to lose one action because you’re also slowed, you might decide to lose the action from haste, letting you keep your other actions that can be used more flexibly.
Some conditions prevent you from taking a certain subset of actions, typically reactions. Other conditions simply say you can’t act. *When you can’t act, you’re unable to take any actions at all. Unlike slowed or stunned, these don’t change the number of actions you regain;* they just prevent you from using them. That means if you are somehow cured of paralysis on your turn, you can act immediately."
As you can see, this goes directly against the section of the stunned condition stating that "You can't act." The rules referenced on page 462 contain no further clarification. I can't find anything that indicates which of these versions of stunned, both supported by the rules, I am intended by the designers to run. It's frustrating!
Player Core 1 (page 415, under "Gaining and Losing Actions") actually has a pretty definitive statement on "can't act": "The most restrictive form of reducing actions is when an effect states that you can’t act: this means you can’t use any actions, or even speak. When you can’t act, you still regain your actions unless another effect (like the stunned condition) prevents it." So it's pretty clear from this that whenever an effect says "you can't act", this has actual mechanical effect and is not just flavor text.
Oh ok I thought this was about the actions you loose/gain but it's about reactions. Stunned does say "you can't act while stunned" so I would probably say that you can't take any free action/reaction if you are stunned until it becomes your turn and you are not stunned anymore but I see how it can lead to debates.
The only real flavor text i see is the "you've become senseless" at least on AON. Most other conditions also only have 1 phrase flavor text and the rest is relevant (like sickened has "you feel ill" and then the description on how it works).
It also alligns with the unconscious condition that has the "you can't act" just after the flavor text.
@@MrNegetZ The root of the problem is that another section of the rules says that stunned only takes effect at the beginning of your turn and even lists it as an example of something that *does not* leave you unable to act. No way to know which is correct at the moment. I'd love clarification from Paizo.
It seems you do NOT have to have Tenets of Good or Tenets of Evil in the stopgap... that is one *option* associated with the Paladin/Redeemer/Liberator. You could be a Paladin without those Tenets (and therefore not Sactified and Holy) but still uphold your diety's Tenets. See the paragraph right before the Paladin [9:20] "Use the following text for the three causes that must follow the tenets of good **in the Core Rulebook. These are no longer strictly proscribed by alignment."**. They used to require it, now they do not.
RL! Vacation, *NOW*!!!
I kind of wish they did do a limited volume release, errata, and then go to a reprint with fixes
But that costs a lot of money because of how the printing industry works, and prevents people from buying
The Oracle could also refocus everything between combats in 10 minutes (it was their candy before the Psychic even migrated to 2e)
Link to conversation with Seifter about death?
I believe it's this one on the roll for combat livestream: th-cam.com/video/SVS4gSv2wlE/w-d-xo.html
Yeah, those "updated" death rules were pretty obviously wrong. You don't make a scale that goes 1-4 and then say "but you go through it exponentially."
i agree. i mean im not of the camp that pathfinder is too deadly, and i wouldnt mind a slightly deadly version, but the rule was obviously wrong.
Removing the spellcasting ability modifier and replacing it with a random solution is taking away from character differentiation. To me it makes no sense that if a master is casting a spell, it's no better than if their simple minded apprentice cast it, you basically ruin that mechanic. If anything, I'll toss out the extra dice on spells and replace it across the board with spellcasting ability modifier.
If you want to continue with the ability modifiers, just do it, as long as everyone at your table agrees to that.
And the analogy you made doesn't quite work. While yes, the damage of a spell is the same if a master caster did it or an apprentice did it, but everything besides that would still be different. If a spell is a spell attack, then a master caster will hit more often than an apprentice. If a spell has a saving throw, foes will fail at them more often against a master caster than an apprentice.
While I understand that they needed to put out the game at somepoint, it feel like just sending out the game to a dozen of person for a week before prinitng would have been enougth to do a lot of proofreading. Plus hireing someone to actually proofread a bit more.
But hey, pathfinder still rules.
Do you know if the pdf version is available with updated errata once bougth or is it a one time buy then add the errata yourself?
I think i see a strange loophole for champions of deities like gorum, who offer both holy or unholy sanctification. The last sentence before the bolded "Page 106" suggests that you may choose either side of the holy war independant of your tenants of good/evil. So if you, as a follower of Gorum follow the tenants of good, but then seperately choose ro become unholy through that one sentance, you can simultaniously be both holy and unholy. Lol
Honestly i think it makes sense that a deity like Pharasma would not empower Champions, neither a holy crusading paladin nor an unholy blackguard really fits with her themes
I do like the intent of the deadlier interpretation of the dying rules. It helps stop the weird yo-yo that pcs can do, especially in 5e with Healing Word, where you can back and forth from dying to 'healthy' several times a fight. The way i was planning to work around the more deadly dying rules was firstly to ignore persistant damage increasing your dying value. The second was to let wounded add to increases in dying value, but you die at dying 6 (7 with diehard). So going down the first time is still not a big sweat, you got lots of time to make your saves and get picked up. The second time you only have 3 rounds, so still doable but much tighter. The third time you have 2 rounds, which is much more of a butt clencher and hopefully makes you really consider your tactics going forward. If you somehow manage to go down 4 times in one fight, I think you earned those consequences.
Isn't spirit damage vs creatures with the unholy trait more restrictive than the old good damage (which affected all evil creatures)?
Now spirit damage affects neutral or good monsters too. What the holy trait does is trigger a weakness. So it's less restrictive.
@@dedalesigma6755 the general case of spirit damage is less restrictive. However a lot of things seem to be labeled as (paraphrase) "spirit damage if the target has the unholy trait" so there is no spirit damage if the target isn't unholy. One example from Smite Evil is |replace "good damage" with "spirit damage if the target is unholy"| so it now only deals damage to unholy.