Pathfinder Second Edition - Remaster project

[Darkreaper]

Not sure if this is the right place but I bought the remaster books for Fantasy Grounds largely because I wanted to support the cause and I think people work very hard to provide us with a fantastic product. I think the recovery checks under the dying rules in the Reference Manual are the same as in the Player's Guide instead of the new rules in the Player Core. This is how it should read:

Recovery Checks
While you’re dying, attempt a recovery check at the start
of each of your turns. This is a flat check with a DC
equal to 10 + your current dying value to see if you get
better or worse.
Critical Success Your dying value is reduced by 2.
Success Your dying value is reduced by 1.
Failure Your dying value increases by 1 (plus your wounded
value, if any).
Critical Failure Your dying value increases by 2 (plus your
wounded value, if any).

This is how it currently reads in the Reference Document:

Recovery Checks
When you’re dying, at the start of each of your turns, you
must attempt a flat check with a DC equal to 10 + your
current dying value to see if you get better or worse. This
is called a recovery check. The effects of this check are
as follows.
Critical Success Your dying value is reduced by 2.
Success Your dying value is reduced by 1.
Failure Your dying value increases by 1.
Critical Failure Your dying value increases by 2

Its a big difference that makes character death a lot more likely under the remaster. Personally, I love it but others will not.

[Milke]

The recovery checks were errata'd
Death & dying rules work the same.

[Neovirtus]

See the note for pg 411 here:
https://paizo.com/pathfinder/faq

[Trenloe]

Not sure if this is the right place but I bought the remaster books for Fantasy Grounds largely because I wanted to support the cause and I think people work very hard to provide us with a fantastic product.

Thank you for the support, we very much appreciate it.

I think the recovery checks under the dying rules in the Reference Manual are the same as in the Player's Guide instead of the new rules in the Player Core. This is how it should read:

Recovery Checks
While you’re dying, attempt a recovery check at the start
of each of your turns. This is a flat check with a DC
equal to 10 + your current dying value to see if you get
better or worse.
Critical Success Your dying value is reduced by 2.
Success Your dying value is reduced by 1.
Failure Your dying value increases by 1 (plus your wounded
value, if any).
Critical Failure Your dying value increases by 2 (plus your
wounded value, if any).

This is how it currently reads in the Reference Document:

Recovery Checks
When you’re dying, at the start of each of your turns, you
must attempt a flat check with a DC equal to 10 + your
current dying value to see if you get better or worse. This
is called a recovery check. The effects of this check are
as follows.
Critical Success Your dying value is reduced by 2.
Success Your dying value is reduced by 1.
Failure Your dying value increases by 1.
Critical Failure Your dying value increases by 2

Its a big difference that makes character death a lot more likely under the remaster. Personally, I love it but others will not.

As has been mentioned by others, Paizo provided an errata for the section you list. Plus, from the wording, it appears that you're quoting the legacy Core Rules reference manual and not the Player Core reference manual - just wanted to mention that in case you're confusing the Core Rules with the Player Core - easily done!

[MaxAstro]

Found a bug with legacy damage types:

Negative damage is automatically converted to void damage when rolled. However, negative resistance is NOT; this means that if you roll negative damage against a creature with negative resistance, the damage will bypass the resistance, as void =/= negative. I assume the same is true of positive damage.

As usual, I am on the test channel.

[Trenloe]

Negative damage is automatically converted to void damage when rolled. However, negative resistance is NOT; this means that if you roll negative damage against a creature with negative resistance, the damage will bypass the resistance, as void =/= negative. I assume the same is true of positive damage.

Thanks for the reminder. I'd deliberately left updating this side of things until we had a view of the Monster Core (for auto parsing of NPC resistances etc.) - which we have now, so it's time for me to start reviewing this; it'll need changes in a few places...

[Cling]

The Gnome Flickmace still do 1d8 damage in the ORC data set (see attached screenshot). It should do 1d6 according to errata.

[Trenloe]

The Gnome Flickmace still do 1d8 damage in the ORC data set (see attached screenshot). It should do 1d6 according to errata.

Thanks for reporting. This was recently reported and a fix is lined up for a future release.

[webdove]

I am not sure where this question belongs.
The "<animal> (Companion)" items in the bestiary (e.g. Cat (Companion) and Wolf (Companion)) do not have properly parsing damage entries on the NPC sheets, so the player cannot call for damage with them.

For example, the bestiary entry for "Wolf" under melee shows "Damage 1d6+2 piercing plus Knockdown" which highlights blue when you hover over it and rolls a die when double clicked.
The bestiary entry for "Wolf (Companion") under melee shows "Damage 1d8 piercing". It does not highlight when you hover over it and does not roll a die when double clicked.

[Trenloe]

I am not sure where this question belongs.
The "<animal> (Companion)" items in the bestiary (e.g. Cat (Companion) and Wolf (Companion)) do not have properly parsing damage entries on the NPC sheets, so the player cannot call for damage with them.

For example, the bestiary entry for "Wolf" under melee shows "Damage 1d6+2 piercing plus Knockdown" which highlights blue when you hover over it and rolls a die when double clicked.
The bestiary entry for "Wolf (Companion") under melee shows "Damage 1d8 piercing". It does not highlight when you hover over it and does not roll a die when double clicked.

This is specific to the remaster Player Core data, so I've moved the post to the remaster thread. Thanks for raising the issue. We'll get the parsing fixed in a future release.