D&D General Times you misinterpreted a rule... But preferred the misinterpretation

[Retreater]

@ReshiIRE, PF2's former lead designer clarified that the harsher interpretation was the intended rule. Paizo doubled down by printing that rule (clarified to be explicitly the harsher interpretation) in the revised Player Core.
After the outcry of fans, Paizo tripled down on it through their official channels until they finally backed down and issued Day One Errata.
So either Paizo was pressured by fans to change the rules or they made a huge blunder in their editing about one of the primary aspects of their game (literally the life or death of characters).
Feel free to interpret it how you wish. I choose to think that Paizo isn't as careless or sloppy in their design to copy/paste rules from an outdated GM Screen into their core book.

 

[Lanefan]

Way back when, we (mis-)interpreted 1e Magic Missile such that if you got more than one missile they'd fire one per segment rather than all at once. Still play it this way today.

 

[el-remmen]

Way back when, we (mis-)interpreted 1e Magic Missile such that if you got more than one missile they'd fire one per segment rather than all at once. Still play it this way today.

In the very first D&D game I ever played in, another player used magic missile to blow a hole in a castle wall, since it was a "missile." It was the 80s, we were 11 years old, and only knew one definition of "missile."

 

[ReshiIRE]

Where's your sources?

Here's mine on Paizo stating that it was a mistake - said day 1 errata:

Pages 411: The text for the wounded condition was changed for consistency, but became consistent with the wrong piece of text. This would lead to much deadlier encounters! The following changes should ensure that death and dying works the way we intended.

Day 1 errata is not unusual and some of it is pretty critical as well.

Saying they 'doubled down' by printing it makes zero sense, since remember, Mark Seifter had already left at that time of statement, and as far as I can tell, his clarification on the rule came well after he had both left and that this issue had been pointed out, despite the fact that he was lead and could have corrected the rule had it been a mistake, as he left in 2022, well after the initial set of errata.

Which official challenges did Paizo triple down on? I was active on the Reddit at this time and never saw a post that confirmed this; that's why there was mass speculation in the first place.

I think it's much more likely Paizo did make a mistake - which happens in any massive TTRPG rule book - then a conspiracy where they decide to randomly change a key rule in the game, double and triple down on it, and then change it via errata for... no sensible reason?? Hanlon's Razor is pretty useful here.

Anyway this is in the D&D forum so I won't go off topic anymore.

 

[Retreater]

Where's your sources?

There's a 6-page thread here that goes into it.

https://www.enworld.org/threads/pathfinder-2e-remasters-death-and-dying-rules-are-brutal.700952/

No need to clog up another thread with the debate. It comes down to either unpopular design OR terrible editing. Either way, not a good look.

 

[cbwjm]

I interpreted Thunder Wave as a 15’ cube with the caster in the center, potentially pushing away and damaging anyone adjacent to them. I saw it as the “anti-getting surrounded” spell.

While it has been cleared up for me that that is not how it works, I prefer it that way (makes it a more niche but interesting spell). My group, however, decided to play it as intended much to my chagrin.

My group thought that about thunder wave as well, it seems to be commonly misinterpreted that way.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Not my misinterpretation but remember reading about someone who thought turn undead meant they spun around and around. I have never implemented that reading but a part of me wants to make it default

 

[Shiroiken]

I interpreted Thunder Wave as a 15’ cube with the caster in the center, potentially pushing away and damaging anyone adjacent to them. I saw it as the “anti-getting surrounded” spell.

While it has been cleared up for me that that is not how it works, I prefer it that way (makes it a more niche but interesting spell). My group, however, decided to play it as intended much to my chagrin.

Apparently you can still cast it that way, but it requires some 3D logic. You cast the spell upwards, using your floor space as the starting point, center of the cube face. Since you have the option to have your space not be part of the effect, you don't take any damage. This causes everyone adjacent to you to take damage and be pushed upwards, but most DMs would likely rule to push them horizontally away from you instead (since pushing them up would cause them to fall 10 ft for an extra 1d6 damage and become prone).

While more powerful as a cube, I think it would have been better if written as a cone instead.

 

[el-remmen]

Since you have the option to have your space not be part of the effect, you don't take any damage.

???

According to what?

 

[Seramus]

In the very first D&D game I ever played in, another player used magic missile to blow a hole in a castle wall, since it was a "missile." It was the 80s, we were 11 years old, and only knew one definition of "missile."

I had people insisting they could aim the magic missile at eyeballs, into ears, up noses, etc.