Core Rulebook 2nd Printing Errata

I know this is a very RAW discussion and intent is very hard to glean, (and I also recognize that some parts of the errata are currently pretty messy so who knows at this point,) but I've kind of made it a small mission to remind people that PF2 isn't an electronic product with hardcoded rules and suggest what I think would be reasonable interpretations for home tables. I'm not aiming to downplay the frustrations of PFS players who may be more subject to RAW, or imply that there should be less discussion about rules and errata that should be officially cleaned up someday.

I don't really know what to say about multiclass cantrips yet since I can't look at all of the text (though I believe innate spells and cantrips work differently?). Alchemist armor proficiency always includes medium armor, they just forgot to add the text to the upgrades in the printing. The change to Alchemical Alacrity makes little sense without either Enduring Alchemy or the stowed item being able to persist longer than the others by default (because it's not as exposed to the air or something), so people who find giving the free feat(ure) to avoid a tax too much could consider the second possibility, maybe giving it an extra round.

And I'm probably forgetting things to address, but you get the picture — go for pleasant interpretations that don't seem to impede others if you can.

There are multiple feats which only make sense if maneuvers have MAP. Knockdown, Mixed Maneuver, Agile Maneuvers. Plus the sidebar on p. 447 says:

"Striking multiple times in a turn has diminishing returns. The multiple attack penalty (detailed on page 446) applies to each attack after the first, whether those attacks are Strikes, special attacks like the Grapple action of the Athletics skill, or spell attack rolls."

As written this seems like just a straight nerf to maneuvers which no longer benefit from finesse, inspire courage, or bless since those call out attack rolls specifically but still suffer from MAP. I don't know if that was the intent though maneuvers were already hard to justify vs a Strike.

I'm a little new to the game and to Paizo overall - do you think we can expect any clarification from somebody on the team in this thread or in a blog post shortly, or are we going to be confused about these questions about finesse maneuvers, etc... until the next official round of errata?

My table were using maneuvers about once or twice a combat, and this is definitely going to take it down even further for DEX users.

Shouldn't we be encouraging maneuvers not less? The DEX based users that are already behind on damage now lose 10-30% efficacy on Maneuver trait weapons?

The true strike issue I get that, since fishing for critical successes can be an issue for sure, but True Strike is basically the epicenter of a lot of problems.

I've never hoped for an errata-errata/rules clarification so much in my life.

I now feel silly for being even a little miffed about the Thief Rogue losing Thrown Weapon damage. This is a nerf that effects every DEX based class in the game.

I'm a little new to the game and to Paizo overall - do you think we can expect any clarification from somebody on the team in this thread or in a blog post shortly, or are we going to be confused about these questions about finesse maneuvers, etc... until the next official round of errata?

Based on what I've heard from people that were on the Arcane Mark discord, though not seen myself, this is intended.

Which makes it all the more frustrating.

I'm a little new to the game and to Paizo overall - do you think we can expect any clarification from somebody on the team in this thread or in a blog post shortly, or are we going to be confused about these questions about finesse maneuvers, etc... until the next official round of errata?

I doubt there will be much clarification.

Maybe they'll clarify the places where the new CRB is different from the errata (alchemist armour, battle medicine) but that is about the best we can hope for.

And we can't even expect that.

In the definition of the Parry weapon trait, change "spend an Interact action" to "spend a single action" to make it so setting up a parry doesn't trigger Attacks of Opportunity or similar reactions.

Very nice! Now if we can just fix Quick Draw...

The idea that Battle Medicine doesn't do anything due to using two hands feels firmly "too bad to be true".

How relevant this is, IDK, but Paizo has been stressing that the BB does not have any rules that are different from the CRB.

In the Cleric chapter, 2nd-Level Cleric Class Features

Battle Medicine
You know how to quickly heal your allies with Medicine. Write "Battle Medicine" in the Level 2 box in the Class section of your character sheet.

Battle Medicine [reaction]
You can patch up wounds with your healer's tools and a free hand. Attempt a DC 15 Medicine check to heal yourself or an ally for 2d8 Hit Points. If you become an expert in Medicine, you can instead attempt a DC 20 Medicine check to heal for 2d8+10 Hit Points. You can heal a particular person only once each day with Battle Medicine.

I'm a little new to the game and to Paizo overall - do you think we can expect any clarification from somebody on the team in this thread or in a blog post shortly, or are we going to be confused about these questions about finesse maneuvers, etc... until the next official round of errata?

Next round, they really don't like talking to us outside of these official posts on their own platform.

There are multiple feats which only make sense if maneuvers have MAP. Knockdown, Mixed Maneuver, Agile Maneuvers. Plus the sidebar on p. 447 says:

"Striking multiple times in a turn has diminishing returns. The multiple attack penalty (detailed on page 446) applies to each attack after the first, whether those attacks are Strikes, special attacks like the Grapple action of the Athletics skill, or spell attack rolls."

As written this seems like just a straight nerf to maneuvers which no longer benefit from finesse, inspire courage, or bless since those call out attack rolls specifically but still suffer from MAP. I don't know if that was the intent though maneuvers were already hard to justify vs a Strike.

I can't imagine any GM is actually going to accept that MAP no longer applies to maneuvers. It's definitely an oversight between the main MAP entry and the errata, but the intent is obvious.

This is making me want to just give up on PF2e.

Bardarok wrote:

There are multiple feats which only make sense if maneuvers have MAP. Knockdown, Mixed Maneuver, Agile Maneuvers. Plus the sidebar on p. 447 says:

"Striking multiple times in a turn has diminishing returns. The multiple attack penalty (detailed on page 446) applies to each attack after the first, whether those attacks are Strikes, special attacks like the Grapple action of the Athletics skill, or spell attack rolls."

As written this seems like just a straight nerf to maneuvers which no longer benefit from finesse, inspire courage, or bless since those call out attack rolls specifically but still suffer from MAP. I don't know if that was the intent though maneuvers were already hard to justify vs a Strike.

I can't imagine any GM is actually going to accept that MAP no longer applies to maneuvers. It's definitely an oversight between the main MAP entry and the errata, but the intent is obvious.

I guess that's true the intent is to nerf maneuvers and finesse/maneuver weapons. I just don't get the reasoning behind that since they weren't particularly good in the first place.

When can we actually see this errata? I get that Ysoki mechanic every time I try to look it up. And I have used three different browsers on two different computers.

When can we actually see this errata? I get that Ysoki mechanic every time I try to look it up. And I have used three different browsers on two different computers.

The Paizo page appears to be down but you can check out this forum post where user "1d6 Fall damage" compiled all the new bits that they could find: https://paizo.com/threads/rzs438bv?Errata-2-but-its-just-the-new-stuff

When can we actually see this errata? I get that Ysoki mechanic every time I try to look it up. And I have used three different browsers on two different computers.

It works for me only in Incognito mode. I also notice that if I'm not using Incognito mode, the FAQ page says "Sign In" instead of the expected "My Account" when I'm already signed in.

For those of you having trouble reaching the FAQ page

There's an ongoing website issue that staff haven't been able to debug.

Perhaps you could add your information to this thread in the Website Feedback forum
Error 500

Be sure to include your OS, browser, and ISP to help track this down.

LarsC wrote:

I'm a little new to the game and to Paizo overall - do you think we can expect any clarification from somebody on the team in this thread or in a blog post shortly, or are we going to be confused about these questions about finesse maneuvers, etc... until the next official round of errata?

Next round, they really don't like talking to us outside of these official posts on their own platform.

Apparently, a designer made a check on these streams, and about 50% of the answers on these streams were wrong. That's why they don't answer these questions "off the cuff" anymore.

David knott 242 wrote:

When can we actually see this errata? I get that Ysoki mechanic every time I try to look it up. And I have used three different browsers on two different computers.

It works for me only in Incognito mode. I also notice that if I'm not using Incognito mode, the FAQ page says "Sign In" instead of the expected "My Account" when I'm already signed in.

If you are seeing that bug, you might try logging out, then back in to Paizo.

Angel Hunter D wrote:

LarsC wrote:

I'm a little new to the game and to Paizo overall - do you think we can expect any clarification from somebody on the team in this thread or in a blog post shortly, or are we going to be confused about these questions about finesse maneuvers, etc... until the next official round of errata?

Next round, they really don't like talking to us outside of these official posts on their own platform.

Apparently, a designer made a check on these streams, and about 50% of the answers on these streams were wrong. That's why they don't answer these questions "off the cuff" anymore.

There are enough inconsistencies that I'm not sure if a lot of theese questions have a right answer. This might be an instance of one designer disagreeing with others 50% of the time.

Elfteiroh wrote:

Angel Hunter D wrote:

LarsC wrote:

I'm a little new to the game and to Paizo overall - do you think we can expect any clarification from somebody on the team in this thread or in a blog post shortly, or are we going to be confused about these questions about finesse maneuvers, etc... until the next official round of errata?

Next round, they really don't like talking to us outside of these official posts on their own platform.

Apparently, a designer made a check on these streams, and about 50% of the answers on these streams were wrong. That's why they don't answer these questions "off the cuff" anymore.

There are enough inconsistencies that I'm not sure if a lot of theese questions have a right answer. This might be an instance of one designer disagreeing with others 50% of the time.

That too, the different teams seem very isolated from each other.

I guess I never payed enough attention to trip, shove, etc. when it came to using weapons. Why would a finesse weapon use dex to athletics for the check to trip? What was the specific wording of old?

I guess I never payed enough attention to trip, shove, etc. when it came to using weapons. Why would a finesse weapon use dex to athletics for the check to trip? What was the specific wording of old?

Maneuvers used to be considered attack rolls, or at least, a lot of people considered them attack rolls (and there was no place that made the distinction that things with the Attack trait, were in fact, not attack rolls).

Thus, Finesse, which read "You can use your Dexterity modifier instead of Strength on attack rolls" applied to Weapons that had both Finesse Trait and some other Manuever trait.

The only two maneuver traits that were on Finesse weapons were Trip and Disarm.

It also made sense, since the weapons with those traits were not only lower damage dice, but seemed to incentivize the use of Dex to accomplish the maneuver (mainly Whip and Spiked Chain but also Rapier, Wolf Stance, Sickle, and others).

Having a maneuver trait on a finesse weapon now is worth very little (I'd argue they may as well not even have the traits anymore) when you consider every single maneuver carries heavy penalties for failure and not being able to use DEX on a Finesse weapon almost certainly means you're not going to be very good at the maneuver.

There is also no way at all now for anyone to have Dexterous maneuvers, which puts Swashbuckler AND Monk in a really bad spot.

And lastly, for what it's worth, during the Playtest a dev specifically stated that Whips did allow Dexterity for Trips, which was apparently wrong by the rules now.

Dubious Scholar wrote:

Bardarok wrote:

There are multiple feats which only make sense if maneuvers have MAP. Knockdown, Mixed Maneuver, Agile Maneuvers. Plus the sidebar on p. 447 says:

"Striking multiple times in a turn has diminishing returns. The multiple attack penalty (detailed on page 446) applies to each attack after the first, whether those attacks are Strikes, special attacks like the Grapple action of the Athletics skill, or spell attack rolls."

As written this seems like just a straight nerf to maneuvers which no longer benefit from finesse, inspire courage, or bless since those call out attack rolls specifically but still suffer from MAP. I don't know if that was the intent though maneuvers were already hard to justify vs a Strike.

I can't imagine any GM is actually going to accept that MAP no longer applies to maneuvers. It's definitely an oversight between the main MAP entry and the errata, but the intent is obvious.

MAP clearly does still apply. People saying otherwise are just spreading misinformation. Maneuvers are still "attacks" which is all that counts.

This is not in doubt.

But if you go and look up multiple attack penalty, it explicitly calls out that the penalty is to attack rolls, not to checks with the attack trait. It is definitely confusing to have specific language tell you that a skill check is not an attack roll, for the section explaining Multiple attack penalties to specifically call out that it is a penalty to attack rolls, but if you happen to go all the way to page 629 and read the attack trait specifically, it gives you a different definition for how Multiple attack penalties work.

The errata to add "When you use a Strike action or make a spell attack, you attempt a check called an attack roll." adds confusion to this, not clarity, unless a change is also made to the definition of the multiple attack penalty.

H2Osw wrote:

I guess I never payed enough attention to trip, shove, etc. when it came to using weapons. Why would a finesse weapon use dex to athletics for the check to trip? What was the specific wording of old?

Maneuvers used to be considered attack rolls, or at least, a lot of people considered them attack rolls (and there was no place that made the distinction that things with the Attack trait, were in fact, not attack rolls).

Thus, Finesse, which read "You can use your Dexterity modifier instead of Strength on attack rolls" applied to Weapons that had both Finesse Trait and some other Manuever trait.

The only two maneuver traits that were on Finesse weapons were Trip and Disarm.

It also made sense, since the weapons with those traits were not only lower damage dice, but seemed to incentivize the use of Dex to accomplish the maneuver (mainly Whip and Spiked Chain but also Rapier, Wolf Stance, Sickle, and others).

Having a maneuver trait on a finesse weapon now is worth very little (I'd argue they may as well not even have the traits anymore) when you consider every single maneuver carries heavy penalties for failure and not being able to use DEX on a Finesse weapon almost certainly means you're not going to be very good at the maneuver.

There is also no way at all now for anyone to have Dexterous maneuvers, which puts Swashbuckler AND Monk in a really bad spot.

And lastly, for what it's worth, during the Playtest a dev specifically stated that Whips did allow Dexterity for Trips, which was apparently wrong by the rules now.

The use of alternative attributes for maneuvers, now that they are attacks but not attack rolls, falls back to the skill check rules which is GM land. The Key Ability used for each skill roll is determined by the GM. page 233

So I think officially now the GM is allowed to decide if you use your DEX to trip with your whip? Or STR, Or CHA maybe?

Am I reading this right?

Gortle wrote:

Dubious Scholar wrote:

Bardarok wrote:

There are multiple feats which only make sense if maneuvers have MAP. Knockdown, Mixed Maneuver, Agile Maneuvers. Plus the sidebar on p. 447 says:

"Striking multiple times in a turn has diminishing returns. The multiple attack penalty (detailed on page 446) applies to each attack after the first, whether those attacks are Strikes, special attacks like the Grapple action of the Athletics skill, or spell attack rolls."

As written this seems like just a straight nerf to maneuvers which no longer benefit from finesse, inspire courage, or bless since those call out attack rolls specifically but still suffer from MAP. I don't know if that was the intent though maneuvers were already hard to justify vs a Strike.

I can't imagine any GM is actually going to accept that MAP no longer applies to maneuvers. It's definitely an oversight between the main MAP entry and the errata, but the intent is obvious.

MAP clearly does still apply. People saying otherwise are just spreading misinformation. Maneuvers are still "attacks" which is all that counts.

This is not in doubt.

But if you go and look up multiple attack penalty, it explicitly calls out that the penalty is to attack rolls, not to checks with the attack trait. It is definitely confusing to have specific language tell you that a skill check is not an attack roll, for the section explaining Multiple attack penalties to specifically call out that it is a penalty to attack rolls, but if you happen to go all the way to page 629 and read the attack trait specifically, it gives you a different definition for how Multiple attack penalties work.

The errata to add "When you use a Strike action or make a spell attack, you attempt a check called an attack roll." adds confusion to this, not clarity, unless a change is also made to the definition of the multiple attack penalty.

Ok I concede that point. The MAP penalty does not apply to a skill check that is still an attack. So a grab or a shove as your third attack is not going to have a -10 attached to it. But a Strike after a grab or a shove will.

Maybe it's because the way my brain works, I see two different labels, I don't assume they're related even if they have a word in common, but both me, and both of the groups I'm in, never had trouble with "attack trait" and "attack roll" being two different things. Things with the attack trait affect MAP, full stop. The section talking about MAP on page 446 of the CRB is specifically within the context of attack rolls.

Plus, there isn't a category of things called "maneuvers" that I can find in 2E. Shove says it's an Athletics skill check, Trip says it's an Athletics skill check, etc. This doesn't look like it's on Paizo.

One thing I will say to Paizo, is that I consider myself to be a voice of reason to people, trying to cool some heads by reminding people that the CRB is MASSIVE, and in general this is all a crap-ton of work, and thank-you-thank-you-thank-you Paizo for making 2E as awesome as it is. At this point, what does concern me is that people are finding things in the errata that didn't make it into the PDF, like the scaling of the Alchemist's new medium armor proficiency. I really hope for Paizo's sake that they can catch these problems before the actual physical 2nd printing starts, and therefore the PDF can be updated again as well. Otherwise, we're in a situation where this pretty concrete checklist of things went through multiple people, and yet services like Pathbuilder and Nethys (I assume within the next few days here) are actually more accurate to the rules than this definitive 2nd printing. That's a concerning QA problem.

I really hope for Paizo's sake that they can catch these problems before the actual physical 2nd printing starts, and therefore the PDf can be updated again as well.

Not only has the 2nd printing started, was sent to the print shop months ago, has been printed and returned, and is shipping.

Maybe it's because the way my brain works, I see two different labels, I don't assume they're related even if they have a word in common, but both me, and both of the groups I'm in, never had trouble with "attack trait" and "attack roll" being two different things. Things with the attack trait affect MAP, full stop. The section talking about MAP on page 446 of the CRB is specifically within the context of attack rolls, since it's under the much more bolded "ATTACK ROLLS" heading.

It's not just that section though. There are multiple places where MAP for maneuvers is mentioned or referenced. None of these other things were errataed which makes this a new rules conflict.

The text on p. 447 sidebar Striding and Striking says "Striking multiple times in a turn has diminishing returns. The multiple attack penalty (detailed on page 446) applies to each attack after the first, whether those attacks are Strikes, special attacks like the Grapple action of the Athletics skill, or spell attack rolls."

Knockdown Fighter Feat [2 actions]
"You make an attack to knock a foe off balance, then follow up immediately with a sweep to topple them. Make a melee Strike. If it hits and deals damage, you can attempt an Athletics check to Trip the creature you hit. If you’re wielding a two-handed melee weapon, you can ignore Trip’s requirement that you have a hand free. Both attacks count toward your multiple attack penalty, but the penalty doesn’t increase until after you’ve made both of them."

Mixed Maneuvers Monk Feat [2 actions]
You combine two different maneuvers together into a single flowing whole. Choose any two of Grapple, Shove, and Trip. Attempt both of the attacks you chose against the same or different creatures, but don’t apply the multiple attack penalty until after resolving both attacks.

Agile Maneuvers Swashbuckler Feat (From the APG obviously not the CRB)
Your easily maneuver against your foes. Your Grapple, Shove, and Trip actions have a lower multiple attack penalty: –4 instead of –5 if they're the second attack on your turn, or –8 instead of –10 if they're the third or subsequent attack on your turn.

This doesn't look like it's on Paizo.

The entire game hinged on anything that was an Attack being an Attack Roll. See Mirror Image which now doesn't lose images if you use a Trip/Grapple/Shove against an image. See various other places that refer to "attack roll" as a specific trigger that no longer trigger. See arguments about where MAP applies.

As you can see by the slew of people here that were playing it this way, at some point you have to ask "why" did people come to that conclusion.

Not to mention, and I will keep repeating this, a developer stated during the Playtest that was exactly how it worked with Whip as an example.

If it "weren't on Paizo", the errata wouldn't have been necessary at all because everyone would already be running it the current way.

Oh and the new way the rule is written wouldn't wrench a bunch of random aspects of the game that reference attack rolls.

Even the errata fix they put in place has people questioning whether MAP applies to Maneuvers because now Maneuvers aren't "attack rolls" and MAP only applies to attack rolls.

so, respectfully, I do not agree in the slightest.

You wanna know why? Because the Finesse Trait and True Strike could have been changed to "Strikes" and "Strikes or Spell Attacks" and the intended outcome would have been much more clear.

And quite frankly, I'm getting pretty off-put by the people coming in and saying "no idea why you guys ran it that way!" when it's pretty freaking obvious to see how it could be read that way.

You read it one way, others read it another, and the latter people did have reasonable reasons to believe that (along with a Playtest comment from Stephen McFarlane to back it up).

_____________

You can check my post history, I generally defend them, but this is something else entirely. Not only did they change something I enjoyed as it was, they changed it in a way that literally causes more problems than it "solves".

It's not just that section though. There are multiple places where MAP for maneuvers is mentioned or referenced. None of these other things were errataed which makes this a new rules conflict.

The text on p. 447 sidebar Striding and Striking says "Striking multiple times in a turn has diminishing returns. The multiple attack penalty (detailed on page 446) applies to each attack after the first, whether those attacks are Strikes, special attacks like the Grapple action of the Athletics skill, or spell attack rolls."

Honestly, this is the only compelling one to me, because it references page 446, which is the more confusing out of the two MAP explanations. I wish it had mentioned page 278, which makes it clearer.

The rest are either listing things with the attack trait (and even having multiple reminders that things like Grapple are a skill check), or saying something specific about how that feat interacts with it all.

Bardarok wrote:

It's not just that section though. There are multiple places where MAP for maneuvers is mentioned or referenced. None of these other things were errataed which makes this a new rules conflict.

The text on p. 447 sidebar Striding and Striking says "Striking multiple times in a turn has diminishing returns. The multiple attack penalty (detailed on page 446) applies to each attack after the first, whether those attacks are Strikes, special attacks like the Grapple action of the Athletics skill, or spell attack rolls."

Honestly, this is the only compelling one to me, because it references page 446, which is the more confusing out of the two MAP explanations. I wish it had mentioned page 278, which makes it clearer.

The rest are either listing things with the attack trait (and even having multiple reminders that things like Grapple are a skill check), or saying something specific about how that feat interacts with it all.

If MAP doesn't apply to maneuvers than the mixed maneuver feat and the agile maneuvers feat do literally nothing.

VestOfHolding wrote:

Bardarok wrote:

It's not just that section though. There are multiple places where MAP for maneuvers is mentioned or referenced. None of these other things were errataed which makes this a new rules conflict.

The text on p. 447 sidebar Striding and Striking says "Striking multiple times in a turn has diminishing returns. The multiple attack penalty (detailed on page 446) applies to each attack after the first, whether those attacks are Strikes, special attacks like the Grapple action of the Athletics skill, or spell attack rolls."

Honestly, this is the only compelling one to me, because it references page 446, which is the more confusing out of the two MAP explanations. I wish it had mentioned page 278, which makes it clearer.

The rest are either listing things with the attack trait (and even having multiple reminders that things like Grapple are a skill check), or saying something specific about how that feat interacts with it all.

If MAP doesn't apply to maneuvers than the mixed maneuver feat and the agile maneuvers feat do literally nothing.

You're misunderstanding me. Trip has the attack trait. These other actions have the attack trait. Therefore, they apply to MAP.

And you know, I gave benefit of the doubt for p.446 being confusing, but then I re-read it again and saw this right there (emphasis mine):

Every check that has the attack trait counts toward your multiple attack penalty, including Strikes, spell attack rolls, certain skill actions like Shove, and many others.

To your point, Midnightoker, yes, fair, when a bunch of people interpret something a way that wasn't intended, it is worth asking how they came to that conclusion, and making the product more clear, and, sure, it would be worth making a statement saying that that playtest statement definitely doesn't apply. Though I would ask why a playtest statement is being taken as definitive for how the final game works in the first place. When the final game is out, throw out any and all comments made on the playtest, yeah? Too many things changed.

I would at least argue that you go too far by saying the entire game hinged on it. As someone in two different groups that have apparently been playing by RAI, it really doesn't break the game. It's still fun.

Multiple attack penalty applies. The CRB says "Striking multiple times in a turn has diminishing returns. The multiple attack penalty (detailed on page 446) applies to each attack after the first, whether those attacks are Strikes, special attacks like the Grapple action of the Athletics skill, or spell attack rolls." We're looking to push an update soon to explain this in the errata entry in question.

You're misunderstanding me. Trip has the attack trait. These other actions have the attack trait. Therefore, they apply to MAP.

My argument goes the other way though. Yes clearly maneuvers have the attack trait and apply to MAP and suffer from MAP. But the rules for MAP say that MAP applies to attack rolls. Ergo since it was not clear in the first printing many people assumed that maneuvers must be attack rolls as well as skill checks. It was a reasonable assumption and hence the new confusion is on Paizo.

We're looking to push an update soon to explain this in the errata entry in question.

Can you please be sure it's not a "stealth update"?

In the past, the Errata FAQ page has changed without any notice to players.

Though I would ask why a playtest statement is being taken as definitive for how the final game works in the first place. When the final game is out, throw out any and all comments made on the playtest, yeah? Too many things changed.

How about because none of the rules around the weapons changed at all and were exactly same as they were in the playtest?

See how the rules don't change, they get read exactly the same way as before, but now all of a sudden we're supposed to know the intent is different because it's not the Playtest anymore.

Your assertion that rules that didn't change at all now read differently just because they were published is quite frankly, silly.

I would at least argue that you go too far by saying the entire game hinged on it. As someone in two different groups that have apparently been playing by RAI, it really doesn't break the game. It's still fun.

Uh your tables ruling that Finesse doesn't apply to maneuvers might not matter at all, because it literally only matters when a person is using a Finesse weapon with a Maneuver trait (which tbh, they aren't even good or used widely enough to warrant a nerf).

But ruling that attack traits aren't attack rolls has much wider consequences, including with every definition of MAP that applies to attack rolls.

If you want to act like this change isn't a huge shake up, by all means, but the vast amount of feedback here, reddit, and discord says that it was to a lot of people.

VestOfHolding wrote:

You're misunderstanding me. Trip has the attack trait. These other actions have the attack trait. Therefore, they apply to MAP.

My argument goes the other way though. Yes clearly maneuvers have the attack trait and apply to MAP and suffer from MAP. But the rules for MAP say that MAP applies to attack rolls. Ergo since it was not clear in the first printing many people assumed that maneuvers must be attack rolls as well as skill checks. It was a reasonable assumption and hence the new confusion is on Paizo.

Not quite.

If you use an action with the attack trait more than once on the same turn, your attacks after the first take a penalty called a multiple attack penalty. Your second attack takes a –5 penalty, and any subsequent attacks take a –10 penalty.

Striking multiple times in a turn has diminishing returns. The multiple attack penalty (detailed on page 446) applies to each attack after the first, whether those attacks are Strikes, special attacks like the Grapple action of the Athletics skill, or spell attack rolls.

The more attacks you make beyond your first in a single turn, the less accurate you become, represented by the multiple attack penalty. The second time you use an attack action during your turn, you take a –5 penalty to your attack roll. The third time you attack, and on any subsequent attacks, you take a –10 penalty to your attack roll. Every check that has the attack trait counts toward your multiple attack penalty, including Strikes, spell attack rolls, certain skill actions like Shove, and many others.

The last certainly would lead to the interpretation you say, but that section is specifically a subsection for Attack Rolls. And thankfully we now have Mark to specify the RAI.

Yeah, they probably would have been better off creating a 4th kind of attack roll called "Skill Attacks" than this, or renaming Spell attack rolls to a "Non-weapon Attack".

To be honest I'm still not sure what the goal of this change is.

It adds ambiguity to the system because several mechanics use attack roll and attack interchangeably and now it's confusing as to what means what.

It reduces the ability to read the book casually: an attack roll and a roll you make to attack are now potentially different things. This is highly technical PF1 style terminology here. Avoiding that kind of highly technical hair splitting to keep the rules functional was one of the justifications of PF2 as a system.

It doesn't solve the issue of battle forms, because Trip is still an attack, just when you roll to make that attack it isn't an attack roll anymore.

But what it does do is... uh... nerf whips and wolf style monks?? Yay?

Were those generally such pressing problems that it required both such a heavy handed fix and took precedence over so many other things?

I honestly can't wrap my head around it.

For those who missed it upthread

Multiple attack penalty applies. The CRB says "Striking multiple times in a turn has diminishing returns. The multiple attack penalty (detailed on page 446) applies to each attack after the first, whether those attacks are Strikes, special attacks like the Grapple action of the Athletics skill, or spell attack rolls." We're looking to push an update soon to explain this in the errata entry in question.

VestOfHolding wrote:

Though I would ask why a playtest statement is being taken as definitive for how the final game works in the first place. When the final game is out, throw out any and all comments made on the playtest, yeah? Too many things changed.

How about because none of the rules around the weapons changed at all and were exactly same as they were in the playtest?

See how the rules don't change, they get read exactly the same way as before, but now all of a sudden we're supposed to know the intent is different because it's not the Playtest anymore.

Your assertion that rules that didn't change at all now read differently just because they were published is quite frankly, silly.

Ok, sure, I'll accept your assertion that the weapons rules didn't change at face value, because I didn't play the playtest. I guess I'm just confused why it's silly to basically consider the playtest and the final game two different entities as a whole.

But ruling that attack traits aren't attack rolls has much wider consequences, including with every definition of MAP that applies to attack rolls.

If you want to act like this change isn't a huge shake up, by all means, but the vast amount of feedback that says that it is to the vast majority of the community speaks otherwise.

So, you mentioned in an earlier post that you're pretty off-put because I'm only the latest in a string of people to say something to this effect, and you're feeling like all those people, including me, have been too dismissive. Fair enough, and I can come at this conversation with a little more understanding towards you when I post. I would just ask also that you chill a little towards me too, since I've only made a couple posts on the subject, and am not all those previous people.

In my previous posts, I'm able to point out that both major definitions of MAP on page 278 and 446 both call out that MAP specifically applies to actions with the attack trait.

I legit don't know how this is a massive shake up. It's not an act. I am actually confused here. EDIT: Other than, obviously, just the number of people saying that it is.

If you just want to DM on Discord or something to hash it out a little easier, let me know.

AnimatedPaper wrote:

Yeah, they probably would have been better off creating a 4th kind of attack roll called "Skill Attacks" than this, or renaming Spell attack rolls to a "Non-weapon Attack".

To be honest I'm still not sure what the goal of this change is.

It adds ambiguity to the system because several mechanics use attack roll and attack interchangeably and now it's confusing as to what means what.

It reduces the ability to read the book casually: an attack roll and a roll you make to attack are now potentially different things. This is highly technical PF1 style terminology here. Avoiding that kind of highly technical hair splitting to keep the rules functional was one of the justifications of PF2 as a system.

It doesn't solve the issue of battle forms, because Trip is still an attack, just when you roll to make that attack it isn't an attack roll anymore.

But what it does do is... uh... nerf whips and wolf style monks?? Yay?

Were those generally such pressing problems that it required both such a heavy handed fix and took precedence over so many other things?

I honestly can't wrap my head around it.

It also nerfs Gymnast Swashbucklers in general, not that they needed it.

Mark thank you for stepping in to make it clear what the design intent is. I would still look carefully to make sure that the wording of Multiple attack penalty is consistent throughout the book, because right now it feels like there is still a place or two that calls out attack rolls exclusively.

Even though I don't love the decision to make this change, I really appreciate the lengths you go to make sure that people understand the rules and especially any changes to them.

So, you mentioned in an earlier post that you're pretty off-put because I'm only the latest in a string of people to say something to this effect, and you're feeling like all those people, including me, have been too dismissive. Fair enough, and I can come at this conversation with a little more understanding towards you when I post. I would just ask also that you chill a little towards me too, since I've only made a couple posts on the subject, and am not all those previous people.

Fair enough.

I would be lying if I said this wasn't infuriating me, and I'm probably spewing vitriol to those that don't deserve it.

There were about 3-4 people who've come along with the "duh it works that way" attitude, and I probably should have not taken it so personally.

Sent you a DM :)

STRAIGHT FACTS

Seriously wish I could favorite your post a hundred times. It's like the errata was written in such a way to drive the most frustration from those that wouldn't like the consequences of the change.

And the funny part is, if you ruled it the other way, I would be shocked to hear any of the people that were running it the opposite (Finesse + Trip doesn't allow DEX) would be "upset" by allowing DEX to maneuvers. I'd bet most would have been pleasantly surprised, but alas, it's something we'll never know.

Mark thank you for stepping in to make it clear what the design intent is. I would still look carefully to make sure that the wording of Multiple attack penalty is consistent throughout the book, because right now it feels like there is still a place or two that calls out attack rolls exclusively.

Even though I don't love the decision to make this change, I really appreciate the lengths you go to make sure that people understand the rules and especially any changes to them.

Yep, I've noted that place in MAP where it's inaccurate for next time.

graystone wrote:

bugleyman wrote:

248: To reflect the clarification on healer's tools allowing you to draw them as part of the action if you're wearing them, change the Requirements to "You are holding healer's tools, or you are wearing them and have a hand free"

Cool but that doesn't override the 2 hands needed to use the tools that this says in the errata "This means you need to use your healer's tools for Battle Medicine, but you can draw and replace worn tools as part of the action due to the errata on wearing tools on page 287." As I said, unless they've changed how many hands you need to use the healers tools, that errata quote means it needs 2 hands.

Specific vs general. The hands column of the item table is the general requirement for use of the kit. The "Requirements:" field of battle medicine is a specific list of what you need to use the ability. Wearing with one hand free overrides needing two hands.

This isn't true: I quoted the errata FOR BATTLE MEDICINE. It explains you have to use the tools and to do so, you need 2 hands.

PS: "Hands
Source Core Rulebook pg. 287 1.1
This lists how many hands it takes to use the item effectively. Most items that require two hands can be carried in only one hand, but you must spend an Interact action to change your grip in order to use the item"
The errata quote says you have to use healers tools and doesn't alter the hands required.

How relevant this is, IDK, but Paizo has been stressing that the BB does not have any rules that are different from the CRB.

As the errata is the newest material, why wouldn't it mean that the BB should conform to it? Also, as the BB has it as a reaction it seems even more dubious that it's correct for the core book.

And the funny part is, if you ruled it the other way, I would be shocked to hear any of the people that were running it the opposite (Finesse + Trip doesn't allow DEX) would be "upset" by allowing DEX to maneuvers. I'd bet most would have been pleasantly surprised, but alas, it's something we'll never know.

I can say I would have been pleasantly surprised.

Do you feel like I was insulting your intelligence before? Because I wasn't.

Midnightoker wrote:

And the funny part is, if you ruled it the other way, I would be shocked to hear any of the people that were running it the opposite (Finesse + Trip doesn't allow DEX) would be "upset" by allowing DEX to maneuvers. I'd bet most would have been pleasantly surprised, but alas, it's something we'll never know.

I can say I would have been pleasantly surprised.

Do you feel like I was insulting your intelligence before? Because I wasn't.

I think I need to go drink some beer and probably get over it because houserules are a thing and there's even a rule that explicitly gives me an out in the CRB.

Besides Paper, we've interacted a lot and tbh, I wasn't trying to be angry at anyone in particular.

For anyone that's seen my profile, it is a character I played all the way back to 3.5 and is my most beloved character I've played (as a perma GM). That character uses a Spiked Chain, so it has a special place in my heart.

If anyone can understand the frustration of going from "Best weapon in the game" in 3.5 to "One of the worst weapons in the game" in PF1, to back to "A really cool weapon again and super awesome" at the start of PF2 and then once again back to "One of the worst weapons in the game" after an errata, that's basically what I am feeling now.

Let's just say (outside the fact that I seriously don't see the issue with allowing DEX to specific weapon maneuvers) that the rollercoaster ride of the above gutted me.

Anyways, on to that beer!

Have a good night everyone!

Anyways, on to that beer!

Have a good night everyone!

I'm right there with you: *raises a glass* Maybe a few drink will make Battle Medicine make sense and my Investigator can work without needing 2 hands... :P