DerricktheCleric's page

It depends on why he is denied his Dexterity Bonus to AC.

Thanks, this answer is a pretty common one to the question, but what I was really hoping for is a solid answer *in the other direction*. I.e. I'm looking for something official that flat out says "A target can regain their dexterity bonus to AC within the time frame of a full attack".

The reason I want to see it written that way is it makes 0 sense that a target *can* regain their dexterity bonus within the time frame of a full attack, but *cannot* regain their dexterity bonus within the time frame of a standard attack, even though both of these time frames are exactly 3 seconds.

I understand the rule approach of "attacking from stealth denies a target their dexterity bonus, and once you are not stealthed, they are no longer denied their dexterity bonus" but that approach throws logic and sanity out the window. It assumes that your target can identify and respond defensively to you *instantaneously*, literally outside of the passage of time. Now, this isn't the only scenario where mechanics necessarily throw logic and sanity out the window, but whenever they do, I like to try to at least find the RAW support from multiple angles.

So, the real question I'm asking is, *in addition to* the idea that "Denied Dexterity Bonus to AC" is an applied condition that can end in .00000000000000000000001 seconds in the instance of a full attack, but cannot end in 3 full seconds in the instance of a standard attack, is there *also* a RAW entry somewhere that says "Targets can actively regain their Dexterity bonus to AC in the middle of being the subject of a full attack."

A full attack isn't "a single cohesive action". You can change targets with each attack in a full attack, take a 5' step, drop a weapon and draw a new one (assuming you have Fast Draw), or add any other kind of action that can be made as part of a full attack.

Miscommunication here, I really meant more as in, a full attack is "an action" in the same way that a standard attack is "an action" that you can't mix other things into. A full attack specifically allows a 5 foot step as part of the single action, but you can't do 2 iteratives, move 30 feet as a move action, then take another 2 iteratives, because the full attack is an action that cannot be interrupted with other actions (aside from specific abilities/feats that break this rule).

Generally, the problem becomes mechanics vs. logic is why I asked. A full attack takes *the exact same amount of time* as a standard attack, RAW. So logically, if a target is flat footed to a standard attack because they were unaware of their attacker until the attack commenced, and therefore cannot respond to it in time, then it would also follow that it is the same for a full attack. Otherwise, you start to get into common sense arguments of "An attack doesn't *start* with the blade hitting you, it starts with the attacker raising their blade to strike. If you can react defensively within that 3 seconds against a full attack, you can do so against a standard attack, which means for either, you can react quickly enough to not be flat footed to even the first attack."

Even with things like invisibility, you start to run into this issue if you ask *when does the invisibility drop*. Attacking and missing a target is still an offensive action that removes invisibility, so logically, you lose invisibility *as you start the attack*, not as the blade hits. If someone can raise their dexterity defenses between attack 3 and attack 4 in a Full Attack that last 3 seconds, they can raise their defenses between you raising your arm to strike and actually hitting during a single attack that takes 3 seconds.

Anyway, long story short, this is clearly an area where Mechanics > Logic/Physics/Common sense, which is always areas where I try to find RAW clarifications.

Hey all, I can't find anything that specifically says this, so looking for if anyone has any RAW guidance on the below scenario:

X begins a full attack against Y while Y is unaware of X. Because of this, Y is denied their Dexterity Bonus to AC. X has 4 attack iterations in their full attack. Y would technically "become aware" of X after the first attack. Does Y regain their Dexterity Bonus to AC immediately after the first attack iteration, and therefore have it for the remaining 3? Or does a "Full Attack" count as one single action that takes place so quickly the target cannot react to it?

I'm just trying to find out if I need to be jumping my NPC's AC in the middle of every single full attack, or if a Full Attack is a single cohesive action the same as a standard attack.

Thank you!

Welp, reddit thread has pretty much confirmed all of this is 100% doable, RAW, and there's just this horrendous loophole in the mechanics that has never been addressed or fixed, and somehow is being ignored by the same player base that discovered how to use painting magic to create an infinite army of Genies. My mind is totally blown here, but uh, I guess /thread.

Melk, I would assume it can be mobile. There are plenty of instances of trapped lockboxes or jewelboxes that can be easily carried, and can be trapped. There are also no rules against "trapping" a scrap of cloth and tying it to yourself.

The reasons it is better than a wand are as follows;
1. Its cheaper. A wand of CLW is 750g to buy. A trap of CLW is 500g to craft, and uses a feat that is (arguably) more generally useful than Craft Wands. Even if you purchase it, it is only 250g more.
2. It has *unlimited uses*. A wand gets 50 charges, and its done, finished, over. A magical device trap *has no use limit*, once you create it, it can then cast CLW an infinite number of times. So, 50 uses, versus literally infinity uses.
3. It does not require an action to activate. You could attach the trap to a proximity trigger, and then just hang it on your armor. It automatically casts CLW on you every single round as a free action.
4. It does not have a spell level limit. Wands are limited to 4th level spells. This could be created with a 9th level spell on it, and you would then have unlimited casts of a 9th level spell, once every 6 seconds, forever.
5. Traps do not take up an item slot. You could hang 90 copies of a CLW trap on yourself and be healed for 90d8+90 a round, every round, forever.

As far as I have been able to find, every single one of these examples is 100% RAW legitimate.

All fair ways to work around it outside of RAW, but I'm going to hold out hope there's an actual RAW way to deal with this. The cost is pretty clearly laid out, if I adjust it, I'm breaking RAW.

There's nothing in the rules about a trap being connected to an immovable point, so that's also problematic. In fact, aren't there instances of items themselves being trapped? A ring with a magic trap when you put it on, etc? So again, I could definitely apply that rule, but it wouldn't be RAW afaik.

Last but not least, even if you make it more expensive, this is still incredibly broken. It creates the ability to make an item with unlimited spell uses, with a tiny cooldown, with no limitation on the spell being used. Even if I were to say it had to be in a building, it would be worth it to literally make a building, just to put a trap of Wish in it.

Anyway, I appreciate the input, but to reiterate, I don't need non-RAW ways to shut this down, that's easy "I'm GM and I say no, so no", I'm looking for/hoping for an actual response somewhere in the past 10 years of play from an errata or designer pointing out "oh shoot, this was way too vague, here's some additional rules around craft magic device trap".

I did not realize, well that cancels the PFS thing, and this question is more for just general play! To clarify, I totally get that I as a GM can just say no to this, as can any other GM. I just really hate saying no when a player has honestly found something they should be allowed to do RAW. I would much rather be able to point to an official errata that closes the clearly broken loophole. No luck thus far though!

Oh yea, as far as DM caveat this is all a moot point, this is like a million percent absolutely banned from every game I ever run, no questions asked. Its a wand, with no charge limit, no UMD check, no spell limit, and it costs less than a wand. Its broken as all hell, there is literally no redeeming it at all other than outright banning it. I just wanted to see if someone better at searching Errata than me had found where the designers had actively fixed this.

I really feel like there must be a fix, because if there weren't, "trapmancer" would be the #1 most recommended build of all time for Pathfinder. In fact, if the CRB trap rules are good for PFS play, I would expect 99% of players to be playing trapmakers.

I'm pretty sure that clearly outlining what feat is required to create a magical trap, as well as providing a chart for the cost to create it, can be taken to mean that it is absolutely intended that player characters be able to make their own traps at will. The rules are pretty clearly laid out in the Traps section of the CRB and on PFSRD.

[EDIT] For further clarity;

"If a player character wants to design and construct a magic trap, he, or an ally, must have the Craft Wondrous Item feat. In addition, he must be able to cast the spell or spells that the trap requires—or he must be able to hire an NPC to cast the spells for him. " CRB, 423.

Alright, looking for RAW guidance on the issue of automatically resetting magical device traps and the fact that they can be cheesed pretty hard.

Basics:
Automatically resetting magical device traps can be created by someone with the craft wondrous item feat, at a cost of 500*Spell Level*Caster level, and take one day per 500gp of cost to craft. Using an Alarm spell as a trigger for a magical device trap confers no additional cost, and the "alarm" area can be set to any size, including a button on the trap itself.

Issues:
1. There is no listed "interval" on automatic reset, so the base assumption is that the reset could take place as often as once a round. I'm relatively certain that across the existing AP's, there are plenty of magical traps that reset once a round to back up this assumption. I know for certain one AP has one that automatically resets every 4 rounds.

2. There is no listed charges/limits on the spell being cast on reset, so as far as I can find, RAW, a magical device trap can cast and reset infinitely.

End Effect:
For 500g, you can create a small trap that casts cure light wounds every time you press a button, every 6 seconds, an unlimited amount of times. So presumably, for 1000g, you could purchase this, even if nobody in the party had the means to create it. This item would arguably invalidate scroll of cure light wounds, potion of cure light wounds, and and wand of cure light wounds. It would invalidate all need to use resources for downtime/between combat healing. It would, in effect, be free, infinite healing, for 500g.

I could take the time to come up with a bunch more examples, but I think just one is enough to show that there's a horrendous loophole here based on my understanding of RAW. So, I reach out to you my fine forum friends. Is there some rule or errata I am missing here that cuts this cheese off?

Thank you for your time!

Just backed, super excited, but please for the love of Iomedae PROVIDE THE OPTION OF BUILT IN TURN BASED GAMEPLAY. This game is based on a turn based system, and plays 1,000% better as turn based. I'm not saying don't have RTwP, I get it, some people like that. But PROVIDE BOTH. And please no "we're a small developer and its too much for us" excuse like last time. A dude made a Turn Based mod for Kingmaker for fun, for free, in like a couple hours, and it took the combat from mediocre and frustrating to the best out of any CRPG I've ever played, AND it didn't "imbalance" the game AT ALL, because the game is built on a turn based system, it actually made the game more balanced! Wizards became playable without missing every spell or killing your party, tactical combat actually mattered because movement was more than just "lump up and focus a target with AA", healing could be used surgically instead of just "panic spam Channel". If Owlcat commits to a Turn Based option I can talk most of my friends into backing, more stretch goals! I'm literally begging here!

Bah, not the general consensus I was hoping for, but pretty much what I expected.

I'm a healing and support focussed ranged Mystic, about to hit level 7, and I'm struggling to find feats that bring a lot to the table for my build.

The Harm Undead option was interesting, but having it cost a max available spell slot (in a system where casters have massively reduced slots per day), a full round, and a resolve point? Thats just too brutal a price to pay for such a niche use.

Maybe I'll just go with Mystic Strike, in case we run into Ghosts. Still niche, but not nearly as punishing!

The Harm Undead feat wording is a bit ambiguous, and I'm not finding an official ruling or errata on this, so seeing if anyone else has and I'm missing it!

As written the feat says "you can expend a spell slot of the highest level you can cast" to activate its effect.

Does that mean 1) the highest level you can cast ever, so a 4th level mystic could use it twice per day, consuming both their 2nd level spell slots, and afterwards completely lose the benefits of the feat, or;

2) The highest level spell you can currently cast at the time you activate the feat, i.e. the 4th level cleric could do it 3 more times consuming their 1st level spell slots, the highest level spells they could cast at the time?

Lightning, I definitely sympathize on the 5 roles / 4 Player conundrum, we're having the same issue in our campaign (4 players), and our GM is sticking to RAW so we just have to operate without a Captain, as ironically that role is the least painful to have to do without in actual gameplay. I really wish they had just allowed RAW for the "captain" role to be filled by any other crew member, especially since all of the captain "actions" are just talking, could we really not have allowed for the Pilot to be able to speak and pull a joy-stick at the same time?

Anyway, I definitely agree that I hope there's a splatbook for ships relatively soon that opens up the Azlanti systems to more general use, as well as adds some additional roles for magic in the ship-to-ship aspect of the game. Its too late for my Mystic (I've already just accepted the lack of caster support in space combat and devoted WAY more resources to Piloting/Dexterity than I ever wanted to, and more than makes sense for my character from an RP standpoint, but I don't want to be an anchor in every space battle we get into so eff me right?) but it would be great if this didn't keep happening to every other player out there who was willing to be the party healer/support/cc caster, only to find out they forgot that role existed when they designed space combat.

I understand about not wanting to have a class requirement or "best in slot" for ship roles so to speak, but having an arcane caster available dirtside gives a party options that an all mundane party simply doesn't have, that's just how it is, and that's always been fine, so why should that be stripped out of the ship-to-ship aspect?

You do your argument little good by starting with ridiculous hyperbole.

Meta, I'm sorry you misunderstood what I was writing, but as you can see if you re-read carefully, I wasn't making that statement, I was pointing out that it was a common statement I see on the forums! If you read a bit further down in my post, you'll see my personal feelings on the matter in the "Well I guess I can be a sub-par gunner or just sleep through the fight" line, which accurately represents my feelings on a Mystic's role in a ship to ship battle.

This also assumes a group of 4 - 5 people with a relatively well balanced party, where its safe to assume you're going to have an INT based character who is much better for Computers/Engineering, and a Dex based character who is much better for piloting and gunnery.

Now there's a decent argument that a Mystic could make an okay captain, though I feel charisma based characters make massively more sense for the role, and will excel to a far greater degree (we have a Lashuntan Solarian who is a substantially better captain than my Shirren Mystic on paper, and RP-wise), but I digress.

The real point of the post is discussing the role of the Arcane (or lack thereof) in space battles, and what ideas are out there for bringing ship-to-ship battles into a universe with magic, rather than having them feel like you paused Starfinder to boot up Star Wars!

I apologize again that you misunderstood what I wrote, but I'd love to hear any constructive ideas you have that go to the purpose of the post!

So the Custom Scanner allows you to "as a move action, you can target a creature within 30 feet that is within your line of sight, and attempt a special skill check to identify it: if the creature is living, this is a Life Science Check, and if the creature is unliving, it is a Physical Science check. The DC of this check is tied to the creature's rarity, as presented on page 133 of the CRB" Op Manual, p2.

My understanding is that the current method of identifying a creature is via the Identify Creatures action on CRB 133, using the skill related to the target given by the chart on the same page. The CRB doesn't have any listed times for these actions (aside from if you are taking 20), so my campaign we have assumed it is a free action. It also doesn't have a maximum range for this. If you can see the creature, you can identify it. The DC for this is also set by the exact same chart on 133. In addition, you get additional information for every 5 above the DC your result is.

Is our understanding of this faulty, or does the Custom Scanner really just let you do what you could already do, but now at the cost of a move action, without the opportunity for bonus information, and only if you get within 30 feet of the target? Why would you ever use this ability when you already have the ability to do the exact same thing instantly, from further away, potentially using a higher skill that is more appropriate to the target, and potentially getting additional useful information?

So one of the primary complaints I see about Mystics (which I play and do consistent research on, so I see this complaint a lot!) is that they are completely 100% absolutely useless in Space Battles, which are meant to be a consistent aspect of most Starfinder campaigns, and are actually really cool and fun in my opinion, for everyone but me!

So I'm interested in hearing other people's input on ways to remind everyone that this is a universe with magic, and don't you think, as everything else in the universe evolved and adapted to technology and space travel, that magic would have as well?? Technomancer spell lists certainly seem to think so, so why are there no spells that affect ship to ship combat?!

Just thinking about all the cool things they could do with this is dizzying, which makes it even crazier that the existence of magic simply ceases at the edge of a space battle, and resumes after it is over. Two ways to approach this spring to mind immediately, and I'm definitely looking for more fun ideas, and hoping some of them get some traction with Paizo so spellcasters can stop being flies on the wall of every cool space battle!

1. Spells meant for Ship to Ship Combat: Definitely the easiest and simplest solution, and adds the additional tactical level of having to decide how much of your spell list you want dedicated to space combat, as well as which spells to prepare when you're starting the day approaching a planet, but may end it actually dirtside!

2. Ship equipment that benefits from Magic: How about a device that lets you sacrifice a spell slot to boost the shields, or supercharge the engines? "Enemies approaching on radar, Mystic, get to the Arcanomatrix and boost our weapons systems!" This again introduces the tactical aspect of your casters deciding how much of the days resources they want to sacrifice to assist in the battle, which I think is way more fun than the current option as a Mystic, which is "Well, I can be a mediocre gunner, or I could just sleep through this and hope it pans out!"

Considering Spell Ampoules are injectable, I think it would take a pretty strict GM to say that Serums aren't injectable as well, since Serums are fundamentally just a Spell Ampoule of a healing spell. That being said, "injectable" is flat out written in the Spell Ampoule description, and isn't in the Serum description, so RAW Serums are not injectable, but I would strongly suggest house ruling that they are.

Captain Morgan

This really seem like a "chill out, we will see in August" thing if ever there was one.

Sorry, I thought my tone came across as pretty chill, I didn't mean to seem alarmist. And I don't mean to insinuate that I think anyone at Paizo is throwing darts with a blind fold on by any means, which is why I stated only that I was concerned about whether or not they had considered some of the more far-reaching implications.

That being said, the designers have made it abundantly clear they are reading these posts, they are seeing what the community has to say. These posts and their subsequent comments are part of the play test for all intents and purposes. This is an EXCELLENT time to voice concerns, offer suggestions and feedback, and discuss potential peripheral issues that might not have occurred to everyone.

We are getting to be actively involved in the creation of a whole new edition of a tabletop grounded in a universe that (I at least) LOVE, and I think it is insanely "worth speculating" on every single tidbit we can get our hands on, as well as offering feedback, support, and constructive criticism!

(non-existent) size mechanic

Can you link me to where they said they're removing size mechanics, I haven't seen that post. In fact, the fact that they specifically said "small weapons will do the same damage as medium weapons" instead of saying "there is no such thing as small and medium weapons anymore" seems like pretty solid proof to me that size mechanics will still be very much extant in 2e.

As for Small-sized adventurers getting perks that Medium don't? Well, two of the three Small-sized ancestries also get a Strength penalty. Come to think of it... in Pathfinder 1.0 they had small-sized weapons and a Strength penalty for a double-penalty. So your argument doesn't have as much merit in my eyes.

What Paizo is doing is eliminating obstacles that make playing Small-sized races/ancestries not as much fun as that of Medium-sized races/ancestries. They are also reducing complexity. This is not a bad thing.

To respond,

The strength penalty is based on race, not size. There's a correlation, but not direct causation, there are medium races that take strength penalties as well, so that's not necessarily connected to size. The inherent dodge bonus and stealth bonuses (that may not even exist in 2e at all so this could be moot) were 100% connected to size, not race. See Enlarge/Reduce Person or even just the base stat rules for Small/Medium/Large creatures in 1e.

You see, my concern is that we could be creating a situation where there are only upsides to being small (aside from -2STR, which with all the other methods of stat boost shown/hinted at in character creation, as well as a Starfinder style stat progression, is likely going to be laughably minor by level 4). If a halfling can stand next to a half-orc barbarian, and hit just as hard with a sword 1/3 the size, while being substantially harder to find and hit....why haven't halflings conquered the known world?

On the other hand, I absolutely agree with them eliminating the damage difference between small and medium creatures. It never made sense to me that an 18 STR gnome fighter somehow couldn't hit as hard with a longsword as a 15 STR human paladin. But their language isn't about eliminating the inherent damage reduction of smaller creatures, just the difference based off weapon sizes, which affects a much wider range of game systems that I'm concerned they haven't considered.

How will enlarge/reduce person work? Will they be limited to only affecting base stats, or is it somehow going to be the case that casting enlarge person on a small character increases their base weapon damage, in contravention to the directly stated rules that there is no damage difference between medium and small weapons? (assuming Enlarge/Reduce person still exist as spells at all). What about Impact? Lead Blades? Gravity Bow?

Its funny that you mentioned one of the plusses here is simplifying things. If they had just said "the distinction between small and medium was foolish, Halflings are close enough in size to Half-Orcs that there shouldn't be one, we're eliminating small-medium. It will now be Tiny/Medium/Large/etc, that would have simplified things, and made perfect sense.

Changing this one aspect without context on the dozens of other things it affects actually substantially further complicates things. If they had said "there is no distinction between small and medium at all" it would have demolished that whole building, leaving us with a clean slate to work with. Changing this one thing is like reaching into a building and ripping out one random weight bearing wall, and then turning to us and saying "look, we made it simpler!"

EDIT: Sorry, I also forgot to address the fact that you are assuming they are going to allow Small humanoids to *use* medium gear. That isn't what they said, and has in no way been insinuated. All they have stated is that small weapons will do the same damage as medium weapons. As far as I can tell, your small party members will still have to resize their found medium gear. Unless of course they change to the much more logically/mechanically sound solution of simply saying "there is no more small and medium, just medium."

This post made for an interesting read more for the core mechanics that are being changed than for the classes, so I'll get my thoughts on the classes out of the way briefly:

+CHA for all three is pretty unrealistic. Gnomes have been presented as extremely curious, to the point of excluding other concerns that might cause say an Elf to not push the random button they just found in the trap filled dungeon "just to see what it does". That screams INT unleavened by either Charisma or Wisdom. It definitely isn't charismatic.

Goblins just shouldn't have a mental bonus at all, even though that would be an exception to the general rule. They're tougher than Gnomes and Halflings (why wouldn't they be, they had to grow up in a tribe of other Goblins), so DEX/CON makes perfect sense.

That leaves CHA for the Halflings, who are the only race from PE1 that have been presented as socially charismatic anyway.

As far as those saying Goblin/Halfling are too similar, and it somehow lessens halflings, I'd say this. YES, THEY ARE SIMILAR, as in physiologically they are absolutely similar, so it makes perfect sense for them to be similar statwise. In combat, they would likely both excel in the same general roles, so it makes perfect sense that they would excel in the same roles. Making them different is on US as the players. I can see dozens of situations where it would be radically different to be a goblin or a halfling. Not to mention it has always annoyed me that if your party has an evil campaign, and someone wants to be a rogue, they're playing a viciously evil, conniving, bloodthirsty, heartless....halfling? Really? Evil frodo? This is where a goblin could shine so very brightly. I honestly don't understand why there's this ongoing campaign to get rid of the Goblin. Them being a core race in no way forces you to play them, but it gives your group the option to have an evil party rogue who makes any sense at all.

Long story short, why fight against having more options, if you don't like the option...don't take it? And for GM's, if you hate the idea of one of your players being a Goblin, and you're the type of GM who is going to put your personal preferences ahead of your players fully enjoying your campaign, then caveat that the guards in the first town the party visits kill goblins on sight, no exceptions. That's perfectly believable, and boom, now your player isn't playing a goblin anymore. You win, yay for you.

Now on to the more far-reaching and important information revealed in this post, the elimination of damage differences based on size. This is....insanely impactful, in a myriad number of ways.

First and foremost, are the defensive and stealth benefits for being small being universally removed as well? Because if not, I can see some immediate balance issues with "the halfling is twice as hard to hit or spot as the human barbarian because he's smaller, but he hits for the exact same damage as the barbarian because size doesn't matter!" which breaks verisimilitude and balance.

If, on the other hand, ALL inherent bonuses associated with small vs. medium are being removed....why have it at all? Just remove the "small" size category altogether. If its not as tiny as a fairy, or as big as a giant, its just medium, boom, simpler, without balance or logic issues.

Here's another interesting issue that nobody has pointed out. There's been all this discussion of "well what about wielding oversized weapons" etc. etc. You just had the developers tell you there's no damage difference between small and medium weapons. Why would you ever worry about wielding a "medium" Greatsword as a small character, when you can make a "small" Greatsword that does the exact same damage??? By the logic inherent in this design change, the only thing about the weapon that matters is its size in proportion to it's wielder, not in proportion to the rest of the world. All a halfling needs is a blade long enough to be a greatsword compared to himself, and it should do the exact same damage as a blade that is a greatsword in relation to a Hill Giant, based on RAW. Now logically and mechanically I don't agree with that, but we just got told that's how it is, so at least you can stop worrying about having a halfling wield a Giant's 15 foot long greatsword, when he can just wield his own 3 foot long greatsword and do the exact same damage.

Now, you could try to argue "well there are no small greatswords"...but that doesn't make any sense. If you make a weapon 3 feet long that looks exactly like a 6 foot long greatsword, and you put it in a halfling's hands, to him, it's a greatsword, end of discussion. We just got told that absolute size (at least between medium and large) does not affect damage numbers, so only subjective size matters, and it only matters in terms of determining what a weapon is in the hands of the person wielding it. Heck, if you really want to apply the logical implications of this change, think about the following;

A medium human is holding a bladed sword 4 feet in length, which proportionate to him means its a longsword, and has a base damage of 1d6. When he hands the 4 foot long longsword to the Halfling, you now have a halfling holding what is, in porportion to him, a greatsword. Because a small greatsword and a medium greatsword do the same damage RAW, the Longsword, in the halfling's hands, does 1d10 damage instead of 1d6. When he hands it back to the human, it goes back to doing 1d6 base damage.

Why not 1st? It's not some epically powerful ability that is being granted.

Actually, the "effects" they list on Debilitating strike aren't very specific, so they could actually be quite powerful, I don't think we have the information necessary to make a very accurate guess on that. I will say that if you assume "entangle" as they use it in the post to mean something equivalent to the current PF1 incarnation of Entangle, then adding it as a passive effect to all SA hits at level 1 would be extremely strong, especially if there's no save involved (as is the case with current unchained rogue).

Don't take me wrong, I'm not saying 9 is great, but I'm also pretty sure 1 wouldn't be super reasonable either, based purely on guesswork.

The fact that a +2 AC bonus has both a 10% chance to block a hit and a 10% chance to negate a critical in an ideal scenario (i.e. your attacker can roll 10 above your AC) is small comfort, and completely misses the point.

I don't agree with the "missing the point" here, the original post from Ninja in the Rye was about the limited power/usefulness of the reaction, I think pointing out that in PF2 it's inherently stronger is on point with responding to that concern. You're also jumping to the conclusion its a single attack, when the way its worded in the blog is ambiguous.

In terms of the change to FF not affecting Dex, it honestly makes perfect sense if you assume that the enemies will be getting the same ability point glut as the player characters. If that's the case, almost every possible "enemy" build will have decent to high Dex, so removing said Dex instead of just giving -2 would be substantially stronger in PF2 than PF1. This is especially true if you, again, keep in mind that giving enemies -2 to AC in PF2 is a much bigger deal than it is in PF1.

I'm venturing into guesswork again on this, but it definitely looks like a lot of the number bloat of PF1 is going to be reduced/removed, which means that even just a -2 to AC has the potential to be quite significant, which would also make -Dex to AC insanely powerful. But that's guesswork.

^ Rysky beat me to it, but +2 AC is a much bigger deal with PF2 mechanics than it is in PF1, as it reduces your chance of being both hit AND crit. In addition, the wording is definitely open to the reaction effect lasting the full round, though it's just as open to being interpreted as meaning a +2 against a single attack, the detail is a little lacking.

As far as the back and forth over Dex to damage, given the fact that they're using the Starfinder ability advancement system, it's really, really not going to matter very much, characters in PF2 are going to be drowning in ability scores as compared to PF1.

On top of that, based on the changes to magic items and information in the Fighter blog, its pretty apparent that the main focus in terms of damage is going to be dice, not flat bonuses. I'm not going to be surprised if the vast majority of systems from PF1 that gave flat bonuses to both hit and damage are either greatly reduced, reworked to be dice bonuses, or outright removed.

If I were going to be concerned about rogue damage output, it would be that rogues are going to be heavily incentivized to use Greatswords instead of daggers. Even with the loss of sneak attack dice, anything that adds additional weapon dice with the larger weapon (for example the reworked Power Attack) might just end up breaking even or putting your potential damage out ahead with the larger base weapon.

I also agree on not loving that debilitating strike has been moved to such a high level, but its a mirror of some of the more mundane fighter abilities being moved to higher levels as well. Its probably not fair to call two instances a pattern, but if I had to guess, I'd venture that they're making an active effort to spread overall character strength across more levels, and make it far more commonplace for a typical campaign to push substantially higher in level.

I love the changed Mobility, a smart move, especially since Mobility won't be (presumably) part of a feat chain anymore, so without the change, it wouldn't have been worth taking.

Overall I'm rather surprised at how similar to Unchained Rogue the class seems to be, but maybe I shouldn't be, the "Rogue" archetype has been around for so long that there's probably not a lot of reason to change much about them. I'm also excited about learning more about skills, and don't mind that they're being reserved to their own blog. There's definitely evidence here that Skills will be one of the largest changes overall to the base game, I think that's definitely best addressed with a full post dedicated to just it.