K1's page

Custom background is what you are looking for.

Just change the bonus feat and you are all set.

If the size increase, just add +2 flat damage.

So

Medium 1d12
Large 1d12 +2
Huge 1d12 +4

The players should be happy about both balance and flavor.

If they can't be happy because their weapon gets a +2 instead of an extra D12 the issue is your players.

A barbarian will also 10 extra free reach, and the clumsy condition will remain 1.

The barbarian will be the only class with reach 15 with any weapon ( reach 20 with polearms ), which means he could use axes for swipe while benefit with 15 feet reach.

Definitely op.

With a polearm you will have a 20 reach whirlwind attack.

No need to buff even more an already competitive and broken ( because reach in this version is broken ) build.

Also you can't concede to use 2h weapons with 1 hand because of weapon trait balance.

Finally, companion extra dice are the extra dice you get from the weapon enhancements...

The acro feats are not for thr check itself but to avoid being caught out of guard from

- balance checks.
- Being prone.
- stand up ( no action needed either, so action economy ).

Excellent feats for a warrior.

Reducing falling damage is also good at low lvls, bur at high lvls could not be worth it. Eventually you could replace it.

Also as a champion of Shelyn, i feel comfortable with being agile even without dex ( due to enhanced performance and agile stuff ).

Also Crawl ing fast and balancing stuff is combat training too, so even if under acrobatics checks is worth for any warrior.

The feat is ok

If you don’t like it go with a shield or with the dueling parry from a fighter dedication. Or eventually twin parry. Or a parry weapon. Or reactive shield. Etc...

The whole game is full of choices, and the nimble dodge is good, since it is a reaction, and because so an action less to spend.

You won't necessarily be hit,and eventually nor even targeted.

But if this happens you can decide or not to rely on that feat.

Definitely good to have.
Not a must.

Yeah, but it doesn't actually state anywhere that "pull" is forced movement.

Much less pull in reverse.

Or that the distance is doubled on a crit.

If it had been different in any way from the Basic rule, then they would had stated it somewhere.

Or else, it won't have any sense at all.

You fire a ray of burning sunlight from your weapon. You must be wielding a sword or spear to cast sun blade, and you perform this spell’s somatic component with the weapon. Make a spell attack roll. The ray deals 1d4 fire damage. If the target is evil, the ray deals an additional 1d4 good damage, and if the target is undead, the ray deals an additional 1d4 positive damage (both effects apply against creatures that are both evil and undead). If you are in an area of bright natural sunlight, increase the die size of each damage die by one step (from d4 to d6).

Another example about how champions are not bonded to their deity favored weapon.

You could homerule to use the raise shield action if you are grabbing a small creature like a halfling.

Eventually, even use the Shield Block reaction.

To me it is more an habbit issue.

People are used to PF1 or other games where multiclassing was something meant to create op stuff by trying to take the best from classes.

Here you have your main class, which can be stuffed with some minor perks from other classes.

There are 2 differences here ( not issues, but simply differences ).

1) your dedication class will be 1/2 your lvl. Which means that by lvl 20 you will be able to take a lvl 10 dedication class feat.

2) the more you proceed, the better your main class talents.

What can a character take from a dedication?

Minor perks which enhances his main class gameplay.

Warpriests are in a overpower hybrid spot, because they don't sacrifice anything in terms of spellcasting.

They can get a great boost to their abilities by using heroism and they can also support, healing, control, or even dps.

In my opinion they are totally fine and don’t need anything else. There are plenty of dps classes, and a hybrid should be a jack of the trade ( and a warpriest is not ).

I prefer not to have everything.

The fact that I have to choose between a high hp pool and hardness or some special effect is something I really appreciate.

As for deciding between an indestructible shield, a sturdy one or even an autorepair shield.

I am also fine that a Spellguard Shield will broken if you dare to parry with it.

I am not fine that an arrow catching shield and the one which deal fire dmg on a block have so few hp.

But that's thr only thing I think they forget to think about.

Nope.

It only allows you to take the feat.

You will be using the diplomacy rank for group impression.

It simply allow you to get a specific skill feat you won't be able to take otherwise.

It is meant for high Charisma users, and to unlock feature you won't be able to unlock otherwise.

You could homerule like performance works for every check but would be unbalanced.

A character is meant to have 3x legendary rank skills by lvl 19.

You will give him 3x legendary skill by lvl 15 with just 2 class feats. Nonsense.

As already said, shields do not require specialization to be used for the raise shield feature.

You should decide the use of your shield before buying one.

1) If you simply want a higher AC, without using the block reaction, go for a magic shield with the bonus you like ( ex, +2 circ saves vs spells whigh target you )

2) If you want a higher AC and to use the block, then go with a sturdy one or eventually, if high lvl, with a autorepair or indestructible shield.

3) If you want higher AC and use the Shield as a second weapon ( ex, twin feint or double slice ) then go with a shield made of specific materials, to bypass enemy resistances, put an upgrade on it and use it for a weapon ( if it is your off hand, you will be needing a ring which shares the enchants on your main hand weapon ).

you're not like hitting people with the arm wraps to do more damage, they just make your strikes with your body more accurate and damaging.

Totally agree.

We must consider also that it is something meant for monks, and monks don't only rely on fists.

I like that, is mirror image viable for a frontliner?

I don't know.

But remember that if you cast

Heroism
Haste
Mirror Image
Etc...

The combat would be over while you are still buffing yourself.

I suggest you just to use slots for haste/true strike ( every fight,a haste ), and eventually save a dimentional door with spell signature, for the time it will be needed.

Yes.

By lvl 8, with bredth, you will have 1 extra lvl 1 spell.

You will also know another lvl 1 spell ( you know 1 spell of a specific lvl per spell slot ).

I suggest you to take sorc dedication with Imperial or Draconic, which will give you arcane spellcasting.

Because of that, you will be elegible for a ring of wizardly, which will allow you to use extra slots.

You won't be needing to waste a feat foe bredth.

Remember also that you will have heroism because of your cleric class, and that arcane spellcasting will give you what's left

True strike
Haste
Teleports
Mind Blank

Quote:

Those are simply your opinions.

Nothing else.

I admitted as much in my post.

People sharing opinions on forums..fancy that...

Interesting the way you omitted the part about your quotes, which was the point of my post.

I respect your point.

I tend to tilt my head if you say that you decided that way because you don't want to screw your players.

Which seems that everybody else who sticks with the base rule instead would do so.

However, we are going off topic.

I am not saying the shield block should be a free action. That comes up often enough to matter and the player has a real choice as to which hit to block or whether to use another often used reaction in its stead.

I am talking about orc ferocity specifically.

To have the player choose between shield block and orc ferocity (a once a day ability that comes up hyper infrequently) seems off as the mechanics deeply conflict the narrative. What, a warrior should maybe LET AN ENEMY HIT HIM so that maybe he could come up from zero if it drops him? That makes little sense. Add in how infrequently ferocity is likely to come up (and the fact that the pc still gets wounded).. I dunno. Doesn't add up.

You do you but I play these games to have fun not to find ways to screw my players or to make them feel crapped on for their character choices.

If a half-orc at my table used his reaction and then gets smacked to zero later on that same round, I will still let him use his once a day ability to stay on his feet while taking his wound. To do otherwise would be my definition of bad DMing. Your definition is different and thats fine.

It is hard to discuss when arguments are like:

"I play games to have fun, not to screw players"

Or

"To do otherwise would be my definition of bad DMing"

No offense, but if a game gives you rules and you don't like them, you can simply use a homebrew rule.

You don't necessarily have to say that if somebody would instead like to follow the rules, which are fine in this specific case, is doing something bad.

Those are simply your opinions.
Nothing else.

HeHateMe wrote:

Zapp wrote:

K1 wrote:

But don't claim the spec is unbalanced.

Not sure who you're talking to so just to be sure:

I'm not saying it's unbalanced.

I am saying it's convoluted and inelegant.

It also leaves some questions unanswered. For example, how do Small size ancestries work with Giant Instinct? Do they need a special Large size weapon too? Or does a Medium size weapon work for them?

Also, why can a Giant Instinct Barbarian pick up and wield a dead Frost Giant's battleaxe in one hand but they can't do the same thing with a medium size Greataxe? The mechanics are super lame.

There's no distinction between small and medium weapons anymore.

Praise the Sun!

And also a fair weapon dmg dice progression. 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 1d10, 1d12, 1d12+2.

Smooth.

When you take sorc dedication you have to choose your bloodline.

Depends the bloodline you will get 2 skills and your spell list ( arcane, primal, occult or divine ).

You will know 1 spell per level, and you will learn another one when you will be able to cast more spells ( and since you are with a sorc dedication, you will need thr lvl 8 feat bredth ).

Ring of wizardly, if you are going to pursue the arcane path, won't allow you to learn more spells, even if you will be able to cast more.

Mostly Depends on the fighter’s dedications.

However lvl 12 is not a good lvl, since you will fight with a underpower fighter.

A lvl 13 would be perfect because of the +2 from legendary proficiency.

Also a fighter, which has high hit chances, will mostly be a crit Fisher.

So great Pick and not the 1d12 weapon you want him to use.

However, with a simple build, it will be

12 lvl
5 str
6 prof
2 enchant
2 flat footed ( eventually ).

Great Pick

Hastened ( Wiz dedication for haste and true strikes )

Hit = 5d10 +8 +1d6 flaming rune +1d6 bespell weapon

Crit = (6d12+8+1d6+1d6)x2 +12 + 1d10 permanent fire dmg

+ secondary attack 3d10+8+1d6. On critical hit (4d12+8+1d6)x2 +8 +1d10 permanent fire dmg

Remember that the power attack will have true strike on, so double roll.

...

Eventually he could use double slice with 1 pick and 1 light Pick

On a critical hit it would be

(4d10+8+1d6)x2 +8 + 1d10 permanent fire dmg + (4d8+8+1d6)x2 +8 +1d10 permanent fire dmg.

But then he would be unable to hit with his second attack.

But it is a white room situation.
A fighter who has to buff himself.

I guess mostly Depends on your degree of devotion.

Your character could simply desire to bear the glaive of Shelyn simply because he wants to.

Maybe because with that he feels even a stronger Bond with the deity.

Or maybe simply because he thinks that way he will honor her even during a fight.

I also think that those champions or clerics who don't use the deity’s favored weapon are not disrespectful at all.

...

To go even deeper, here's shelyn wiki page.

https://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Shelyn

Just to underline that there are plenty ways to honor and embrace the Faith.

am peaceful. I come first with a rose. I act to prevent conflict before it blossoms.

I lead by example, not with my blade. Where my blade passes, a life is cut short, and the world's potential for beauty is lessened.

I live my life as art. I will choose an art and perfect it. When I have mastered it, I will choose another. The works I leave behind make life richer for those who follow.

Even by reading some of her followers tennets it is clear that she doesn't care about the weapon you bear, as long as your Heart works to prevent fight and by allowing a defeated enemy the chance to redeem himself.

Of course this is for what concerns Shelyn, but would be the same for the other deities.

And as said at the beginning of my post, this doesn't mean that using a your deity’s favored weapon has no importance. It is something the character must feel, desire or maybe because of how he was educated.

The Raven Black wrote:

I do not see playing all opponents as dedicated only to killing all PCs no matter the cost to them and no matter their motivation as not fudging, but as completely ignoring the setting's internal logic in favor of obliterating the PCs "by the rules". Except of course for the rules stating that most opponents would not try to obliterate PCs no matter what.

Considering there is a rule that "only the most vicious creatures attack a downed PC", it's definitely fudging if every enemy operates on that paradigm.

It's fine to play it that way, but to not acknowledge that particular piece as a "fudge" seems unfair. The "Rule of Cool" is a fudge, that particular change to the game is really no different than the "Rule of Cool" in terms of fudging (but in reverse).

Call it the "Rule of Gruel" or whatever, but it's still fudging.

It is simply Normal because of how heals and the dying status work.

If a creature knows that, in a world full of magic, a downed character could be renewed in an instant, then that creature will definitely make for sure that the character is definitely dead before moving on another.

Or else the creature could, depends the situation ofc, put his own life at risk.

Monsters don't have to assume, unless they are Child who never experienced, or got instructed, about how magic works.

The dying condition for the mobs is pure l meant to simplify things, and even with this a monster who fought with adventurers know that they could be healed even if downed.

You start from +2 and go for +18.
Higher than any other instinct, apart from dragon instinct ( which However could be meningless if the target had resistance to that element. So you are way, way better ).

You will also have reach and can use larger weapons.

Do not want reach or to use larger weapons?

Go one of the other specializations.

Easy.

But don't claim the spec is unbalanced.

Giant instinct seems to have a trade for its huge extra damage and reach utilities.

It is also the only build who can have a 15 feet reach with axes, in order to perform swipe attacks even without the needs of a stride or a step.

Definitely a good build.

I like the 2h shield stance, but I feel like an extra perk like shove, because the missing main hand weapon, would have been appreciated.

Trading maneuvers, agile, finesse, etc.. for 2 hardness and a 2h with 1d8 dmg doesn't seem really balanced at all.

Not equal.
Different.

I don't get why many of you put flavor before extra choicee, even when it is not needed.

I would like to have alternatives to bows in term of gameplay, like the whole melee system with perks, hands needed, critical spec, reach, damage type, etc.

Also, if you take the Breadth feat, you quite nearly have half the spell slots of a full caster.

You will have one extra lvl 1 spell by lvl 8, and 1 extra lvl 2 by lvl 12.

Guess you are kiddin by bringing up that feat.

If you are a fighter you only need Basic with a ring of wizardly for 6 true strike by lvl 8.

Any other dedication class won't benefit from low lvl spell you get from breadth, when it will be eligible for.

You can definitely go with a warrior's training ring, for a +4 circumstance per day.

A lvl 13 blue dragon has 34 ac, so you will crit with a +24 on a natural 20.

The heroism then will be a waste on you.

Apart from that, you only have to use your actions to flank him, eventually raise shield, and attack.

I wouldn't attack with the second attack, so maybe you could consider taking fighter lvls to get power attack instead, if you have a 2h, Or eventually double slice if you have 1h and shield.

I wouldn't demoralize.

About the help action, if your DM stick with a meaningless dc of 20, go for it ( do not expect other melee to to the same, because their reactions could be useful ). If the dc is = to the challenge, then you have to decide.

Personally I wouldn't go for it unless i am with a help check template. Or ofc I am playing a bard, or with a bard dedication.

Remember also that you will eventually have to heal.

The usually is pure flavor, cmon.

Imagine a monk being limited to fists.
Or even during a tavern brawl a character not be allowed to use helbows, kicks and even bites!

You are forcing this too much by trying to interpretate hidden meanings, while everything else points out that it's not what the whole system was meant for.

In my opinion their fault was not to separate RAW rules and flavor text ( even if I still say that something like this leaves no room for doubts ). But it is not the first time this happens, and it won't be the last.

I prefer to differ.

You can choose between 3 kind of shields

1) weapon shields
2) blocking shields
3) utility shields

All of them, apart from the dancing one i guess, gives you the +2 circumstance bonus while raised.

That said, what do you want your shield to do?

Off hand weapon?
Then choose the material, the attachment and enchant it with weapon runes.

You want to block damage by using your reaction? Then you will definitely go with sturdy shields, which are shields meant to block damage.

You want instead to get some specific benefits like extra attacks, auto repair, resistances, bonus to saves against spells, etc... ?

Then you will go with a specific utility shield.

You can't have anything, and as for class feats, choices have to be made.

Oh I almost forgot. Period.

I am perfectly fine the way shields are.

The difference between them is neat, and different shields perform better with different tasks

- Sturdy shields block massive dmg

- lion's shield gives a free attack during a fight, while maintaining the raise action benefits.

- dragonslayer shield grants +2 circ vs reflex on aoe effects, more hardness against a specific energy, and the possibility to block effects of that element as well. +2 against frightful presence of that dragon.

- force shield provvides a 5 dmg reduction from physical dmg once per day for 1 minute. Every 4 attacks you suffer 20 damage less without using a reaction, to make an example.

- spellguard shield gives you +2 on saving throws against spells which targets you ( not aoe effects i guess ).

And so on.
It is simply a trade.

A fair one.

There are just a bunch of shields which doesn't work

Arrow catching shield
Forge warden ( even if it still has an aoe fire resistance effect )

Because of their low hp and hardness.

Ascalaphus wrote:

I think "bottlenecking" is a term that frames the discussion rather heftily. How many feats do you need to be a viable archer ranger? 1-2.

The "bottleneck" I think is a push to actually make it harder for all archer rangers to be duplicates.

I thought I had made my question clear in the first two posts, but it appears I failed.

In PF1 I commonly split feats between a couple different areas without spreading myself too thin. Many people online complained about not having enough feats.

In the PF2 playtest my players felt so underpowered that they didn't dare spend feats on anything other than their core specialization. This was something that other people mid to high level play testers also mentioned commonly.

I was asking if that was still a problem since it's been fully released, but it appears to have been fixed. I didn't mean to the topic to only be about rangers, that was just the first example off the top of my head that everyone fixated on.

I do agree with Ascalaphus here.

The issue could be the fact that before people were used to get many stuff, while now even with many choices, trades could be very hard to deal with.

About the feat system itself, i like it but I recognize it is not perfect.

1) dedication should allow you to take a feat. The fact that it locks you from taking new dedications until 2 extra feats are chosen is enough to justify a feat ( not the Basic spellcasting one ).

Remember tha from lvl 1 to lvl 4 we don't get anything worth it if not for some specializations.

It is not that an extra skill or weapon proficiency are not worth it, but it doesn't change a thing.

While stuff like barbarian rage or even Hunter's prey add a new mechanic to the class.

Basically, you are stuck with a useless feat everytime you go for a dedication one.

2) non spellcasting class dc does not increase.

3) starting from expert spellcasting, you are put behind for what the game encounters are meant for.

You start with Basic spellcasting by lvl 4, which is a perfectly fine Gap if compared to pure spellcasters.

When you have your lvl 2 spell, they will already have their lvl 3, and they will be close to the 4th.

Starting from expert spellcasting instead, you will have lvl 4 spell by lvl 12, while they will have lvl 6 ( lvl 7 by lvl 13 ). The increase Gap is nonsense.

Expert and master spellcasting should be 2 lvl lower feats.

4) many attacks are now class only, which is stupid. Why a barbarian, a ranger or even a champion are supposed not to know how to perform a power attack. Just to say one.

I could understand furious focus being a fighter feat, but ffs a power attack is a powerful attack which trades further accurata for extra dmg which is way lower than the one you would get with 2 attacks.

Same goes for cleave, or whirlwind attack.

...

In the end, my point is that the system is fine to deal with. You can go deep into some stuff and all classes have their perks, so there are big differences between both classes, templates and even dedications.

But Somehow I know it could have been even better.

I just want them to state that shields are weapons, with or without boss/spikes.

And to know if magic shields are meant to be an alternative to sturdy shields, or those made of rare materials, or simply the way they are.

Currently sturdy shields are the real deal, and part of the magic ones has no sense because of their hardness and hp.

Am I missing something about champion critical specialization?

Don't they unlock it by lvl 3 with divine blade perk?

So are there exceptions?

That was really unexpected.

Like the main characters of the adventures we all play.

His skills would be higher than the Big city weaponsmith, whose skills would be higher than the Village blacksmither.

Time means nothing.

That was the point of the comparison.

I don't like to spoiler me the DCs, but mostly if the target is big, i tend to trip and avoid shove/grab.

If the target is agile and fast instead, I tend to assume its Fortitude st is lower than reflex.

About using Assurance or not it'it's a bet.

As far as I can recall, there's a talisman for +2 shove.

Ps: a out the Math is simply because you can use the base modifier for 2 trips ( not sure if you will be using 1 extra action of it is free ).

Normally you would expend 2 action and have to wait for a new turn, to have no map.

When comparing melee vs casters it is mandatory to leave the fighter class out of the play, because the +2 hit is game breaking.

Apart from that, it mostly Depends on how many encounters per day the players are supposed to face.

In the 5th edition, the warlock class was pretty much tied to the number of short rests too.

Many fights could have meant that he would have been recoveryng spells while other classes wouldn't.

So the more you proceed,the better for him.

Same goes for casters here.

If you Plan to make a long rest after 2 or 3 encounters, then probably you will deal massive damage by throwing everything.

If you are considering using cantrip too much, you are probably at low lvls, or trying to save spells instead of ending the fight earlier ( not a critic,but it is a choice ).

On single targets, it is obvious that melee classes would deal higher dmg, especially if they are supported ( bards song of courage or heroism ).

And fighters even more.
Guess rangers and barbarians too at some point. The first because +2 hit feat, the second because of flurry.

I don't really get why they decided to give flat hit or defense to classes like fighter, monk and champion, instead of choices among their talent, or simply depends the path.

But it is obvious that, given the specific system, a fighter with a +2 hit would be overpowered.

K1 wrote:

Agree.

The system is tough, and doubling the feats won't do anything but ruining it.

The only thing I could consider to deal with is the dedication class dc for non casting classes which has no way of progression.

Keep in mind, the *only* people who should use the double feat house rule are those who feel they are too restricted by the default system. For others like yourself, doubling feats could ruin your experience no question.

Anybody who wants to customize a character has to get restrictions.

The fact that you want to pretend to be fighter/rogue or a druid/ranger is your own choice.

The system provides possibilities but at a cost. If you decide to forgo that cost because "I was used to play a multiclass which doesn't work anymore in this version" is not in order to make up for a issue.

Because there is no issue to begin with.

Agree.

The system is tough, and doubling the feats won't do anything but ruining it.

The only thing I could consider to deal with is the dedication class dc for non casting classes which has no way of progression.

Just if the possibility was not available. Even if I was going to change character a resurrection would have been appreciated ( then the character could have simply go on his own ).

I can't understand stuff like "I will remain dead because my death was tpo important to the party".

It is not supposed to be a movie.
You died and friends who care about you try to bring you back. And for whoom you would have done exactly the same.

Sorry guys but you have to go without me. I nailed it with the coolest sacrifice ever!

Jib916 wrote:

How many different threads and thread derails are we going to have on rarity? It is starting to get a bit old..

The Devs/Designers have already established that it is a tool for GM's to use (or NOT use) and explained in multiple threads , what their intentions of the system is and how you are free to ignore it if its not your cup of tea.

When Paizo publishes a rule that a significant number of customers don't like, you will see a near endless series of threads telling them exactly that. In those threads, you will see the inevitable response of those that do like the rules, telling the original posters they're wrong.

Rise, repeat.

This is a divisive topic, and it won't go away until and unless it goes away. Which it won't.

This isn't a matter of educating those who don't like the rule. It's not a matter of educating those who do. It's like McDonald's deciding to add mushrooms on the Big Mac. Some people are going to like it, some aren't. And there will be an endless stream of feedback from those who don't, asking that the burger recipe be reverted, mixed with people saying "just pick the mushrooms off." Nobody's right, nobody's wrong, it's just human nature to want to express one's self.

So it is just a way to say

"Rules say they are common, so i can take it"

It is just a reason you can Pick to argue with a DM who would not let you play specific stuff.

Or else, seriously, feel free to propose a real scenario when a common/uncommon request could not be decided with a discussion between players and DM.

Enemies too.

I think you are trying to justify being a hellknight in order to unlock plate proficiencies.

Remember that you can be part of an order and still not being able to use part of the stuff, if it is not related to your class.

For an instance, it is Normal that a mage wouldn't be proficient as a champion while wearing a plate. And probably a mage wouldn't have any interest in wearing a massive amount of metal.

In this system, even a +1 is s huge bonus, simply because of how it works the success and critical success.

If you are a fighter or a champion, you will be used to wear armors.

Other classes simply won't.
And joining a brotherhood or an order won't make a rogue a plate user.

Because of both lore and balance.

a gnome ranger with a heavy crossbow and an ammo hamster sounds interesting

Hmm...

No!

You gave me canadian bacon instead of bacon.

This mistake cannot go unpunished...

Pizza deliver man, prepare to meet your maker at the hands of my cat-launcher

Nobody messes with Adam We.

I'd say no, or else the critical success would be meaningless.

However, you would be able to improve his attitudine towards you and your party by achieving important goals, or completing tasks for him.

But as for the first impression, that's it.

Or else gogo spam diplomacy with nonsense, making a npc your best friend forever in 5 minutes.

I mean that with the first ring you won't be able to get extra effects untill middle late game, with the tier 2, so it is wiser to have enchant like fire dmg and similar on the main weapon, or a glove which can be morphed into a sword.

Then you duplicate Striking/potency runes on shield.

There is a quote which says that shields are not weapons, though the can be used as weapons.

While modded, you can use a shield Spike or boss as a weapon, and even enhance it.

They made a mess with the rules ( shields have also weapon critical specialization ). I can't find a good reason not to consider shields as weapons but only the spikes on the shields, but the rules are somehow not clear at all.

So a fireball seems reasonable, like fixing an almost dead person in 1 hour of medications, but patting him on the back in order to let him recover some of his Vital strength seems somehow unacceptable.

You don't really have to presume.
Rules here are clear.

As DM you could homerule in a different way, or even imagine that the feat is somehow explained in the wrong way, but until an errata will come out, apart from arguing, the choice is between following what the feat and manipulate trait say or just interpretate all of this as you wish.