Twilight2k's page

Peacelock wrote:

Paizo owes the CUP everything. They often say how PF2E’s success saved the company, but the tools created under CUP are what saved PF2E from failing amidst the pandemic. And in the future, no new ones can be created.

That is a very bold claim.

Were these programs helpful to those who used them? Yes, but i think you’re vastly overestimating how many people used them, or that they were required to play.

Spreading this sort of impassioned hyperbole doesn’t really help anyone.

I don't think it is much of an exaggeration (but there is no way for anybody to know for sure).

The vast majority of people I've talked with use Foundry for PF2 (even in-person).

I have not talked to a single person that does not use Pathbuilder (or, to a lesser extent, Wanderer's Guide or Dyslexic Character Sheets). I'm sure there must be some but I have never talked with them (and I've talked to a LOT of PF2 players and GMs).

Jared Thaler - Personal Opinion wrote:

So. As far as I am reading this, a third party character sheet could not use the Pathfinder logo, the class icons, or possibly even the action symbols without a separately negotiated license?

A custom character sheet layout falls under the "some exceptions" in the Fan Content Policy. Since it's primarily art (the custom layout), it's not an RPG product in the sense that it'd need to reference the OGL or ORC. If it's an automated character sheet that's actively crunching numbers and referencing rules, then that would need to be released under the OGL/ORC and Compatibility License.

What is the logic in this? Paizo now seems to be significantly limiting utilities that make it easier to play Paizo games (automated character sheets, character building software, etc). Haphaestos (sp?) is considering "abandoning" the character builder (leaving it up but making no more updates so it is grandfathered in). If Pathbuilder weren't already OGL, I would expect them to consider the same thing. These two utilities have greatly eased playing Paizo games (and probably expanded the playerbase) so why limit similar sites?

Twilight2k wrote:

However, that brings up my more general gripe/question. If those are really weapon damage dice, they absolutely should count as such. If those aren't really weapon damage dice, they shouldn't be called weapon damage dice. As is, this is messy, unintuitive, and illogical. Since they don't "count", why weren't they called something else?

I think you're overthinking it a bit. That whole sentence is just there to clarify that 'number of die' abilities are only meant to check the base number of die your attack has and not double dip from deadly or power attack.

I might be but I just don't follow the logic. They are explicitly weapon damage dice but they don't count as weapon damage dice... What? Are they weapon damage dice or not? To me at least, it would have been way better to simply allow potential double-dipping to keep the rules clean.

A discussion on Discord got me curious enough to bring it up here...

Page 279 in CRB has this rule under "Counting Damage Dice":

Effects based on a weapon’s number of damage dice include only the weapon’s damage die plus any extra dice from a striking rune. They don’t count extra dice from abilities, critical specialization effects, property runes, weapon traits, or the like.

Would Fatal bump the die size of those "extra dice from abilities" that do not count as "weapon damage dice"?

My current view is no because those aren't really weapon damage dice. They are just extra dice of damage that are the same size as the weapon damage dice. If Fatal does increase their size, why don't they count when counting?

However, that brings up my more general gripe/question. If those are really weapon damage dice, they absolutely should count as such. If those aren't really weapon damage dice, they shouldn't be called weapon damage dice. As is, this is messy, unintuitive, and illogical. Since they don't "count", why weren't they called something else?

Disappointing that holiday24 code doesn't work on Foundry items. I own everything else for PF2.

The fudge recipe looks good.

The new crit for crossbow is weird. Realistically, an arrow wound would bleed far more than a bolt wound - they almost feel backwards to me.

If Cloak of Shadows is countered by simple low-light vision, what is the point? The VAST majority of enemies seem to have low-light or darkvision. This makes Cloak of Shadows EXTREMELY weak for a focus spell.

Makes me really wish they offered a PDF subscription. I don't have the room for a hardback subscription but would pay for a PDF subscription (probably anyway - depending on exact terms).

Ah, the timeless Paizo confusion.

Subscribers - those with a paid subscription to a product line, like Rulebooks or Lost Omens - receive their PDFs when their hard copies ship, as a part of that subscription. Once the hard copies are out for general sale to the public, so too does the PDF go up for purchase.

There’s also a number of streamers given advance copies to drive marketing hype, which is a standard industry practice.

Thanks for the explanation. It would be nice if Paizo made sure that the reviewers gave the PDF release date (and not just the subscriber shipping date). The hype worked... until I went to actually look at the book and buy it Monday (and found I can't) - that causes disappointment which is basically the opposite of hype.

Reviewers have had Rage of Elements for a week (less?). A couple commented the book would be available on Jul 17. What am I missing? Why is the PDF not available until Aug 3?

Twilight2k wrote:

But that line is NOT a rules line.

It isn't? Why not?

English grammar. In this:

You have the negative healing ability, which means you are harmed by positive damage and healed by negative effects as if you were undead

"which means..." is an explanation of what Negative Healing is/means (except that it isn't). As written, it is not a rule. Paizo really needs to either a) change that text to actually match Negative Healing, or b) change it so it is a rule rather than an (incorrect) explanation.

Twilight2k wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

The second bullet point you posted seems pretty abundantly clear.

I agree it is clear on intent. However, that is just descriptive fluff referencing the mechanics in Negative Healing (which does not say what that descriptive text says it does).

We're not talking about intent, although I agree intent is clear, we're talking about what that line of rules text says, which is also pretty clear.

But that line is NOT a rules line. In full, it says:

You have the negative healing ability, which means you are harmed by positive damage and healed by negative effects as if you were undead

"which means..." is an (incorrect) description of what Negative Healing does - not a rule. A rule would have been "The Dhampir counts as undead for purposes of positive damage and negative effects".

One of many things Paizo should clean up.

1) Heal has its own rules. Technically a Dhampir is targeted as a willing living creature. So the spell tries to heal but Negative Healing says that a Dhampir is is not healed by positive healing effects.
So nothing happens.
2) If you cast Harm on a Dhampir at least is doesn't have to be willing. But a Dhampir is protected by Negative Healing again as it does not take negative damage.

So neither work.

Personally I house rule it and ignore the targeting resrictions on ALL these sorts of spells and effects. I treat all creatures with negative healing as if they were undead. That is how I think it should work.

The rules remain totally stuffed. The latest errata didn't even do a decent job of fixing Soothe. Paizo keep dropping the ball on this. They just don't seem to see how broken it is.

I agree with you on all points (how it works RAW, how it should work, and that Paizo really needs to clean it up).

The second bullet point you posted seems pretty abundantly clear.

I agree it is clear on intent. However, that is just descriptive fluff referencing the mechanics in Negative Healing (which does not say what that descriptive text says it does).

Official Answer: Stalk the FAQ page.

Where in the FAQ page? As I said, I read the FAQ/errata but, if it's in there, I missed seeing it.

I've spent the last 1.5 hours reading Errata/FAQ, Paizo forums, Reddit, and elsewhere and am still no closer to knowing if Dhampir are supposed to be damaged by the Heal spell. Can anyone point me to an official clarification/answer?

Basically, it comes down to three things:

• * Heal saying "if the target is undead, you deal that amount of positive damage to it" (Dhampir are not undead)


• * Dhampir ancestry saying "which means you are harmed by positive damage and healed by negative effects as if you were undead" but that is just descriptive text referencing Negative Healing


• * Negative Healing trait says "A creature with negative healing draws health from negative energy rather than positive energy. It is damaged by positive damage and is not healed by positive healing effects. It does not take negative damage, and it is healed by negative effects that heal undead."

Strictly by RAW, I don't think the Dhampir should take damage from Heal but the description in Dhampir ancestry seems to indicate the intent is that they do take damage.

Twilight2k wrote:

Leon Aquilla wrote:

I believe it's been explained that the places where the PDF is provided gratis are boutique outfits. They certainly don't have near the level of output that Paizo does.

All the places I can think of off the top of my head (Modiphius, Free League) all maybe produce 1-2 books in a product line in a year.

That being said, you do get the PDF gratis, if you pre-order from them.

Really? Boutique outlets? Some of the largest European publishers give free pdfs with all physical book purchases (from their web store - I don't think any do it everywhere). 1-2 books in a product line per year is irrelevant when they operate close to a dozen product lines.

And who hosts the infrastructure for these PDFs? Near as I can tell, mostly a third party like DriveThruRPG. This isn't true for Paizo. There is overhead associated with providing and supporting this infrastructure, which Paizo charges for and companies like DriveThruRPG are happy to absorb in order to drive users to their site (it is their business model, after all).

It varies. Quite a few companies used to host things themselves but determined it was easier (and presumably cheaper) to use DriveThru. Paizo could just as easily use DriveThru (or another service) for their PDFs.

Twilight2k wrote:

Shadowrun is usually $20. There are a ton of places that charge less for pdfs than Paizo.

Have you ever read a Shadowrun sourcebook written after about 2001? They don't playtest or edit. At all.

Quote:

I agree with everyone regarding not getting a PDF when you buy the book. I understand they want to use it as an incentive for their subscriptions, but I would be willing to pay an additional $5–10 for the PDF when I purchase the book.

If you want to write a check to Paizo gratis for 200$ out of some sense of guilt, feel free. There is no incentive for me to buy hardbacks brand new without the free PDF.

All of SR4[a] and some of SR5. The playtesting in SR4 was not bad. The layout and editing definitely got worse with SR5 (but I didn't play enough to really be clear on playtesting but some things did seem out-of-whack (both over and under powered)). If you had said, SR5 and after, I would have agreed.

ShadowDrakken wrote:

Seems like predatory pricing. Products people want are going up in price, products people don't want are going down in price, and in both cases there's no reason for it because it's not a limited resource where supply and demand could actually be possibly excused as an actual thing. There's literally infinite supply and limited demand.

Faeries just show up and place the AP's and books on Paizo's doorstep in little woven baskets, just like my momma told me babies were delivered. They should be paying us to download them, I say.

Living in the United States is getting more expensive. 8% inflation annually last year and we're on track to have the same again this year. Authors, artists, office managers and support staff all gotta eat and a square meal costs 16% more than it used to this time in 2020.

You would have to have been living under a rock the past 2 years if you didn't see this coming.

Mostly true (US inflation was 6.8% in 2021). However, rulebooks are going up 33% (Starfinder by 100%), small adventures by 66%, (most) sourcebooks by 20%. A lot of the increases are significantly higher than inflation or production increases.

I don't have an issue with prices going up but I do think a lot of the increases seem way more than justified by increasing costs.

Twilight2k wrote:

Leon Aquilla wrote:

I believe it's been explained that the places where the PDF is provided gratis are boutique outfits. They certainly don't have near the level of output that Paizo does.

All the places I can think of off the top of my head (Modiphius, Free League) all maybe produce 1-2 books in a product line in a year.

That being said, you do get the PDF gratis, if you pre-order from them.

Really? Boutique outlets? Some of the largest European publishers give free pdfs with all physical book purchases (from their web store - I don't think any do it everywhere). 1-2 books in a product line per year is irrelevant when they operate close to a dozen product lines.

Like?

Free League for one (1-2 books per year per line but 14 (soon to be 15) different game lines = a lot of books). Similarly Modiphius - I don't know if they are all active lines but they have 20 lines by my count.

Ulisses Spiele has made books+pdfs available but is not their norm on their website. I know there's another I've gotten it from before but can't remember right now.

emky wrote:

Odd. Paizo was already (from my perspective) at the top-end of PDF pricing for books, especially when buying a hard copy doesn't include the PDF gratis like basically everywhere else. This was the single biggest thing that kept me from adopting PF1 until the last couple years of its life.

As opposed to who? PDF Rulebooks for D&D on Beyond are $30-50, Critical Roles Tal'Dorei setting is $25, Call of Cthulhu is $23-$28, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay is $30, Blades in the Dark is $20-30, etc.

Paizos pdfs are consistently some of the cheapest in the ttrpg industry.

Shadowrun is usually $20. Free League is $10 for adventures and $15-25 for rule/setting books. DSA is $17.50 per book. There are a ton of places that charge less for pdfs than Paizo.

I believe it's been explained that the places where the PDF is provided gratis are boutique outfits. They certainly don't have near the level of output that Paizo does.

All the places I can think of off the top of my head (Modiphius, Free League) all maybe produce 1-2 books in a product line in a year.

That being said, you do get the PDF gratis, if you pre-order from them.

Really? Boutique outlets? Some of the largest European publishers give free pdfs with all physical book purchases (from their web store - I don't think any do it everywhere). 1-2 books in a product line per year is irrelevant when they operate close to a dozen product lines.

I know this thread is asking for fans of the sci-fi elements but I thought I'd add a counter-perspective. I would have preferred no sci-fi (androids, guns, gunslingers, etc) in PF2 and, if it is emphasized, it will decrease my liking of the game.

As a caveat, I would be fine with guns if they handled them realistically for early firearms (high damage but multiple rounds to reload) but few fantasy RPGs do that.

Things can definitely fall through the cracks. However, if a product is delayed, the very first place it should be updated is the product page before any announcement anywhere about it (then announcements explaining what happened are a good idea).

draecas wrote:

The fact Paizo did not update the release date for this until the day-of, despite knowing for at least a week before, is a clear sign that PDF purchasers are a second tier concern.

While we communicated the release date delay on social media and in several forums posts, our product pages were only recently updated. We do apologize for the miscommunication and hear your frustration. We value all our customers both on paizo.com and at your favorite local game store. Thank you.

I was coming here to ask what happened in frustration as well. I was really looking forward to reading Secrets of Magic today. Why was the PDF delayed? There are already quite a few people with PDFs so I don't understand why it was delayed by a week (even if the physical book was delayed).

To help make up for the slower pace of release, how about making previous seasons all replayable? That way, we can continue playing with our same frequency (and not having to create a dozen characters).

Maybe it's just me but isn't $25 for an online con expensive?

There's no physical venue (generally by far the highest cost of putting on a con). Without that, there are some expenses of course but not much. I've been to physical cons (pre-COVID) that were only $20-25 for the weekend (and that had to cover venue costs).

Is there anything in "Part 1" to indicate what the new errata is? If not, can something be added? It would greatly help with finding new errata.

4) A few of the errata moved to the "Part 2" section because of the expansion of the "Part 1" errata made "Part 1" run out of space again.

Isn't a three-part AP awfully small/short for a "megadungeon"?

I'm interested but have relatively limited availability (compared to what I'm seeing on others responses).

1) I'm in CDT (UTC-5 right now iirc).
2) For a weekly game, I can only do Wednesdays or Fridays (Fridays preferably). I could only do 4 (maybe 5 on Friday) hour sessions (eg midnight here).
3) I played a little in two home games (both on hiatus right now) and a little PFS before COVID. I've been playing a lot of PFS while isolated (I'm basically out of content except repeatables).
4) I'm not sure. I've tried Barbarian, Bard, Champion, Monk, and Rogue and enjoyed them all except Monk.

Most of the scenarios will be running this weekend at Concurrent, though seats may be limited now. I don’t remember the GenCon schedule, but I imagine most of them will also be on it, with maybe the exception of some of the earliest ones.

Yes. ConCurrent is what actually spawned my original post. 1-04 is not being run at all (and I was told GenCon will have even fewer of the non-replayable early mods). Q-6 is being run a grand total of ONCE and filled up in <1 minute (I got lucky and 3 people apparently un-signed-up so I did manage to get in even though I was 3rd waitlist at 12:01).

There were really two parts to it. 1) Problems finding some non-replayables to play in. 2) Why not make it all replayable?

Having played in multiple other Org Play with all or all-with-some-limits replayable, I really just don't understand the PFS take on replays. There can be issues with replays but there is also issues with people not doing replays and reading mods for meta-knowledge and boon/item-hunting anyway (for the most part, I'm not convinced replays make this worse).

If the goal of stopping replays is to prevent boon-farming, then go the Arcanis route and replays (for non-marked-replayable) only grant xp, gold, and rep/fame (no items or boons). If the goal is to stop people meta-gaming at the table, the GM can just ask them not to and, if they persist, ask them to leave the table (just because it's not a replay, doesn't mean a player can't/won't metagame at the table).

Even playing once per week (VERY common for Org Play groups around here) and starting now, you would be out of content to play (except repeatables) within 10-11 months (if I did the math right).

For every con you play at, it is likely to go down by 2-3 months (and potentially a LOT more (I've played 16 slots of 4 hour games at cons before)). Given the number of online cons this year, a lot of players are attending cons.

It's entirely possible I'll be out of things to GM for credit by the end of the year as well (one of my home PF2 games just went on hiatus so I'm probably going to be GMing PFS mods as filler until the normal GM is available again).

Maybe it's just me. I've never had an issue with out-of-combat...
Would this character have thought to look there or brought up that conversation thread?

On the other hand, I've definitely seen players abuse meta-knowledge on replays (no idea if it was the player intentionally doing so or the player being incapable of separating player vs character knowledge).

My main problem is with amount of available content. Has a phased approach been considered? I mean where all content is replayable until there are enough repeatable content to get through a tier and then content is shifted to non-repeatable (4 levels per tier, 12 xp per level, 48 xp needed per tier). It could be either all-or-nothing (all content is replayable until there is 48 xp worth of repeatables and then all of the "should not be replayable" isn't) or a hybrid approach (where all repeatables plus "marked" adventures are replayable to come up with 48 xp and, as more repeatables are brought out, adventures are made non-repeatable).

It seems bizarre to me that Paizo wants to limit people to only playing their game (via PFS) a little bit per month. I would think they would want as many people to play it as much as possible.

After reading all three links (thanks), I still really don't understand the "no replay" rule for PFS2 - there just simply isn't enough content. I've only been playing heavily (1/week, occasionally twice, and a couple virtual cons) since COVID isolation started and I'm almost completely out of non-repeatables (and, if I start a bunch of new chars and just do repeatables, I'm stuck at max of level 2.5ish).

Every other organized play I know of allows replays of all content (I'm sure there are OP societies I'm not familiar with). The only one I know of with any limits is Arcanis (you can replay but only gain the xp+gold (in PFS terms, no boons or items)). The only real issue I've seen is replaying specific adventures in AL (5e OP) for the loot but that is because of bungling of a few item rarities by WotC and not a problem with AL or replays generally.

From reading the linked threads, it's clear some places had issues with 4e LFR replays but I never saw any of that but I only played LFR locally (not at cons). By the end, it was almost always the same players but not because new players weren't welcome - just because there were no new players.

Frankly, without open replays or more repeatable adventures, I'm likely to drift to some other game system (possibly OP, possibly not). I know some other players locally that will likely do the same thing. I do play in two local PF2 games but both are on hiatus right now (part of the reason my PFS2 play increased).

And, yes, I do GM some but it takes more prep time and more mental energy than playing (often more than I have available right now).

First, one thing I've never understood about PFS - why are only some adventures/quests repeatable? Many other organized play have all adventures repeatable. Yes, I know some are written with random bits to make it not exactly the same.

Is there a solution to non-repeatables rarely being run (other than making everything repeatable)? For instance, at ConCurrent, 1-04 is not being run at all and Quest #6 is being run only once because no other GMs signed up (presumably because they would not get xp/etc) - there are clearly plenty of players that need it (I signed up the instant Warhorn went live and, by the time it refreshed, I was 7th (3rd on the waitlist) and that was 1 minute after it opened).

The language of both of those feats use ancestry in the singular, so there is definitely not a loophole through which to have access to more than one ancestry outside your normal to choose feats from.

I don't follow your logic. Of course both feats use ancestry singular as they grant access to one other ancestry - there is nothing saying that they don't EACH grant access to one other ancestry.

Primarily this is a question around an unspecified hole in the rules. You are not selecting Adopted Ancestry twice so you are not forbidden that way (you gain it twice but not select it twice). There is no rule that says you can't gain a feat twice (as long as you don't select it twice).

Personally, I think it is clearly allowed by the rules. However, as evidenced by this thread and a Discord discussion, there is a whole range of interpretations. For a home game, it's simple - just ask the GM. For PFS though, it would be good if there was not table variation.

If you take Adopted Ancestry and later take Cultural Adaptability, do you gain Adopted Ancestry a second time? Does it still work if you take them in the reverse order?

The general rule is that you can not "select" the same feat multiple times (unless it says you can). However, if you select Cultural Adaptability, you are not selecting Adopted Ancestry (but you are gaining it).

Is the store down right now? I can (usually) view pages but trying to add any pdfs to the cart gives "Your request produced an error.".

After more thought, I don't think the example for Cavern Elf under Elf Atavism makes any sense. Cavern Elf does not say "upgrade low-light vision to darkvision" or "change low-light vision to darkvision" - it says "gain darkvision". Given the wording, other than the example in the feat, there is absolutely nothing anywhere indicating that you must have low-light vision to choose Cavern Elf.

For a CRB Half-Elf taking Elf Atavism, which Elf heritages should be legal?

Here's my take on them. What are your thoughts?

• * Ancient Elf - I've seen the comment on the blog post saying it is not intended to be allowed. However, RAW, I don't see anything disallowing it (it doesn't even have an age requirement like Ancestral Longevity).
• * Cavern Elf - allowed (despite the confusing example since Half-Elves do have low-light vision - I'm assuming this is future-proofing)
• * Desert Elf - allowed
• * Seer Elf - allowed
• * Whisper Elf - allowed
• * Woodland Elf - allowed

Fighter has Str or Dex as key attributes but Fighter Dedication requires Str *AND* Dex. Ranger has the same key attributes but requires only Dex for Ranger Dedication. Monk is another case where the key attributes are Str or Dex but Monk Dedication requires Str *AND* Dex. It would seem both should require Str or Dex.

Similarly, but possibly even more odd, Barbarian Dedication requires Str *AND* Con but Con is not even a key attribute for the Barbarian.

Twilight2k wrote:

Dipping is (somewhat) restricted by requiring 3 feats (dedication + 2 others) before you can take another dedication.

I would venture that few characters are going to want to take multiple dedications (short of something like Multitalented). The worst feat in any archetype is the entry level feat after all. I can put up with one of those, but I'm not in a hurry for a second.

Maybe it's just me then. Of the 6 characters I"ve come up with so far, 4 will likely have 2 dedications (one will probably end up with 3 dedications eventually). Probably shouldn't be a surprise - I don't think I have a single 5e character that isn't multiclass (many triple-class and one four-class).

Twilight2k wrote:

BlueStacks has an Android emulator for iOS? That's news to me. I've been using their emulator for Windows but it would be nice to use it on my iPad. I'll have to check it out...

Its primarily for PC and Mac, but there does appear to be an iOS version as well.

https://bluestacks-app-player.com/mobile/11-bluestacks-for-ios.html

Unfortunately it is a misnomer. At the bottom of the link you included, it talks about installing on Macs and says something like "can not be downloaded for iPad". It would be really nice if we could get BlueStacks on iPad.

Eventually, I may go with the other option I was considering (get an Amazon Fire 8" for cheap and install Android apps on that).

It really probably in their for the mechanics to work. like cabbage was implying. It's to keep someone from making a bad character I imagine. Getting options that wouldn't help them. that and maybe also making is so you can't do the dip thing for a single ability.

Dipping is (somewhat) restricted by requiring 3 feats (dedication + 2 others) before you can take another dedication. If I read it right, there's a few non-multiclass dedications that require 4 feats (dedication + 3 others). If you only want to dip into a single dedication, that still works (just take the dedication plus one other feat).

To me, the dedication is usually the barrier to getting the useful abilities (though there are some exceptions like Lastwall Sentry and some other dedications are good for some characters).

I tend to prefer classless systems so one thing I dislike with PF2 is that you MUST be a Cleric to be good at magical healing (Font of Healing is not available via archetype feat at any level), you MUST be a ranger to be the best possible at two-weapon fighting (their class feature for really low MAP isn't available at any level as archetype feat either). I thought the Monk was done well where you CAN get Flurry of Blows but not until level 10 (9 levels after a Monk).

We'll have to agree to disagree on the logic of ability prereqs for Dedications generally.

However, can anyone explain to me why an 18 Dex, 10 Str character can't take Fighter Dedication? They would make an excellent ranged fighter or decent melee fighter (excellent if Thief). Or an 18 Str, 10 Dex (who would make an excellent melee fighter)?

Fighter and Ranger have the same primary attributes (Str or Dex) but the Dedication feats are 14 Dex AND Str for Fighter but only 14 Dex for Ranger. Honestly, I don't understand why both aren't "Str or Dex" but I really don't understand why Fighter needs both but Ranger only needs one.

BlueStacks has an Android emulator for iOS? That's news to me. I've been using their emulator for Windows but it would be nice to use it on my iPad. I'll have to check it out...

That's the logic I don't get. If enforcing flavor for the dedication feats, why not for the class itself?

I plan on ignoring (or at least reducing to 1 attribute) in any games I run and I expect most GMs will be willing (if I'm a player).

I guess I was wondering if anyone knew the "logic" behind having dedication prereqs that differ from the key attributes for the class (or having prereq attributes at all).

Given that the multiclass archetypes are VERY paired down versions of the classes, I fail to understand the need to add attribute prereqs...

D&D 5e has the same issue (but even worse)...

Why can I play a Fighter with a Str and Dex of 10 each but I can't take Fighter Dedication with the same attributes? It makes no sense.

Why do Fighter and Barbarian Dedication have two attribute prereqs when every other martial has only 1? Champion and Monk at least make sense historically as they've always been attribute-heavy. The Fighter in particular makes no sense - it's trivial to build a Str-based or Dex-based fighter with no use for the other attribute (either single or multiclass).

I was going to post that Voluntary Flaws needed errata until I dug in closer (based on sidebar placement, it appears to be part of Step 6 but it is really part of Step 3). I would suggest that a clarification be added to the beginning of the sidebar noting that it is part of Step 3 (from 2 pages earlier) - there's plenty of extra blank space in the sidebar.

Unless I'm misreading it, Retraining Skills as written allows one of the below two things it probably shouldn't (which one it allows depends on your reading of Retraining Skills):

1) If you look at the level where you gained the skill increase (as implied by the last paragraph under Retraining), you could potentially increase your current proficiency. Example, trained in Crafting and Occultism at creation, skill increase in Crafting at level 3, and skill increase in Occultism at level 5 - retraining level 3 increase to Occultism would net you Master in Occultism.

2) If you look at the current level (as implied by the Skills subsection of Retraining), it could allow you to get a skill increase before being trained in the skill. Example, trained in Occultism at creation, skill increase to Occultism at level 2, and trained in Crafting at level 3 (via Skill Training) - retraining level 2 to Crafting would net you Trained (only). Although, per the general rules on page 233, you should then be able to switch the Skill Training at level 3 to a different skill.

After typing that out, I think #2 is correct. It could just use some word-smithing for clarity.