theservantsllcleanitup's page

Let me put this as essentially as possible, cause I think all this nitty gritty about inferring rules is just obscuring the point.

According to you all, 1000 fatal crits with grasping reach and 1000 fatal crits without grasping reach will average out to the exact same damage. It sure sounds like grasping reach is doing nothing here except giving you reach. It's a relatively minor thing given the obscurity of the feat, but I file "gaining reach with no drawback" under too good to be true, given that the wording of grasping reach pretty much explicitly says that an attack with it is less effective than an attack without it.

By your ruling, fatal crits are equally as effective with or without grasping reach, which means its drawback is not being applied in those instances, even though its benefit is.

And miss me with "but then fatal isn't doing anything" because it's still adding a die.

I think people are missing the most important part of Mark's answer (irrelevant parenthetical removed for clarity):

Two-handed weapon vs weapon in two hands was very confusing in PF1; we don't have both of those in PF2.

I think he is in fact saying that two-handed weapon=weapon in two hands, cause "we don't have both of those [as separate categories] in PF2."

The cost of wielding a weapon, any weapon, in two hands is that you don't have a hand free, and there is action economy in the way of getting anything else into that hand. If you want to use a feat that's balanced for 2h-strength weapons with a dagger... go ahead.

Edit: Additionally, I just noticed that when he says

we make it clear that requirements like that work with any such weapon in two hands

The "like that" is specifically a response to Gray's question about the requirements of Brutish Shove, which are... a Two-Handed weapon. It makes little sense to assume that he was responding to Gray's second, hypothetical question, and his answer makes perfect sense if you assume that his first response was saying that there is no distinction.

And this chart, which is based on the other one, also includes the chance of success. If you go by the bolded number alone, you are gonna have a bad time, because even if the average expert attempt will be 1 or 2 healing higher then a trained attempt with the same modifier, that doesn't really help if you are failing those attempts 50-60% of the time.

As per the errata, "Any class feature that improves the proficiency rank or grants the critical specialization effect access for simple weapons or a specific set of weapons, that ability also grants that benefit for unarmed attacks."

So when the fighter selects a group of weapons to improve to master at level 5, any group, that proficiency filters down to all unarmed attacks as well, brawling or otherwise.

theservantsllcleanitup wrote:

On another note, though, I'm not sure about deadly and fatal. Success reads "as if you had hit with a melee attack". Crit reads "you deal double damage". If crit said "as if you had crit with a melee attack" then I think deadly and fatal would be fair game.

No it actually says "On a critical success, you deal double damage, and you add the weapon's critical specialization effect.". So of course stuff like fatal or deadly would apply.

But fatal and deadly are not critical specialization effects? Not sure why you are so confident in that ruling. Crit spec is a specific thing based on the weapon group of whatever weapon you are using. Fatal and deadly have nothing to do with it.

If they wanted you to apply everything that triggered on a crit, I think they would have written, "as if you had crit with a melee attack".

True seeing allows you to see things as they are. The poltergeist actually IS invisible, by its nature. It's not being made invisible by some trick of magic or anything like that.

It's like expecting to see air while using true seeing. It's also naturally invisible.

That's the point though. You can huck the 2-handed greatsword from one hand, no problem. But all of a sudden a smaller weapon like the bastard sword needs two hands to be fully effective?

The point of 1h vs 2h is, how much exertion is required to use the weapon to maximal effect? We know indisputably that HotA uses a greatsword to maximal effect even when you cast while holding it in one hand, so it makes zero sense to assume that it can't use a smaller weapon to maximal effect in the same circumstances.

On another note, though, I'm not sure about deadly and fatal. Success reads "as if you had hit with a melee attack". Crit reads "you deal double damage". If crit said "as if you had crit with a melee attack" then I think deadly and fatal would be fair game.

I can't believe after all these years we're still arguing about flanking with ranged attacks

Mathematically speaking, 6.25% of parties facing enemies with breath weapons will face three breath weapons in a row

No, 6.25% of GMs that use breath weapon enemies will have the option of using a breath weapon three times in a row. There's a huge difference between those two things, and treating them as the same is disingenuous at best.

Allowing potential consecutive breaths ratchets up tension while not in any way forcing you to do anything. The players don't know what you rolled. If you want to wait another round, just... Do it. It's only as OP as you want it to be, this isn't a video game.

If you roll a 1, there is no round you couldn't use it.

There is no round you couldn't use it, but there IS a round on which you couldn't use it AGAIN. The round in which you used it. In this round, you are not able to use it again. This is the point I've been trying to make. They probably didn't want to make a different cooldown for breaths that only took one action. This way, all breath weapons can't be used multiple times in the same turn regardless of the actions they take. And, they can all be used in the next turn if a one is rolled. Seems pretty consistent to me.

As far as effects go, I still don't understand why you think it's a contorted recategorization. I'm not sure how "unable to use an ability as a result of using an ability" doesn't qualify as an effect.

In fact, it seems to me more like jumping though hoops to decategorize the cooldown into something that exists in the paragraph explaining the effect of the ability but yet is somehow distinct from it in every meaningful way.

Edit: Put it this way, if they wrote "You can't use it again for 1d4 rounds, starting from the end of this round" I think it would seem weird, but that's exactly what you all are proposing.

Paizo is balancing based on a 1d4, not counting the round you use the ability in

[citation needed]

My point is that how do you know that this was their intent? The rule can easily be interpreted to mean that you DO count the round you use the ability in, unless I'm missing something, I see no reason to assume that they balanced it around not doing so.

And I'm obviously not suggesting they didn't balance it, I'm suggesting that perhaps they decided that not counting the round in which you use the ability was underpowered and so went with a rule that allowed a 25% chance of consecutive uses. If you have something that indicates otherwise, I'm all eyes.

Because they made the cooldown 1d4.

Yes, they made the cooldown 1d4, and it makes perfect sense to me that this means you use the ability once every 1d4 rounds, rather than every 1d4+1 rounds.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean about the average of 1d4 being 1? I'm having flashbacks to the bodybuilding.com discussion of how many days are in a week here. The average of 1d4 will always be 2.5.

You're overlooking that fact that the 1d4 is part of the "balance" equation. So if Paizo expects a Breath Weapon to fire very 2.5 rounds on average, and you lower that to 1.5, your dramatically increasing the efficacy of that attack.

Hang on a sec, by your reading of the rules, the average is once every 3.5 rounds, because you don't count the round on which the cooldown die is thrown. Imagine if you rolled a 1 every single time. By your reading, that means you are using it every other round, which is once every 2 rounds. Rolling 2.5 on average means using it every 3.5 rounds on average.

But moreover, you are presupposing that you know what Paizo's intent was in balancing the ability. How do you know with such confidence that they expect it to fire every 3.5 rounds? Do you have some developer insight to share here? It seems perfectly reasonable to me that they decided to ratchet up the tension of fights involving a breath weapon. And the way it was written in PF1 is immaterial. Balance comparisons between games are inadmissible in this court.

I'm not sure why people are so quick to say that the cooldowns from rage or breath are not part of those abilities' effects. They affect me, and if they aren't created by something I did, what are they created by?

It's not like they are just abstract balancing measures; they reflect an actual in-game consequence. After raging for a minute, I'm spent. I need time to recuperate before I'm ready to go through that again. Likewise, after using a breath weapon, my fire glands are low on fire juice and need time to refill before I can breathe it again, but it can take more or less time to do so depending on how many dragonfruits I was eating recently.

I don't know about you, but those certainly seem like effects to me. If there was a spell that said your target couldn't use rage for a minute, you'd certainly consider that part of the spell's effects, and I see no reason not to give the same consideration when it happens as a result of an ability I myself used.

Secondly, people seem to have this impression a 25% chance to have the option to use breath on 2 consecutive turns is outrageously broken and it's inconceivable that they would ever allow such a thing. Whereas I think that adding the chance for consecutive breaths just ratchets up the tension. Especially since like I said, it's an option. There's no rule that a dragon must use their breath weapon as soon as it is able to. If you really think blasting them consecutively might be too much in that moment.... just don't do it. Wait another round, you make the final call anyway, and presumably you are the only one who knows the result of the cooldown roll in the first place.

It already used its breath weapon in Round 1, thus it doesn't constitute as a round where it hasn't used its breath weapon. Once it uses the breath weapon, the cooldown applies, regardless of if its one or two actions. It used a breath in Round 1, thus using a breath again in Round 1 or Round 2 still means it hasn't had a round where it couldn't use a breath weapon again.

You just contradicted yourself though. "It hasn't had a round where it couldn't use its breath weapon again".

Yes it has: the round when it uses the breath weapon. That round, it is not allowed to use it again. Again, meaning a second time. Without the restriction, you could use it three times in one turn, so you can't tell me that the cooldown hasn't affected anything.

It's convenient to just say "well that round doesn't count"... But I'm not sure that it's a logically sound argument. I have yet to hear a compelling reason that the round on which the breath weapon is used shouldn't count towards the cooldown. Why should rolling a 1 prevent me from using the weapon in two turns?

Let's flip the script. Hell hounds have a breath weapon that takes only one action, and it has the same "Can't use breath weapon again for 1d4 rounds" limitation.

Hell hound uses breath weapon as its first action on its turn. Rolls a 1 for the cooldown. It can't use breath weapon again with its remaining actions this round. So far so good.

Hell hound's next turn comes up. It can't use its breath weapon this round either?

Hmm. Well now it really seems like it wasn't able to use its breath weapon again for TWO rounds, even though it "Can't use breath weapon again for [one] round".

Thoughts?

The only argument otherwise is that it says you can't use it "again", that is, the single-action/reaction cooldown defense. It doesn't say "you can't use it for 1 round". That would disqualify the current round from counting for the cooldown because I already used it this round.

Instead it says I can't use it again for one round, and there was in fact a round in which I was unable to use it again. The round I am currently in.

Pretty nuanced, and I highly doubt this is the intent, but... That's the argument.

I feel like people are kind of talking past each other here. Nobody is saying that holding ANY item in one hand allows you to wield it. Nefreet is saying that if you are holding, in one hand, an item that requires one hand to wield, then "You’re wielding an item any time you’re holding it in the number of hands needed to use it effectively." IE you are wielding that item. This seems fairly straightforward. If the item requires 1 hand to wield, and wielding is based on holding the item in the right number of hands, and nimble shield hand allows you to hold an item in that hand.... where's the disconnect. Obviously if the item requires 2 hands your other hand would have to be free as well so you could hold it in two hands to wield it.

The specific call out that you can't wield weapons in that hand is also indicative that you can wield non-weapons in the nimble shield hand. Otherwise they wouldn't need to specifically restrict weapon use.

As far as interacts go, the hand qualifies for actions that require a free hand that are interact actions, but not actions that require a free hand that are NOT interact actions. Like trip, disarm, etc. Those require a free hand, but nimble shield hand counts as free for Interact actions only, nothing else.

The two clauses are separate.

The thing that had value is not being handwaved as not having value, it's just that that value has been abstracted away from those specific table entries. The value of a bandolier still very much exists in the new system, you just don't need to buy a specific item called a bandolier to access it. You are assumed to have access to the most mundane of organizational tools, just like you are assumed to have the benefit of generic footwear.

Ever walk barefoot on gravel? It's difficult terrain. And yet nobody would argue that the game needs to model walking around barefoot.

For the people upset about who don't like this change. Does your character walk around barefoot? There is no footwear listed in the book. So if your character has shoes or boots or clogs, or whatever, I'm just wondering... how?

Maybe you've never thought about that due to the fact that it literally doesn't matter at all, and you just assumed without having to even consider it for a second that Golarion has shoes in it because obviously it does, and it's not worth the ink it would be printed with to delve into the economics of footwear. And I'm willing to bet that it hasn't been a problem in any conceivable way.

This is the same exact thing. If you want rough leather boots that have been through hell and back, great. If you want roman style sandals, alright, sounds gladiator-y. If you want pouches and bandos, you just... have them. You are a hero fighting demons and undead, not a fashion model. If you want to play an economy simulator, idk go cook one up in gurps or something, but this ain't it, chief.

Not unreasonably. But at the same time, the coolness of a rare pet can be undercut if that pet is also statistically superior. For example... When everyone has the ghostly wolf... It's not that cool.

I went out of my way to tame a bloodseeker bat from zulgurub, because it had a 1.0 attack speed. And people would constantly comment on it--not because it had better stats but because it looked awesome and was gigantic and not many people had them.

Both sides have validity to be sure. I wish the stow wear carry system was in pf2 from the getgo. Would have been an easier sell to start with it imo

It reminds me of when blizzard standardized pet stats for hunters in world of Warcraft. lots of people were up in arms because all of the pets became statistically the same, but after that change you did actually see a lot more variance in the types of pets people used because you couldn't optimize anymore, so it became about the aesthetics of the pet.

I actually don't mind this change as much as I might think I would. ultimately it's up to the table to figure out where the "ridiculous" line is and not cross it, which it was before, just to a lesser extent with things like 1000 manacles

They don't exist mechanically. They exist in the world. Take however many you want! The rule books are far from an exhaustive list of everything that exists in golarion

This battle medicine thing feels like being on the the final hole of mini golf trying to putt it into the cup but you just keep overshooting it stroke after stroke

bugleyman wrote:

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

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

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

Megistone wrote:

Yes, mathematical symmetry is already broken by the fact that matching the DC exactly is a success. And for good reason, because I can't think of a way of resolving ties that doesn't complicate the game or involve useless rerolls.

Agreed. Put another way, there's a succeed by zero: you meet the DC. So for this let's say DC 15. Get that fifteen? Succeed by zero.

How do you FAIL by zero?

This is like asking "how do you underpay by $0?".

You can't. The question is meaningless by definition, because if you pay the price of the item you have purchased it, full stop. There is no way to pay the full price of the item and fail to purchase it.

Think of it like buying something.

How much did you overpay by?

1) I overpaid by $10. I am owed $10 (Crit success).

2) Nothing, exact change. I bought it, but I didn't over or under pay (Met the DC).

3) I underpaid by $10. I still owe $10 (crit failure).

This analogy was unnecessary but nevertheless I thought it was a pretty good example of a situation where the "attacker" wins ties.

I'd like to say in general, folks, to just shelve the self-righteousness and condescension in these debates, cause no matter how sure you are about something, sometimes you're just plain wrong. Which is fine, being wrong is fine. But being obnoxious is not.

We are all just striving towards the light of truth, to whatever extent truth can be said to exist. Debate in good faith, and give the benefit of the doubt to your fellow rules lawyers that they are also debating in good faith. We'll all have a much better time

edit: also, Djinn71, excellent piece of jurisprudence on the prof bonus argument. Great stuff.

I'm sorry Cordell Kintner, but page 444 very clearly contradicts you.

When attempting a check that involves something you have some training in, you will also add your proficiency bonus.

There are three other types of bonus that frequently appear: circumstance bonuses, item bonuses, and status bonuses.

Clearly, proficiency bonus is just as much a bonus as status, circumstance, and item bonuses.

In light of that fact, it makes for a preeeetty compelling argument for adding your item bonus when using your own attack modifier.

I see the logic of your argument, certainly, but it's just hard for me to believe that it's the intent based on how the rules are written and how often abilities don't interact the way you want them to.

1+ means that you can hold the item in one hand, but to actually weild it you need to hold it and have a free hand. It doesn't have anything to do with reloading.

Reloading is an interact action, the text of which says

You use your hand or hands to manipulate an object or the terrain. You can grab an unattended or stored object, open a door, or produce some similar effect. You might have to attempt a skill check to determine if your Interact action was successful

So you still need a free hand to reload it.

Did PF2e solve the problem in 1e where no one knew how to jump over a 10ft pit?

Ohhhhh man. Serious vibes of the utterly classic "how many days are in a week" debate from bodybuilding.com

it makes boosts to Land Speed and boosts to all Speeds the same thing, which they clearly aren't.

Only in situations where a non-land speed is derived from your land speed. If I fed a Quicksilver Mutagen to my Hawk animal companion, its land speed becomes 15, but its fly speed is still 60.

Take their Arcane School Spell: it's not even clear if you count as that school just for the focus spell or count as it for other things. Look at the others

"You have that instinct for all purposes and become bound by its anathema, but you don’t gain any of the other abilities it grants."
"You become a member of that order and are bound by its anathema, allowing you to take the order’s feats."
"Choose a muse as you would if you were a bard. You have that muse for all purposes, allowing you to take that muse’s feats, but you don’t gain any of the other abilities it grants."

Interesting that you should bring these up, cause when you look at them together it's clear they were pretty explicit when granting features that qualify you for feats but don't give any other benefits.

And yet, here we are, arguing over whether the wizard MCD qualifies you for feats but doesn't give any other benefits.

I imagine you'll say that in this case, it's not a choice and thus it's implicitly understood that, by default, not selecting a school means that you are a universalist... but really, that's just jumping through hoops. The much simpler explanation is that the MCD doesn't make you a universalist because it says absolutely nothing about it.

Huh? "by studying all the schools equally, you devote yourself to understanding the full breadth of the arcane arts": it's like saying that you just study general medicine vs pediatric medicine where the general practitioner keeps track of all medical news where the pediatric practitioner keeps up mainly with their specialty.

I think you are missing the distinction here. If your character does not want to "delve deeply into a single school in an attempt to master its secrets", but also doesn't personally believe "that the path to true knowledge of magic requires a multidisciplinary understanding of all eight schools working together", what do you do? Nothing. You can't play such a wizard, by the rules. Every wizard [i]must/[t] choose one of those paths.

In other words, Universalist is not simply someone who has not elected to specialize, it's someone who actively believes that not specializing is the path to enlightenment. There is an important distinction there, because it means that Universalism is not simply the absence of specialization. Thus, the fact that the MCD doesn't bestow a school on you is NOT the same as being a Universalist.

Big ups for the Rush quote.

Also, that description of Universalist is not someone who has just neglected to choose a school, it's someone who has specialized in versatility.

What if I want to play a wizard who doesn't have a school , but who also doesn't believe that the path to true knowledge of magic requires a multidisciplinary understanding of all eight schools working together? I can't. Any more than I can play a fighter that isn't an expert with martial weapons.

So yes, there is a distinction between a Universalist and a wizard who hasn't selected a school. The game doesn't allow a wizard to be the latter, and doesn't allow a wizard dedicated character to be the former.

That is a substantial nerf to shields, to the point where I can't imagine why your players would even waste time using them. In everyone else's game a standard-grade Adamantine Buckler can prevent 40 points of damage. In your game, it prevents 8. What a waste of 400gp.

It gets even worse as the shields get better. An 8,800gp high-grade Adamantine shield prevents 65 points of damage for everyone else, but only 13 for your players. What a great investment at level 16.

May as well just take the Shield Cantrip and block more damage without ever spending any money, for literally the exact same action economy, and never have to worry about wasting a hand on a shield.

I think you misunderstood. Samurai's homebrew makes shields MUCH better. It's a gigantic buff in fact.

Look at the example.

DM: "The ogre rolls a 19 to hit you"

PC: "That hits. I use my shield to try and block some of the damage."

DM: "Ok, *rolls*, his club does 13 points of damage."

PC: "My steel shield's hardness stops 5, so I take the remaining 8 and mark 1 HP off the shield. Done."

It's the same as normal rules only instead of player and shield taking the same damage, the shield only ever takes 1 damage. That adamantine shield can now stop 256 damage (not including hits that don't damage it!) before being broken (hardness 8x32 BT). That's bonkers.

Here we go:

Chapter: Skills (p 247)

LORE (Int) <--note it is referred to only as "Lore"

"[The skill] Lore features many subcategories"

Chapter: Feats (p 256)

Lore Skill Feats <--note it refers to the "Lore Skill"

"Requirement: Trained in Lore" <--note, another reference just to "Lore"

What am I getting at?
Page 247 says "Each subcategory counts as its own skill". These references above are not talking about a subcategory of lore, thus, the subcategories of Lore and the broader concept of "The Lore Skill" are distinct, and therefore, the argument that the requirement that you be trained in a lore subcategory in order to take a skill feat for that skill is fallacious. There are no skill feats for Lore (Spelunking). The Skill is called Lore, and if you are trained in Lore (Spelunking), you are in fact Trained in Lore.

In fact, no Lore Skill feat other than Additional Lore mentions a specific lore subcategory (though Legendary Professional does mention Warfare lore solely as an example). They all require Training in Lore, and they all apply to every lore subcategory in which you possess training.

I submit that this is evidence enough that the aforementioned "universal lore training" in fact does exist, and this is the extent to which it functions: providing the prerequisite to take Lore Skill Feats. If a background did someday come along that didn't have a Lore by default, they would indeed have to take Skill Training (Lore) or one of the Ancestral Lore feats or some other feat in order to qualify for Additional Lore, or any Lore Skill Feat for that matter.

Moreover, I think the reason this seeming discrepancy exists is because no reasonable game designer could ever conceive of someone not interpreting "Trained in Lore" as "Having training in any lore subcategory". But things always appear more airtight when you are the one conceiving them; erring on the side of clarity is never a bad thing imo.

Pretty nice piece of jurisprudence all the same, Goldryno. You had me going there for a second.

People will justify anything post hoc.

Usually people do this for things that will increase their power. Not things that will allow them to cast create water in a 10th level spell slot

"You can cast any spell in your spell repertoire by using a spell slot of an appropriate spell level."

The fact that it says "AN appropriate level" stands out to me... that implies that there is more than one appropriate level. If it said "the appropriate level" it would be pretty clear that it was the level of the spell. But actually this seems to indicate in the other direction. Maybe 20 true strike sorcerer is real after all

I'm hoping that this is an oversight and that the extra damage healed for a 2-action cast should equal the max of the die used.

Why should the feat be 3 times as effective for the 2 action version as it is for the 1 and 3 actions versions?

Tribon wrote:

A single shuriken with Returning works fine, for all feats, as it's a weapon with Reload 0, and Returning instantly returns the shuriken to your hand after each Strike. You'd technically need to be holding to be considered wielding it, so you couldn't draw it as part of the same action, but so long as you have it in hand you can use these feats.

It seems like Hunted Shot actually only works with a single shuriken, since the feat says you must make the strikes with "the" required weapon, but that's kind of pedantic.

Ah, thanks, I hope the first part is fully accurate

The second part is a tad annoying, as it means I wouldn't be able to use the feat until level 3 if that is indeed correct

Note that quick draw does not interact with hunted shot or any other special attack. Quick draw allows you to draw the weapon and strike with it. That's it. The strike cannot be another action that contains a strike.

Shu Hartomes wrote:

As a Champion with a shield ally and a sturdy shield who just avoided nearly 70 damage (thanks to Hardness 10) last night in the Lands of the Linnorm Kings while protecting several spellcasters, I would like to slightly break with this opinion. :P

You GM is attacking players that have their shields up and the shield block feat?! What a weak meta play... ;) ;) ;)

Not necessarily... sounds like they might be blocking for other people :D

The exact effect depends on which weapon group your weapon belongs to, as listed below.

This means that "critical specialization effects" are not just any effect that gets added to a critical, but this specific list of weapon group-based effects.

The first sentence is referring to the fact that there are multiple ways to get access to crit spec effects. Some classes get them, some don't. Some ancestries grant them, some don't.

I noticed a discrepancy. Common knowledge is that unarmed attacks cannot be used for eg Double Slice (Requirements: You are wielding two melee weapons, each in a different hand.) based on this rule:

However, unarmed attacks aren’t weapons, and effects and abilities that work with weapons never work with unarmed attacks unless they specifically say so.

Seems pretty cut and dried. BUT. If we look at the description of Unarmed in the weapon traits list we find this

An unarmed attack uses your body rather than a manufactured weapon. An unarmed attack isn’t a weapon, though it’s categorized with weapons for weapon groups, and it might have weapon traits. Since it’s part of your body, an unarmed attack can’t be Disarmed. It also doesn’t take up a hand, though a fist or other grasping appendage follows the same rules as a free-hand weapon.

Following this little rabbit hole leads to Free Hand:

This weapon doesn’t take up your hand, usually because it is built into your armor. A free-hand weapon can’t be Disarmed. You can use the hand covered by your free-hand weapon to wield other items, perform manipulate actions, and so on. You can’t attack with a free-hand weapon if you’re wielding anything in that hand or otherwise using that hand. When you’re not wielding anything and not otherwise using the hand, you can use abilities that require you to have a hand free as well as those that require you to be wielding a weapon in that hand. Each of your hands can have only one free-hand weapon on it.

So. What have we learned? That an unarmed attack is a free hand weapon, which is usable with abilities that call for a weapon.

Personally, I think this is an oversight and in need of errata. It's a classic case of RAW and RAI. Their intent was to prevent unarmed use in those cases but the nuance of Free-Hand weapon slipped through the cracks.

Or maybe I've been smoking peyote for two straight weeks and I've never even BEEN to Mount Vesuvius. What do you think?

Thank you for coming to my Ted talk

Look at it this way. Increasing a die size adds 1 point on average to the roll.
As is:
1 action heal gets 1 more point on average,
2 action heal gets 1 more point on average,
3 action heal gets 1 more point on average.

Your version:
1 action heal gets 1 more point on average,
2 action heal gets 3 more points on average,
3 action heal gets 1 more point on average.

I hate to say you overthought it buuuuuuuuuut

If you have both the finesse and either trip, grapple, or disarm traits on a weapon, does the Athletics check for these actions suddenly use dexterity and become a dexterity check instead of a strength one?

Short answer: Yes

Long answer:
Here

And here

You make a pretty good argument Midnightoker, but I think there's one thing you failed to consider.

You can usually detect a creature automatically with a precise sense unless that creature is hiding or obscured by the environment, in which case you can use the Seek basic action to better detect the creature.

This is the crux of your argument, but I think the disconnect is that this applies to creatures who have not yet been detected by you. Remember, obscured is not a condition or a "rules term" as it were, so it cannot be interpreted quite as rigorously as observed et al.

Concealed specifically states that it does not change your visibility. If you are observed, you remain observed. When you are observed, no seek action is necessary.

This means that if I pop a smokestick in the middle of a battle, I do not force my opponents to "redetect" me. I stay observed. But I now have concealement, which allows me to use Stealth to Hide, which would indeed change my condition from observed to hidded.

If I pop it before I have been detected, however, your point stands and a perception check is required.

edit: One last thing: Keep in mind that the game doesn't require constant checks to perceive creatures unless the state of the system has changed. The continuous state of detection is adjudicated by the conditions: observed, hidden, or undetected. Concealment goes out of its way to clarify that that status is unchanged by gaining it. It seems to be logically bending over backwards to reference three other rules to claim that gaining it actually does change it.

This implies everything has to serve a purpose. Sometimes people do things for no reason or purpose at all, just to do it. Welcome to Chaotic alignment.

Charlie: Because I cut the brakes! Wildcard, fellas! YEEEEEEEE HAWWWWWWWWWWWW

*jumps out the back of the van*

You have a stalwart physiology. Your proficiency rank for Fortitude saves increases to legendary. When you roll a critical failure on a Fortitude save, you get a failure instead. When you roll a failure on a Fortitude save against an effect that deals damage, you halve the damage you take.

You will take full damage if you *roll* a critical failure, just as if you had rolled a failure. If you *roll* a failure, you only take half damage.

You don't convert a crit fail into a normal fail and then apply the effect for rolling a normal fail.

even in the description of disarm, trip etc in the weapons section state that the item bonus from the weapon can be added to the skill check

I seem to see this argument pretty frequently.

The disarm, trip, and shove traits mention adding item bonus to the athletics roll precisely because it is an attack roll. They are affirming that the athletics check, like any other attack roll, gets the benefit of the item bonus of the item being used to perform it.

Attack roll and athletics check are not mutually exclusive. The rules on attack rolls are very clear about that. Any type of check can be an attack roll, so the attack trait doesn't change it from one thing to another, it just adds another... well, trait to the roll.