Errata (what do you expect most? )

[Coldermoss]

You know what I think needs errata? Attacks. Specifically, attacks that don't use a classic attack roll. There are many interactions in the rules that don't seem to work as intended because of how attacks and attack rolls are defined.

Take athletics maneuvers and their associated weapon properties, and how those interact with finesse. We know the intention is that a weapon with both finesse and Trip, for example, is supposed to allow the wielder to trip using their Dexterity modifier instead of their Strength for the Athletics check, but you wouldn't be able to tell just by reading the rules.

And then you have attack spells that use no attack roll such as Chill Touch. They clearly contribute to MAP, but I've also heard that the intention was that they suffer from MAP as well. If that is indeed the case, you couldn't tell.

Attacks are probably the most frequently-used action by a large margin, so the rules governing them need to be as clearly-defined as possible. The known issue about the athletics attacks demonstrates there is room for improvement.

[Ravingdork]

Coldermoss wrote:

We know the intention is that a weapon with both finesse and Trip, for example, is supposed to allow the wielder to trip using their Dexterity modifier instead of their Strength for the Athletics check, but you wouldn't be able to tell just by reading the rules.

How do we KNOW this? It's the first I've heard of it.

[Coldermoss]

Ravingdork wrote:

How do we KNOW this? It's the first I've heard of it.

It's pretty old, but Stephen Radney-MacFarland commented about it on Facebook during the PT.

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:

If you are performing the Trip with a finesse weapon (such as the whip that has the trip trait), you add your Dexterity instead of Strength to that particular Athletics attack roll.

There haven't been any changes in the rules between PT and release that suggest to me that the intent has changed, and it would better explain why certain unarmed strikes (e.g. wolf-jaw attacks from monk's Wolf Stance) gain the Trip trait, etc (since simply gaining an item bonus is just really narrow).

[S. J. Digriz]

I would love errata on bastard swords so that became were versatile piercing. The slashing only bastard sword is a silly thing, made even more silly by descriptive text that says that they can do piercing damage. Even if they became an advanced (but not uncommon) weapon, that would be fine.

[Erk Ander]

Some feats are really situational (or near useless) such as Instruments of Zeal, fixing feats would be great so that feat-bloat doesn't become a thing in this edition as well

[Bast L.]

Ravingdork wrote:

Coldermoss wrote:

We know the intention is that a weapon with both finesse and Trip, for example, is supposed to allow the wielder to trip using their Dexterity modifier instead of their Strength for the Athletics check, but you wouldn't be able to tell just by reading the rules.

How do we KNOW this? It's the first I've heard of it.

Page 446, under Attack Rolls: "When you use a Strike action or any other attack action, you attempt a check called an attack roll."

Page 283, under Trip: "You can use this weapon to Trip with the Athletics skill even if you don’t have a free hand."

Page 282, under Finesse: "You can use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls using this melee weapon."

Since trip is an attack action (page 243), the check is an attack roll. Since it's a trip weapon you're using to make the trip, you're using the weapon. Since it's finesse, you can use your dex mod instead of strength on attack rolls with the weapon.

You kind of have to go all over the book to put it together, but it seems straightforward once you get all the pieces:

Trip weapon lets you use trip action with the weapon, trip is an attack action, which calls for an attack roll, weapon is also finesse, which lets you use dex on attack rolls with the weapon.

Same applies to disarm.

Syllogistically, for Rysky :) :

1:
Trip weapons allow trip actions with the weapon.
Trip actions call for attack rolls.
Therefore, trip actions using a trip weapon call for attack rolls with the weapon.

2:
Finesse weapons allow for attack rolls with the weapon to use str or dex mod.
From 1, a trip action with a trip weapon calls for an attack roll with the weapon.
Therefore, a trip action with a trip and finesse weapon calls for an attack roll using str or dex mod.

[Rysky]

Bast L. wrote:

You kind of have to go all over the book to put it together, but it seems straightforward once you get all the pieces:

Uh...

[Zapp]

Erk Ander wrote:

Some feats are really situational (or near useless) such as Instruments of Zeal, fixing feats would be great so that feat-bloat doesn't become a thing in this edition as well

Have you counted the number of new feats in the two Lost Omens guides?

Feat bloat is definitely a thing in this edition. Not only a thing - the game is clearly and intentionally constructed to permit easy publication of HUGE and HUGE amounts of feats.

[K1]

Erk Ander wrote:

Some feats are really situational (or near useless) such as Instruments of Zeal, fixing feats would be great so that feat-bloat doesn't become a thing in this edition as well

I like it, but still have to try it out.

A keen rune will be required, and also reach weapon with ranged reprisal as a paladin build.

Given 1 or maybe 2 melee allies, it would be

1 attack map 0 ( eventually, it could be even a blade of Justice. If divine smite is already up or if you have haste ).
2 attack map -5
3 reaction map 0
4 reaction map 0

4 strikes with 10% each roll.

With the gnome flickmace, a critical hit would be

Slowed 1 + knocked prone + 1 extra weapon dice.

Seems ok to me, but aa said I still have to try it.

[ikarinokami]

unarmed champions not being able to use their dieties favored weapons with blade ally or smite evil

[Elorebaen]

Zapp wrote:

Erk Ander wrote:

Some feats are really situational (or near useless) such as Instruments of Zeal, fixing feats would be great so that feat-bloat doesn't become a thing in this edition as well

Have you counted the number of new feats in the two Lost Omens guides?

Feat bloat is definitely a thing in this edition. Not only a thing - the game is clearly and intentionally constructed to permit easy publication of HUGE and HUGE amounts of feats.

Moreover, that a feat is "situational" doesn't mean it should be fixed, or that it is useless.

[IomedaesRightToe]

Bast L. wrote:

Since trip is an attack action (page 243), the check is an attack roll. Since it's a trip weapon you're using to make the trip, you're using the weapon. Since it's finesse, you can use your dex mod instead of strength on attack rolls with the weapon.

You kind of have to go all over the book to put it together, but it seems straightforward once you get all the pieces:

Trip weapon lets you use trip action with the weapon, trip is an attack action, which calls for an attack roll, weapon is also finesse, which lets you use dex on attack rolls with the weapon.

Same applies to disarm.

Syllogistically, for Rysky :) :

1:
Trip weapons allow trip actions with the weapon.
Trip actions call for attack rolls.
Therefore, trip actions using a trip weapon call for attack rolls with the weapon.

2:
Finesse weapons allow for attack rolls with the weapon to use str or dex mod.
From 1, a trip action with a trip weapon calls for an attack roll with the weapon.
Therefore, a trip action with a trip and finesse weapon calls for an attack roll using str or dex mod.

So I'm going to disagree (and this is going to be a long post, warning up front).

First, the Athletics skill has strength as its key ability. https://2e.aonprd.com/Skills.aspx?ID=3. Per the CRB, you “add your modifier for this ability to checks and DCs when using that skill. https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=171. This ability is referring to the key ability. Although the CRB indicates that a GM “might have you use a different ability modifier for a skill check,” it is up to the GM to deem it appropriate for a certain situation (so no set rules for substituting ability scores).

Second, the Athletic skill includes several activities that you can perform that have the “attack” trait, such as Force Open, Grapple, Shove, Trip, and Disarm. https://2e.aonprd.com/Skills.aspx?ID=3. The Attack trait indicates that “an ability with this trait involves an attack” and that “For each attack you make beyond the first on your turn, you take a multiple attack penalty.”

So far we know that Athletics allows you to perform several tasks that have the attack trait (e.g., involve an attack) and that you roll an Athletics check with your modifier being your proficiency plus your strength. Now, looking at weapons with the finesses trait, we see that finesse provides the following: “You can use your Dexterity modifier instead of your strength modifier on attack rolls using this melee weapon. You still use your Strength modifier when calculating damage.” So, two important pieces of information here. First, Dexterity is substituted for strength only for “attack rolls” and second, even if you use Dexterity for an “Attack roll” you still apply strength as normal for damage. The second part is important because it implies that Dex does not get automatically substituted for all instances that use Strength when using a finesse weapon. Instead, Dex is used only when you make an “attack roll.”

So, what is an attack roll? The CRB at page 446 states that “When you use a Strike action or any other attack action, you attempt a check called an attack roll.” Ok, so not really helpful, as now the question moves to what is an “attack action”? This term is not defined in the CRB, so we have to do a little digging. First, we know that a “Strike” action is one type of attack action. Second, the multiple attack penalty applies any time you make more than one attack action during the course of your turn. So far, nothing definitive on whether an “attack action” includes Athletics tasks.

However, when reading the section on Armor class, the CRB states that “Attack rolls are compared to a special difficulty class called an Armor Class (AC), which measures how hard it is for your foes to hit you with Strikes and other attack actions.” So now we see that an attack action includes an attack roll that is compared to AC. Going back to the Athletics tasks that have the “attack” trait, each of those tasks are compared to a fortitude DC (Grapple, Shove) or a reflex DC (Trip, Disarm). None of the Athletics tasks are compared to the target’s AC. Therefore, athletics tasks do not include attack rolls, and therefore the language of the finesse weapon, which only applies dexterity to attack rolls, would not apply.

Finally, the traits that allow you to perform an athletics task with the weapon, such as the "trip" trait, only indicate that "You can use this weapon to Trip with the Athletics skill even if you don’t have a free hand" and that you can "add the weapon’s item bonus to attack rolls as an item bonus to the Athletics check." So again, this differentiates attack rolls and Athletics check for these athletics tasks. If the Athletics check was an attack roll, the weapon's item bonus to attack rolls would automatically be added and it wouldn't need to be specified.

Therefore, you cannot use your dex modifier in place of your strength modifier when attempting an athletics task, even if you are using a finesse weapon with the corresponding trait.

*TL;DR: Athletics tasks (trip, disarm, etc.) are performed by rolling an Athletics check, which is not an attack roll, and therefore you cannot substitute Dex for Strength even when using a finesse weapon.

So to take your Syllogistical approach:

1)
Attack Actions include an attack roll
Attack rolls target AC
Trip attempts are Athletics checks that target reflex DC
Thus, trip attempts do not include an attack roll and are not attack actions.

2)
Trip trait allows you "use this weapon to Trip with the Athletics skill even if you don’t have a free hand"
Trip requires an Athletics Check (not modified by trip trait)
From 1, Trip attempt is not an attack action.
Thus, trip trait does not allow you to use Dexterity for the Athletics check

[BellyBeard]

IomedaesRightToe wrote:

So, what is an attack roll? The CRB at page 446 states that “When you use a Strike action or any other attack action, you attempt a check called an attack roll.” Ok, so not really helpful, as now the question moves to what is an “attack action”? This term is not defined in the CRB, so we have to do a little digging. First, we know that a “Strike” action is one type of attack action. Second, the multiple attack penalty applies any time you make more than one attack action during the course of your turn. So far, nothing definitive on whether an “attack action” includes Athletics tasks.

I'm pretty sure any action with the attack trait is an attack action. I think this is overthinking and reading too closely into specific sentences from all over the book to reach a conclusion.

[Ravingdork]

I agree with BellyBeard. It seems a bit of a stretch.

[IomedaesRightToe]

BellyBeard wrote:

IomedaesRightToe wrote:

So, what is an attack roll? The CRB at page 446 states that “When you use a Strike action or any other attack action, you attempt a check called an attack roll.” Ok, so not really helpful, as now the question moves to what is an “attack action”? This term is not defined in the CRB, so we have to do a little digging. First, we know that a “Strike” action is one type of attack action. Second, the multiple attack penalty applies any time you make more than one attack action during the course of your turn. So far, nothing definitive on whether an “attack action” includes Athletics tasks.

I'm pretty sure any action with the attack trait is an attack action. I think this is overthinking and reading too closely into specific sentences from all over the book to reach a conclusion.

My biggest issue with that is the section of the CRB that states “Attack rolls are compared to a special difficulty class called an Armor Class (AC), which measures how hard it is for your foes to hit you with Strikes and other attack actions.” p. 447. So they specifically say that attack rolls are compared to AC. And the Athletic Tasks, like trip, specifically call out performing an "Athletics check" which is compared to a save DC (reflex or fortitude). I don't see any justification for converting the specifically referenced "athletics check" into an attack roll, especially considering it doesn't target AC.

[Bast L.]

There are certainly inconsistencies in the CRB. I think it's clear enough, though not explicitly stated, that an action with the attack trait is an attack action.

A small piece of evidence for this intention is page 91, under Furious Bully: "You bully foes across the battlefield. While raging, you gain a +2 circumstance bonus to Athletics checks for attack actions."

Unless there's some kind of athletic strike, this would indicate that trips and the like are attack actions (or else it would be useless, though that's possible, considering mutagenist :)

Also, on page 446, under Multiple Attack Penalty: "The more attacks you make beyond your first in a single turn, the less accurate you become, represented by the multiple attack penalty. The second time you use an attack action during your turn, you take a –5 penalty to your attack roll. The third time you attack, and on any subsequent attacks, you take a –10 penalty to your attack roll. Every check that has the attack trait counts toward your multiple attack penalty, including Strikes, spell attack rolls, certain skill actions like Shove, and many others."

So attack actions are what increase your map, and it's every check with the attack trait that's counting as those actions.

I did think, as I was typing it, "someone's going to take issue with my saying that actions having the attack trait are attack actions," since you're right that it's not clearly stated anywhere (that I can see). However, I think the armor class thing just needs errata, and I'm guessing that all actions with the attack trait are attack actions.

[RicoTheBold]

Playing the Game chapter p.446, Attack Rolls wrote:

When you use a Strike action or any other attack action, you attempt a check called an attack roll. Attack rolls take a variety of forms and are often highly variable based on the weapon you are using for the attack, but there are three main types: melee attack rolls, ranged attack rolls, and spell attack rolls. Spell attack rolls work a little bit differently, so they are explained separately on the next page.

Equipment chapter p.278, Multiple Attack Penalty wrote:

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

The multiple attack penalty doesn’t apply to attacks you make when it isn’t your turn (such as attacks made as part of a reaction). You can use a weapon with the agile trait (page 282) to reduce your multiple attack penalty.

Playing the Game chapter p.446, Multiple Attack Penalty wrote:

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

Glossary and Index p.628, Attack entry wrote:

When a creature tries to harm another creature, it makes a Strike or uses another attack action. Most attacks require an attack roll and target Armor Class. Melee attack roll modifier = Str modifier (or optionally Dex modifier for a finesse weapon) + proficiency bonus + other bonuses + penalties; Ranged attack roll modifier = Dex modifier + proficiency bonus + other bonuses + penalties.

27, 278, 446–447

Playing the Game chapter p.446, Multiple Attack Penalty cont. wrote:

Always calculate your multiple attack penalty for the weapon you’re using on that attack.

I was thinking that there would probably be some other consequences for not considering athletics checks to trip as "attack actions" and figured I'd look at the multiple attack penalty.

A couple of notes:
- The rules specifically call out some ambiguity in attack rolls depending on circumstances.
- The Playing the Game chapter's Multiple Attack Penalty section says that it applies to "attack actions" and goes on to call out any it includes check that has the attack trait and specifically mentions the skill actions, which could be taken as a clarification that these are also "attack actions."
- The Equipment chapter's Multiple Attack Penalty section doesn't use the term "attack action" at all, only "action with the attack trait."
- Multiple attack penalty also mentions calculating using the individual weapon, which is only interesting in that it should mean you can get a reduced MAP when, say, using a light mace (agile, finesse, shove) for a shove action using athletics.

So the only real thing saying an an attack roll must target AC is literally the Armor Class section of the rules.

The determination that "actions with an attack trait" are not also "attack actions" is dubious based on the phrasings used in the Multiple Attack Penalty sections and the Glossary/Index.

The best argument against finesse maneuvers is probably that whether or not it's an attack action (we'll assume it is, because that's the point of action traits in the first place), it doesn't use "attack roll" just a skill check and therefore still doesn't get the benefit of finesse. But even with that reasoning, it would get the benefit of agile - which makes me feel like you might as well consider also give it finesse for consistency.

It's thematic for a high-dex rapier master to be good at disarms (to the extent that one can be). Like half of the disarm weapons are finesse.

Anyway, yeah, it could use a clarification ruling if not formal errata somewhere in there.

And, of course, I was basically ninja'd anyway.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

I want familiars to actually be useful to a Wizard besides being a spell battery. Also, a lot of their specifics are undefined and need definition (such as what they can carry, if they have ability scores, etc). As it stands, familiars can't carry anything (even items with one of their "powers"), and they don't get any sort of attack or option to participate in combat.

[Erk Ander]

Elorebaen wrote:

Zapp wrote:

Erk Ander wrote:

Some feats are really situational (or near useless) such as Instruments of Zeal, fixing feats would be great so that feat-bloat doesn't become a thing in this edition as well

Have you counted the number of new feats in the two Lost Omens guides?

Feat bloat is definitely a thing in this edition. Not only a thing - the game is clearly and intentionally constructed to permit easy publication of HUGE and HUGE amounts of feats.

Moreover, that a feat is "situational" doesn't mean it should be fixed, or that it is useless.

I didn't say merely situational, I said REALLY situational. The really part matters.

Here is the thing. PAthfinder first edition had a ton of useless and very situational feats. This edition should imo aspire to avoid that. From the very start.

[Erk Ander]

K1 wrote:

Erk Ander wrote:

Some feats are really situational (or near useless) such as Instruments of Zeal, fixing feats would be great so that feat-bloat doesn't become a thing in this edition as well

I like it, but still have to try it out.

A keen rune will be required, and also reach weapon with ranged reprisal as a paladin build.

Given 1 or maybe 2 melee allies, it would be

1 attack map 0 ( eventually, it could be even a blade of Justice. If divine smite is already up or if you have haste ).
2 attack map -5
3 reaction map 0
4 reaction map 0

4 strikes with 10% each roll.

With the gnome flickmace, a critical hit would be

Slowed 1 + knocked prone + 1 extra weapon dice.

Seems ok to me, but aa said I still have to try it.

There are essentially 2 roads, one through Retributive strike and one through the feat Smite Evil

You also have to have the lvl 14 feat Divine reflexes in your case (because you only have 1 reaction otherwise).

If you wanna use Smite Evil you need that feat first, then you have to activate it (one action).

You example (which only really works with Smite Evil, unless you have haste) requires the keen-rune, 2 melee allies that both get attacked (within 15 feet of you), the feats Smite Evil, Divine reflexes, Flickmace, Ranged Reprisal and last but not least the feat Instrument of Zeal.

No insult intended friend, I applaud your creativity and positivism. But this a s+~*load of requirements to get "a ok use" from a lvl 16 feat.

And thats my point. Very or really situational at best, useless or trap-option at worst. This is just one feat there are more.

[Ravingdork]

Erk Ander wrote:

...so that feat-bloat doesn't become a thing in this edition as well.

About that...

822 feats - Core Rulebook
205 feats - Lost Omens Character Guide
054 feats - Lost Omens World Guide
018 feats - Age of Ashes 1-3
002 feats - The Fall of Plaguestone (stand alone adventure)
001 feats - Society Adventures (cumulative adventures to date)
1,104 feats in total to date

;D

[Samurai]

Erk Ander wrote:

K1 wrote:

Erk Ander wrote:

Some feats are really situational (or near useless) such as Instruments of Zeal, fixing feats would be great so that feat-bloat doesn't become a thing in this edition as well

I like it, but still have to try it out.

A keen rune will be required, and also reach weapon with ranged reprisal as a paladin build.

Given 1 or maybe 2 melee allies, it would be

1 attack map 0 ( eventually, it could be even a blade of Justice. If divine smite is already up or if you have haste ).
2 attack map -5
3 reaction map 0
4 reaction map 0

4 strikes with 10% each roll.

With the gnome flickmace, a critical hit would be

Slowed 1 + knocked prone + 1 extra weapon dice.

Seems ok to me, but aa said I still have to try it.

There are essentially 2 roads, one through Retributive strike and one through the feat Smite Evil

You also have to have the lvl 14 feat Divine reflexes in your case (because you only have 1 reaction otherwise).

If you wanna use Smite Evil you need that feat first, then you have to activate it (one action).

You example (which only really works with Smite Evil, unless you have haste) requires the keen-rune, 2 melee allies that both get attacked (within 15 feet of you), the feats Smite Evil, Divine reflexes, Flickmace, Ranged Reprisal and last but not least the feat Instrument of Zeal.

No insult intended friend, I applaud your creativity and positivism. But this a s%@!load of requirements to get "a ok use" from a lvl 16 feat.

And thats my point. Very or really situational at best, useless or trap-option at worst. This is just one feat there are more.

You seem to think Instrument of Zeal requires an action or reaction. It doesn't. It simply modifies your Smite Evil attacks and Champion reactions with an additional effect on a crit hit. No additional reaction needed.

[RicoTheBold]

Ravingdork wrote:

Erk Ander wrote:

...so that feat-bloat doesn't become a thing in this edition as well.

About that...

822 feats - Core Rulebook
205 feats - Lost Omens Character Guide
054 feats - Lost Omens World Guide
018 feats - Age of Ashes 1-3
002 feats - The Fall of Plaguestone (stand alone adventure)
001 feats - Society Adventures (cumulative adventures to date)
1,104 feats in total to date

;D

One of the things that I really like about the core rulebook...it doesn't feel like you're picking from 822 feats. The use of buckets like Ancestry, Class, and General/Skill feats and the required level really helps funnel down your choices to a relative few new options at a time.

I both want more options printed and (kind of) dread the inevitable overwhelming future. I think the buckets will still help a ton, though. Each new class/archetype/ancestry isn't really a dozen or more feats to consider for any given character.

[Quandary]

^ Agreed, although I wish General and Skill Feats were more separated buckets. I mean, if you are considering a Skill Feat for your General slot, it's easy enough to look at both General and Skill buckets. There's no reason to sort thru General Feats when looking how to fill your Skill slot. I don't see the value in Feats listing "General, Skill" traits, when it is just understood mechanic that General slot can also choose a Skill Feat.

I also like the idea of more category cross-influence, like Ancestry specific Class Feats, Class/Archetype specific General and Skill Feats, Pre-Reqs of Feats from other category, and so on...

[Zapp]

Erk Ander wrote:

I didn't say merely situational, I said REALLY situational. The really part matters.

Here is the thing. PAthfinder first edition had a ton of useless and very situational feats. This edition should imo aspire to avoid that. From the very start.

Hot Take: Pathfinder 2 already has a ton of useless and very situational feats.

[Zapp]

Sara Marie wrote:

Please don't debate particular pieces of errata in this thread. It is unhelpful. You can take a discussion of a particular topic to a new thread and link that here if you need to.

Apparently mod rulings only apply one thread page at a time (thinking of the trip finesse action thing) ;)

(An extra ;-) so the powers that be don't take this as me being sassy to a mod ;-)

[HidaOWin]

Zapp wrote:

Erk Ander wrote:

I didn't say merely situational, I said REALLY situational. The really part matters.

Here is the thing. PAthfinder first edition had a ton of useless and very situational feats. This edition should imo aspire to avoid that. From the very start.

Hot Take: Pathfinder 2 already has a ton of useless and very situational feats.

A slightly more nuanced take.

There are few totally useless feats, if useless means does nothing. I think just about every feat in the game does something.

There are a decent amount of situational feats, which isn't a bad thing and most of the highly situational ones are in archetypes instead of core class feats. Given that this edition has prioritised choice existing for players and that feats should not habitually increase raw numbers this means some feats will end up more niche than others. That's working as intended.

[K1]

Erk Ander wrote:

K1 wrote:

Erk Ander wrote:

Some feats are really situational (or near useless) such as Instruments of Zeal, fixing feats would be great so that feat-bloat doesn't become a thing in this edition as well

I like it, but still have to try it out.

A keen rune will be required, and also reach weapon with ranged reprisal as a paladin build.

Given 1 or maybe 2 melee allies, it would be

1 attack map 0 ( eventually, it could be even a blade of Justice. If divine smite is already up or if you have haste ).
2 attack map -5
3 reaction map 0
4 reaction map 0

4 strikes with 10% each roll.

With the gnome flickmace, a critical hit would be

Slowed 1 + knocked prone + 1 extra weapon dice.

Seems ok to me, but aa said I still have to try it.

There are essentially 2 roads, one through Retributive strike and one through the feat Smite Evil

You also have to have the lvl 14 feat Divine reflexes in your case (because you only have 1 reaction otherwise).

If you wanna use Smite Evil you need that feat first, then you have to activate it (one action).

You example (which only really works with Smite Evil, unless you have haste) requires the keen-rune, 2 melee allies that both get attacked (within 15 feet of you), the feats Smite Evil, Divine reflexes, Flickmace, Ranged Reprisal and last but not least the feat Instrument of Zeal.

No insult intended friend, I applaud your creativity and positivism. But this a s$&@load of requirements to get "a ok use" from a lvl 16 feat.

And thats my point. Very or really situational at best, useless or trap-option at worst. This is just one feat there are more.

1) I you had read my whole post you would have realize that I mentioned the part about casting divine smite. On thr first attack. Giving also 2 possibilities. And it requires a smite evil on the enemy only my attacks. Not my aoo.

2) you don't need 2 allies. This is false. You need enemies, one or more, within your range to hit 2 times a target within your range. So eventually even 1 enemy and 1 ally. Within 15 yd which is nice in terms of melee range. I stated 2 because the more the better.

3) It is obvious that I will take divine reflexes as a paladin. Extra reaction with bonus dmg with no map and defensive stuff for my ally.

I am now the one who would consider to allow you explaining alternatives in terms of lvl 14 useful feats.

4) you talked about feats I am using for my future build as something like

"You require all those feats for your build"

Dude, is this a joke? That's the meaning of a "build". Gosh.

That said, if this is going to work or not, i will find it the more it proceed ( no need to wait till lvl 16, but lvl 6, to get all i need ). Currently, the 15 feet aoo is working perfectly.

Finally, check what samurai told to you, because I had his exact feeling by reading your whole post.

[Zapp]

HidaOWin wrote:

There are few totally useless feats, if useless means does nothing. I think just about every feat in the game does something.

I'm not the poster that made the initial complaint, but I don't think that definition is interesting or useful. That's setting the bar awfully low.

[Lightning Raven]

Zapp wrote:

HidaOWin wrote:

There are few totally useless feats, if useless means does nothing. I think just about every feat in the game does something.

I'm not the poster that made the initial complaint, but I don't think that definition is interesting or useful. That's setting the bar awfully low.

While I do agree that some feats often fall short, I think you're expecting feats that plagued PF1e and simply removed most choices. Archery feats, weapon focus feats, etc.

The new paradigm is that when you pick a feat, you're picking either a new thing to do or something that makes you do it better, but this "Better" is not just a straight +X advantage, it often comes into the form of better action economy, offering some failure conditions (some attacks that do stuff even if you fail) or enhancing your abilities if some conditions are met.

PF1e feats were boring and great mechanically, PF2e feats are still a little too weak for my taste (Starfinder shares the same thing), but there's a lot of stuff that's really interesting. For me, I just think that the designers don't like character that do stuff or that reward players for picking very situational feats.

For example:

Knight Reclamant Archetype [feat 8] - Survivor of Desolation (PG 95 Los Omens character guide)

"You gain a +2 circumstance bonus to saving throws against unnatural weather events or environmental hazards occurring in blighted or otherwise unnaturally marred regions. If you roll a success on a saving throw against such an effect, you get a critical success instead; if you roll a critical failure, you get a failure instead. This does not apply to unnatural events created or directed by active effects, such as spells that create anomalous weather or hazardous areas."

This could've easily been removed. It's a class (even if archetype) feat that goes out of its way to remove a benefit that should be covered by the ability. I mean, even if it applied to spells, it would still be situational. When you compare the feat for the same level called "Invoke The crimson oath" (It grants the focus spell with same name), then you can clearly see which one I'll be picking: [2 Actions and area of 20-ft Cone]

"Brandishing your weapon and shouting the final line of the Crimson Oath, you unleash a blast of destructive ruby energy. You must be wielding a melee weapon, and you perform this spell’s somatic component by swinging the weapon in a downward arc. You deal normal melee damage for your weapon, including all appropriate bonuses, penalties, modifiers, and properties, to each creature in the spell’s area; they must each attempt a basic Fortitude save. A creature that critically
fails this save also suffers any additional effect you would normally inflict with your weapon on a critical hit; if the creature that critically fails its save is also immune to critical hits, it merely fails the save instead.
You can convert all the physical damage from this spell into positive damage against all undead creatures in the area."

Way cooler, huh?

[Erk Ander]

Ravingdork wrote:

Erk Ander wrote:

...so that feat-bloat doesn't become a thing in this edition as well.

About that...

822 feats - Core Rulebook
205 feats - Lost Omens Character Guide
054 feats - Lost Omens World Guide
018 feats - Age of Ashes 1-3
002 feats - The Fall of Plaguestone (stand alone adventure)
001 feats - Society Adventures (cumulative adventures to date)
1,104 feats in total to date

;D

I know what you mean, due to the way classes are built yes we will have more feats naturally. But my points still stands. Its even more important now. It took damn near a decade to reach 1500 feats in first edition. Now we are almost already there so its even more important.

[Erk Ander]

Samurai wrote:

You seem to think Instrument of Zeal requires an action or reaction. It doesn't. It simply modifies your Smite Evil attacks and Champion reactions with an additional effect on a crit hit. No additional reaction needed.

No I don't. But Smite Evil and Blade of justice requires one action respectively 2 actions . And Retributive strike requires a reaction (hence Divine Reflexes in case u wanna use it twice in a round).

To gain the benefit of the feat you need activate the precise actions that benefit from it.

[Ediwir]

2/3 of my errata expectations have been confirmed the way I expected them to come and I couldn’t be happier.

No individual spell changes showed up on stream which is fair.

Shield observations line up with expectations and I’m glad rogues can buy magic shields without having to invest in a blocking ability they can’t use.

Final word on wednesday :)

[Aricks]

So alchemists get a kit bulk fix and a mutagenist fix.

Apparently nothing else? I personally don't think it was funny that the review was skipped over.

[ikarinokami]

Ediwir wrote:

2/3 of my errata expectations have been confirmed the way I expected them to come and I couldn’t be happier.

No individual spell changes showed up on stream which is fair.

Shield observations line up with expectations and I’m glad rogues can buy magic shields without having to invest in a blocking ability they can’t use.

Final word on wednesday :)

they talk about a couple of spells

animal messenger
goodberries

[Midnightoker]

I thought it was rather crazy how dead on the mutagenist change was to your proposal

Edit: only got to watch about half the stream, will watch later and potentially post the list if no one else does before me

[Ediwir]

Midnightoker wrote:

I thought it was rather crazy how dead on the mutagenist change was to your proposal

Mate I don’t even know how it keeps happening but it does :D between armours, alchemists, sorcerers, shields and whatnot, I just found I align pretty well with PF2’s design decisions :P it’s what got me interested in the first place and it just keeps happening :D

Ps. Ah yeah the druid spells. I kinda blanked on them, sorry

[ikarinokami]

I have happy they went with my suggestion in another thread of having blade ally work with headwraps. very pleased

[K1]

Alchemist changes seem nice, and that's great.

I am also happy for the statement abput shields.

Weapon/sturdy shields are fine the way they are, and some shields are not meant to block, even though they could slightly rise some hp.

Maybe by allowing magic shields to be made out of specific materials, even if they reach the BT at the first hit. You then will have an extra choice, to block some dmg or to maintain your +2 circ AC with raise shield. Perfectly balanced.

But Somehow it is reassuring.

[First World Bard]

Yeah allowing magic shields with special materials would be good. Druids do get shield block, but Sturdy Shields are metal shields, so they can’t be used by Druids...

[K1]

First World Bard wrote:

Yeah allowing magic shields with special materials would be good. Druids do get shield block, but Sturdy Shields are metal shields, so they can’t be used by Druids...

Druids are in a bad spot indeed...

However, to me the deal would be that a magical shield takes a hit and is not destroyed, but it has to necessarily be under the BT.

The choice would be to block some dmg and not being able to use the raise shield reaction for thr rest of the fight, or take the full dmg and decide to maintain the +2 circumstance shield.

A critical hit could destroy a non sturdy shield, and this must remain.

[Unicore]

K1 wrote:

First World Bard wrote:

Yeah allowing magic shields with special materials would be good. Druids do get shield block, but Sturdy Shields are metal shields, so they can’t be used by Druids...

Druids are in a bad spot indeed...

This feels humorous to me because you have people arguing that the druid is massively over powered compared to the wizard because they get armor proficiencies and shields, but access to the best blasting spells.

I think it is probably intended that druids are not supposed to be able to use shields for the same level of protection as martial characters.

[K1]

Unicore wrote:

K1 wrote:

First World Bard wrote:

Yeah allowing magic shields with special materials would be good. Druids do get shield block, but Sturdy Shields are metal shields, so they can’t be used by Druids...

Druids are in a bad spot indeed...

This feels humorous to me because you have people arguing that the druid is massively over powered compared to the wizard because they get armor proficiencies and shields, but access to the best blasting spells.

I think it is probably intended that druids are not supposed to be able to use shields for the same level of protection as martial characters.

Oh you got it definitely wrong.

We were discussing about shields, and my comment was towards the druid situation in terms of block.

In response to world first bard comment.

[Zwordsman]

As a sidenote. I read the short summary from the twitch thing yesterday and saw they changed the bulk for Alch tools and formula book. Yay. That'll clear up 1.9bulk!

Something that did made me realize though, again is how much the bulk is a problem for alchemists as they level up. They can easily make several bulk worth of items in the morning. I doubt they'll ever make infused reagents weigh less. Or give alchemist special extra bulk for infused items..

So I thought about it.

Something good would be to allow Alchemists to make more Infused REagent Items during the day. Currently they only make in the morning or quick alchemy. Can not do it again techincally.
but allowing them to brew up something like.. INT Infused reagents worth of items in a 10min rest would give them a class specific action that would be a nice pair with other class's focus point recoveries. While allowing the alchemist to not have to make it all in the morning, and give me a bit more versatility--which is what their class is about.

[ErichAD]

I thought the errata was just going to be filling in some missing data on abilities that don't reference enough of the rules to function, making sure term usage lines up more accurately, and tweaking things that are unintentionally cumbersome like shields, bulk, spells/abilities that are a net loss of actions and so on.

I wouldn't expect to see any balance changes, stricter adherence to the trait system, or improvements to class theme at this point.

[Ediwir]

Zwordsman wrote:

As a sidenote. I read the short summary from the twitch thing yesterday and saw they changed the bulk for Alch tools and formula book. Yay. That'll clear up 1.9bulk!

Something that did made me realize though, again is how much the bulk is a problem for alchemists as they level up. They can easily make several bulk worth of items in the morning. I doubt they'll ever make infused reagents weigh less. Or give alchemist special extra bulk for infused items..

So I thought about it.

Something good would be to allow Alchemists to make more Infused REagent Items during the day. Currently they only make in the morning or quick alchemy. Can not do it again techincally.
but allowing them to brew up something like.. INT Infused reagents worth of items in a 10min rest would give them a class specific action that would be a nice pair with other class's focus point recoveries. While allowing the alchemist to not have to make it all in the morning, and give me a bit more versatility--which is what their class is about.

If you look back into the playtest days, that was part of my alchemist suggestions. It didn’t get picked up (a lot of other stuff did and I love it) but it’s around if someone wants to houserule.

Once again, don’t expect extended changes in an errata. The Goodberry remake is probably the most extensive change that will happen.

[Siro]

"From my Greater staff of Necromancy I cast 'Enervation'."

Pathfinder.exe has run into a problem, and has stopped working. Please contact GM if problem persists.

[Brew Bird]

ErichAD wrote:

I thought the errata was just going to be filling in some missing data on abilities that don't reference enough of the rules to function, making sure term usage lines up more accurately, and tweaking things that are unintentionally cumbersome like shields, bulk, spells/abilities that are a net loss of actions and so on.

I wouldn't expect to see any balance changes, stricter adherence to the trait system, or improvements to class theme at this point.

I don't think balance changes are out of the question. The purpose of errata is to make things work as intended. If classes are not as balanced as initially thought, then they are not working as intended.

Paizo was willing to do a pretty major overhaul (by errata standards) of the Shifter class from the tail end 1st edition, and they're going to be giving the Mutagenist a brand new ability. Compounded with the talk of making major changes to how errata is handled, it's clear that Paizo's attitude about post-publishing adjustment is changing.

For the better, I say. Countless PF1 options were essentially dead on arrival, only working thanks to later "patch" feats. I much prefer errata as the prime means of applying needed buffs, as opposed to the aforementioned alternative.

[Lightning Raven]

Balance changes are certainly welcome. My friend is currently playinga Sword Saint, it's a really cool concept specially because base Samurai have a lot of features focused on horseback and battlefield stuff that don't get used by the common adventurer while the Sword Saint definitely delivers on the aspect of being a master swordsman that can make a lightning fast strike and kill the opponent. Sadly the main ability is very clunky to use, overly punitive and way too restrictive, most of the issues get better at level 10 but it's a long road until the ability gets "usable" (not even great).

It definitely would be a first contender for balance changes and some fine-tuning. The same way that Totem Barbarian would need a lot, since it's know as the archetype that does nothing.

Both issues were never addressed. While Lore Warden was completely reworked in order to nerf it.

[First World Bard]

Unicore wrote:

I think it is probably intended that druids are not supposed to be able to use shields for the same level of protection as martial characters.

If that were the case, I'd have rather just they not gotten the Shield Block feat for free. I'm fine with wooden shields being less good than metal shields, just like hide armor is inferior to heavier armors. But typically this means you spend your time looking for that uncommon Dragonhide Breastplate or whatever.

Also, you can have a fighter or Warpriest/Redeemer Champion of Gozreh that multiclasses into Druid for flavor reasons; they'd then be bound by the no metal armor/shields anathema.