| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just quoting to signal boost so it can be noticed and fixed. I know Paizo cares about this, but they don't always get it right on the first go.Given that WotC's PDFs were inaccessible to myself and other visually impaired/blind playersThe FAQ page isn't winning any awards for readability... :P It is not in color-blind friendly format.
Ah, thank you for bringing this up as I'd meant to track it down. I found out it's an issue on my end. I've been using Stylus to give this site a dark background and for everything else it works perfectly. With the FAQ section though, it turns what is perfectly readable text into color hues what blend into the background. I didn't find this out until someone mentioned connection issues and I checked out the FAQ on a different browser only to see it crisp and clear there. So I retract my complaint on this: it just didn't occur to me it could be an issue on my end. Sorry.
When a poison is "used" by applying the poison to a weapon or poisoning food, the item is destroyed. For Quick Alchemy, this would seem to imply that you could Quick Alchemy a poison and apply it to a weapon.
However, for a toxicologist, this would imply that Perpetual Potency permits an alchemist to poison *every* piece of gear the party has in between battles. Now I love being able to do that as a toxicologist, but I have to admit... it feels a little OP. Is there (or should there be) some limitation on using perpetual potency to mass-apply poisons?
I'm curious about this too. I haven't dabbled much with poisons, but is there a general ruling that states how long a poison lasts after being applied to a weapon?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm curious about this too. I haven't dabbled much with poisons, but is there a general ruling that states how long a poison lasts after being applied to a weapon?When a poison is "used" by applying the poison to a weapon or poisoning food, the item is destroyed. For Quick Alchemy, this would seem to imply that you could Quick Alchemy a poison and apply it to a weapon.
However, for a toxicologist, this would imply that Perpetual Potency permits an alchemist to poison *every* piece of gear the party has in between battles. Now I love being able to do that as a toxicologist, but I have to admit... it feels a little OP. Is there (or should there be) some limitation on using perpetual potency to mass-apply poisons?
The general rule is until the next successful strike I believe.
That said I don’t think this is necessarily a big deal. By the time it comes online poison damage isn’t even a guaranteed opportunity and it’s one strike. Champions might not even be allowed to use it and it helps casters and polymorph people none.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm curious about this too. I haven't dabbled much with poisons, but is there a general ruling that states how long a poison lasts after being applied to a weapon?When a poison is "used" by applying the poison to a weapon or poisoning food, the item is destroyed. For Quick Alchemy, this would seem to imply that you could Quick Alchemy a poison and apply it to a weapon.
However, for a toxicologist, this would imply that Perpetual Potency permits an alchemist to poison *every* piece of gear the party has in between battles. Now I love being able to do that as a toxicologist, but I have to admit... it feels a little OP. Is there (or should there be) some limitation on using perpetual potency to mass-apply poisons?
The general rule is until the next successful strike I believe.
That said I don’t think this is necessarily a big deal. By the time it comes online poison damage isn’t even a guaranteed opportunity and it’s one strike. Champions might not even be allowed to use it and it helps casters and polymorph people none.
And you're stuck w/ an Alchemist in the party.
Seriously, Alchemists have the ability to nudge the power curve in ways that are difficult or very expensive for other PCs to do. Yet otherwise they're inferior to having a more bread-n'-butter PC on the team. So in a way that balances; that sort of augmentation is the Alchemist's niche (and possibly their ability to improvise).
The general rule is until the next successful strike I believe.
That said I don’t think this is necessarily a big deal. By the time it comes online poison damage isn’t even a guaranteed opportunity and it’s one strike. Champions might not even be allowed to use it and it helps casters and polymorph people none.
Except the alchemist could poison a flurry ranger's entire quiver of 100+ arrows. And that is terrifying mid to late levels when they are 5-7 attacks a round.
It is also one hit for every martial in a party and it doesn't dissipate until a hit or a crit miss occurs meaning people will likely get one off every combat.
It is pretty darn good to have as a reliable force multiplier.
I wouldn't say it is broken or anything without doing the math.
Weirdly also works well for doubling ring users who use a lot of quickdraw and light weapons. Especially since you can happily wear 20 rapiers ;)
When a poison is "used" by applying the poison to a weapon or poisoning food, the item is destroyed. For Quick Alchemy, this would seem to imply that you could Quick Alchemy a poison and apply it to a weapon.
However, for a toxicologist, this would imply that Perpetual Potency permits an alchemist to poison *every* piece of gear the party has in between battles. Now I love being able to do that as a toxicologist, but I have to admit... it feels a little OP. Is there (or should there be) some limitation on using perpetual potency to mass-apply poisons?
Before level 17, the available poisons are really low level. 1d6 extra damage at level 7, 1d10 at level 11. And there's a save to avoid it. I don't think it would imbalance the game. As a Toxicologist, you should have enough reagents to poison every weapon with more potent poisons anyway.
nevertheless, regardless how you run it, it is a very valid question if Quick Alchemy poisons last the 1 round or they last unlimited time after you've applied them.
basically if the poison is "used" on application to the medium of exposure or on exposure itself.
If the poison is used, then it means poison never wears off of weapons, even the one you produce with Advanced/Quick Alchemy. You could poison all arrows with top of the notch poison (and not Perpetual one, which is admitedly bad before level 17).
Except the alchemist could poison a flurry ranger's entire quiver of 100+ arrows. And that is terrifying mid to late levels when they are 5-7 attacks a round.
Well, 100 arrows on a Flurry Ranger is white room nonsense.
For one, 100 arrows is 10 Bulk. No ranger even has 10 Bulk worth of arrows unless they are level 10 and maxed STR over DEX (as an archer, doubt it), and literally wear nothing or hold even a bow.
Even if we assume 20 arrows, still not really seeing the issue, it's less DPR than a TWF Ranger and most other characters. If you're actually tracking ammunition, which if you have poison arrows you would be, then it's not really a problem.
And again, as someone else pointed out, Alchemists literally fill this roll on purpose. Would we make the same complaints about Inspire Courage?
Well, 100 arrows on a Flurry Ranger is white room nonsense.
For one, 100 arrows is 10 Bulk. No ranger even has 10 Bulk worth of arrows unless they are level 10 and maxed STR over DEX (as an archer, doubt it), and literally wear nothing or hold even a bow.
What? No, it's not. It's 1 bulk. One set of 10 arrows is light bulk, so 100 arrows is 10 light bulk, which is 1 bulk.
The entry at AON is slightly unclear, as the "per 10 arrows" clause is only listed under price, but in the actual CRB it's clear that 10 arrows collectively cost 1 sp and weigh L.
If AoN is indeed unclear and it is 10 Arrows are L, that seems disproportionally weird compared to a Dart, which treats a single Dart as L. The CRB does not state that the L applies to all 10, it only lists it as the Bulk value under ammunition.
So respectfully, I am not sure that is correct at all, and it's not realistic.
You're telling me 10 arrows weigh the same as a Dagger?
It says "Price for 10" in parenthesis, but I don't see how it makes the distinction that it also applies to the Bulk, and the CRB only lists it as 10 arrows, it doesn't say that the Bulk entry applies to all 10 arrows just that it applies to the ammunition entry (which is mentioned under Ranged weapons).
Either way, saying 10 arrows weighs/acts the same as a Dagger in terms of Bulk is a stretch.
____________
With all that said, it still isn't OP and this is still white room nonsense.
Bastion,
I don't call that powerful, especially not "especially" given what level you are to put that all together. As you've noted, it's a bit weaker, and that's the point. Bit weaker there, bit stronger for the Alchemist's allies. Party's power level remains balanced.
And pumping one's alchemy into the crossbow to compete there will subtract one's ability to alter the curve elsewhere (unless consistently having few encounters/day; going nova).
And I agree there's a potential problem if downtime allows every arrow (et al) to be poisoned for free (or receive other alchemical treatments for that matter). I'd have to rule that the applied poisons (etc.) expire daily, and would adjudicate so in PFS too.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, 100 arrows on a Flurry Ranger is white room nonsense.
For one, 100 arrows is 10 Bulk. No ranger even has 10 Bulk worth of arrows unless they are level 10 and maxed STR over DEX (as an archer, doubt it), and literally wear nothing or hold even a bow.
What? No, it's not. It's 1 bulk. One set of 10 arrows is light bulk, so 100 arrows is 10 light bulk, which is 1 bulk.
The entry at AON is slightly unclear, as the "per 10 arrows" clause is only listed under price, but in the actual CRB it's clear that 10 arrows collectively cost 1 sp and weigh L.
If AoN is indeed unclear and it is 10 Arrows are L, that seems disproportionally weird compared to a Dart, which treats a single Dart as L. The CRB does not state that the L applies to all 10, it only lists it as the Bulk value under ammunition.
So respectfully, I am not sure that is correct at all, and it's not realistic.
You're telling me 10 arrows weigh the same as a Dagger?
It says "Price for 10" in parenthesis, but I don't see how it makes the distinction that it also applies to the Bulk, and the CRB only lists it as 10 arrows, it doesn't say that the Bulk entry applies to all 10 arrows just that it applies to the ammunition entry (which is mentioned under Ranged weapons).
Either way, saying 10 arrows weighs/acts the same as a Dagger in terms of Bulk is a stretch.
10 arrows having the same bulk as one dagger is pretty realistic actually.
Firstly, in the real world, daggers weigh about a pound. Meanwhile, arrows weigh something like 700 grains (the actual range for traditional bows is something like 400 to 1000 grains, but 700 seems typical), which is to say 10 of them are 7000 grains. A grain is an obscure measure I hadn't run into before (I did some quick research on this) that is generally defined as 1/7000 of a pound. Therefore, in reality, 10 arrows for a traditional longbow will in fact weigh almost exactly what a dagger does.
So yeah, if a dagger is L, 10 arrows should also be L.
Bulk is also more than just weight, it's how awkward to carry things are, but containers are abstracted, so 10 arrows may be assumed to be in a quiver, which is pretty easy to carry. 100 arrows is excessive for being carried in quivers, but if we're talking about high level characters, they can use extradimensional spaces and replace their arrows between battles.
As for darts...I think you're thinking of them wrong. The official PF2 dart description is 'larger than an arrow but smaller than a javelin'. They're a lot bigger than you're imagining.
I can't comment on the rules issue, but I think the clear intent is for 10 arrows to be L, which is also the realistic choice (not that realism is exactly a priority, but still).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
darts
Think lawn darts not pub darts. ;)
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bulk is not weight as many discussions of bulk have shown.
Its also the shape of the object. And arrows specially many arrows can be very cumbersome.
I did address that. Specifically, by noting that a quiver is pretty easy to carry and assumed by the rules.
Also arrow weight is determined by the type of arrow, its size, and its intended bow size.
One site says to use 8-10 grains per pound. A warbow that can reach 120-140 pounds would then have 1,400 grain arrows. With just 5 warbow arrows you get 1 pound, getting 10 would already be 2 pounds.
Sure. And 2 lbs. is still well within the range of 'L' Bulk. It's on the higher end, but not nearly as much as a waterskin (which contains at least 3 liters of water, which is to say over 6 lbs.)
With all that said, it still isn't OP and this is still white room nonsense.
Uh no, even if you don't have all of your arrows equipped at once it doesn't stop you from being able to poison them all.
100 arrows is far from "white room nonsense", also the CRB clearly lists 10 arrows as L. I would be very concerned even with bulk abstraction if a dagger was as much as a single arrow, or even 5.As for its power, the point isn't the extra damage so much. But quickly getting targets to stage 3 effects with re-exposures. I also said I wouldm't be comfortable calling it OP or ruling against it as it isn't that different from what a poisoner can do at those levels anyway, so please reign in that strawmanning.
It is just quite a potent and always on benefit for that scenario.
But there are a few nice to have injury poisons of levels 5 and under.
|
I believe what stops poisoning over multiple days is the Infused trait
You created an alchemical item with the infused trait using your infused reagents, and it has a limited time before it becomes inert. Any nonpermanent effects from your infused alchemical items, with the exception of afflictions such as slow-acting poisons, end when you make your daily preparations again
So even if the poison lasts indefinitely when applied (which it does), it’ll still become inert at your next daily prep.
I believe what stops poisoning over multiple days is the Infused trait
You created an alchemical item with the infused trait using your infused reagents, and it has a limited time before it becomes inert. Any nonpermanent effects from your infused alchemical items, with the exception of afflictions such as slow-acting poisons, end when you make your daily preparations againSo even if the poison lasts indefinitely when applied (which it does), it’ll still become inert at your next daily prep.
"with the exception of afflictions"
Afflictions
Source Core Rulebook pg. 457
Diseases and poisons are types of afflictions, as are curses and radiation.
So to me, it looks like that really doesn't solve anything as it makes an explicit exception for afflictions and poisons are a type of affliction.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For what it's worth, if we rule that applied poisons go inert like the actual consumables, Perpetual Alchemy becomes a dead class feature for toxicologists.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe what stops poisoning over multiple days is the Infused trait
You created an alchemical item with the infused trait using your infused reagents, and it has a limited time before it becomes inert. Any nonpermanent effects from your infused alchemical items, with the exception of afflictions such as slow-acting poisons, end when you make your daily preparations againSo even if the poison lasts indefinitely when applied (which it does), it’ll still become inert at your next daily prep."with the exception of afflictions"
Afflictions
Source Core Rulebook pg. 457
Diseases and poisons are types of afflictions, as are curses and radiation.So to me, it looks like that really doesn't solve anything as it makes an explicit exception for afflictions and poisons are a type of affliction.
Believe it’s talking about the affliction generated by the poison, not the poison itself. So something like king’s sleep, once contracted, wouldn’t just fizzle out after a day.
|
|
For what it's worth, if we rule that applied poisons go inert like the actual consumables, Perpetual Alchemy becomes a dead class feature for toxicologists.
And mutagenists, and chirurgeons. Because the same ruling would apply to them and their durations, causing them to expire immediately at the end of the round you drink them.
|
|
I believe what stops poisoning over multiple days is the Infused trait
You created an alchemical item with the infused trait using your infused reagents, and it has a limited time before it becomes inert. Any nonpermanent effects from your infused alchemical items, with the exception of afflictions such as slow-acting poisons, end when you make your daily preparations againSo even if the poison lasts indefinitely when applied (which it does), it’ll still become inert at your next daily prep.explain to me why you think that "it has limited time before becoming inert" is mechanically different than "is only potent until the end of round".
because to me it seems the same.
If we go by the logic that applied poisons become inert, then surely that also means that applied poisons also lose their potency at the end of your round, no?
It's the same thing.
Not the first sentence but the second one “any non-permanent effects...”. An applied poison is a non permanent effect, so therefore the text of the infused trait overwrites the indefinite duration with “until your next daily preparations”.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just FYI, I think this is conflating two things that are unrelated. Having the Attack Trait and being an attack are not the same thing.Battleforms are still trapped in Grapples without the option to Escape or Grapple.
Any maneuver is off limits still because even though they are not attack rolls, they are still attacks so the following still applies:
"One or more unarmed melee attacks specific to the battle form you choose, which are the only attacks you can use."
What?
Under the Attack trait:
"An ability with this trait involves an attack. For each attack you make beyond the first on your turn, you take a multiple attack penalty."
Trips, Grapples, Shoves, and Disarm are specifically still attacks, but are no longer considered attack rolls.
Battleforms states:
One or more unarmed melee attacks specific to the battle form you choose, which are the only attacks you can use."
That means that you cannot use Escape, Grapple, Shove, Trip, or Disarm by RAW as it explicitly states you cannot use any other types of attacks as opposed to Strikes (like a Stance).
The above is an issue because it leads to people in Battleforms not being allowed to Escape/Grapple out of Grapples they are in, thus creating a "permanently grappled" when in Battleform (not to mention the weird aspect of having these disallowed in Battleform).
The maneuvers have always been attacks, and its never been RAW to be able to make Grapples/Trips/Disarms/Shoves/Escapes as they are all Attacks.
That still hasn't been addressed because the wording on Battleforms still reads "attacks" and not "attack rolls" or "strikes".
Just FYI.
I could have sworn the new errata specifically had text that resolved the polymorph combat maneuver issue.
I could have sworn the new errata specifically had text that resolved the polymorph combat maneuver issue.
The only thing I see in the errata is:
"To clarify the different rules elements involved:An attack is any check that has the attack trait. It applies and increases the multiple attack penalty." and "Some skill actions have the attack trait, specifically Athletics actions such as Grapple and Trip."
I didn't notice anything related to the individual spells [which is the issue]. They'd need to change "attack" to "attack roll" for all the battle form spells.
Maybe it was a game developer statement clarification made outside the errata.
The problem w/ "Attack Roll" for Polymorph forms is that it'd open up the use of feats, as does using "Strikes", and I think avoiding such combos is Paizo's objective. Of course they could add another line to the given attack being the only Strike and say it's only w/ a basic Strike action.
Or that battle forms can only do basic actions (or whatever phrase encapsulates Grapple, Escape, etc. w/o opening up to feats that might use those).
I haven't reviewed all possible combinations to determine if I have a problem either. But I do think PF2 leans heavily into not combining abilities, even when there's no current way to exploit a combo. This separation is likely a correction to PF1's immense power creep; keeping abilities separate is one of the best ways to futureproof PF2.
Except, we end up with gorillas that can't grapple, etc., and I don't think Paizo meant to go that far, and we can't even be sure how far they intended either way.
i actually think that the seperation of "skill attacks" and "attack rolls" is 1 step forward in actually making this work better if they go through with actually combing through the whole book and list what they want to be an "attack" and what they want to just be limited to "attack rolls".
as a simple example, you can Escape using a skill check (either athletics or acrobatics) so that means that escape, can be an Attack that's not an Attack roll. Similar to things like grapples and etc.
So, changing stances to only limit your "attack rolls" will mean that you will not be able to do non-form attack rolls while still leaving you capable of escaping, grappling and tripping your opponent, and etc
same thing with polymorph effects.
limiting the attack rolls of a polymorphed gorilla to slam attacks will keep both the functionality and spirit of the ability, and also keep the limitation to weird combinations, but it'll allow for some things that its simply "weird" you cannot do while in form lik Escaping and grabbiong someone.
This would be one of the better ways to make lemonade out of lemons.
The loss of the simplicity of all things with the attack trait not being considered attack rolls can hopefully be used in this way to solve issues where maybe certain non-Strike based actions can be allowed.
I don’t know if differentiating then as skill rolls is even necessary if you just specify that “the only attack rolls you can make are Strikes with X”.
The only problem I see with that it isn’t imo inherently easy to understand that as a new player, but then again it might not matter.
Intuitively, most gms would probably just allow the grapples and such anyways in those forms and potentially even stances, only to find out later that battleforms says “attacks” and then maybe revert their ruling.
In this case, if the rules end up going that route, the common sense ruling so to speak is ultimately what the actual ruling is (since in this hypothetical those stances and battleforms reads “attack rolls”) and thus everyone was accidentally playing it by the RAW.
That is if it’s intended to allow those maneuvers. It may just be easier to specify what maneuvers are allowed specifically or let the “hands” sort itself out.
However you want to rule though, I don’t think any GM would just rule battleform people are permanently grappled, and that aspect of the game is common enough (I’ve had two Druids both with wildshape) that it probably at least needs some kind of help. And that’s if polymorphing battleforms don’t expand options sets (the more battleforms that are introduced the more this is going to come up).
That is if it’s intended to allow those maneuvers
Given the way they highlight one skill Athletics in the druids animal BattleForms, I think it is pretty clear that the designers do want you to use Athletics in these forms. Half of Athletics skill checks have the attack trait.
Are you really suggesting that they did not want druids in gorilla form to be able to shove, grab, or escape?
I still don't understand Illusory Creature. What actions can it take? Can it pretend to cast spells? Can it cast spells that affect itself, like invisibility? How about sanctuary? Can it use skills? Can it have reach? Can it make ranged attacks? etc...
Some of those questions are more trivial than others, but the rules are VERY lacking.
I still don't understand Illusory Creature. What actions can it take? Can it pretend to cast spells? Can it cast spells that affect itself, like invisibility? How about sanctuary? Can it use skills? Can it have reach? Can it make ranged attacks? etc...
Some of those questions are more trivial than others, but the rules are VERY lacking.
I disagree. I believe its options are very lacking.
The spell tells you what it can do, and it ain't much.It can't pretend or cast or use skills.
And if the creature has Reach, then the illusions does too, and I think that's so obvious it'd be a waste of space to list that.
As usual for PF2, reasonableness and GM adjudication play a larger role much like in the early days of RPGing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is if it’s intended to allow those maneuversGiven the way they highlight one skill Athletics in the druids animal BattleForms, I think it is pretty clear that the designers do want you to use Athletics in these forms. Half of Athletics skill checks have the attack trait.
Are you really suggesting that they did not want druids in gorilla form to be able to shove, grab, or escape?
It could be argued that Athletics is there to allow climb, jump, and swim since animals are known for that.
And while I’d love to say that I believe they intended to make it so battleforms can use any maneuver in while in them (and maybe stances), the interpretation that limits battleforms to not being able to use them for balance purposes is not out of the realm of RAI in my opinion, especially considering recent errata and other intended things.
Battleforms were a problem in PF1. And I’m not saying that everything that was a problem in PF1 got overly nerfed in transition to PF2 (mostly it’s warranted where it was done) but battleforms being restricted as much as they are is certainly by design.
Whether athletics checks are meant to be included or excluded is another matter, but the first run at battleforms was clearly to disallow a lot of shenanigans. I could see blanket maneuvers being an issue, especially if new maneuvers get added to the game later.
If they were to alter battleforms to allow certain maneuvers, that seems more in line with their intended restrictions than just saying all maneuvers are on the table. That’s a pure guess and not my preferred outcome, but nonetheless.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It could be argued that Athletics is there to allow climb, jump, and swim since animals are known for that.
They aready have those listed as speeds. So much of the use for Athletics there, well its sort of there still, but it is just not essential.
And while I’d love to say that I believe they intended to make it so battleforms can use any maneuver in while in them (and maybe stances), the interpretation that limits battleforms to not being able to use them for balance purposes is not out of the realm of RAI in my opinion, especially considering recent errata and other intended things.Battleforms were a problem in PF1. And I’m not saying that everything that was a problem in PF1 got overly nerfed in transition to PF2 (mostly it’s warranted where it was done) but battleforms being restricted as much as they are is certainly by design.
PF1 battle Forms where broken for a couple of very specifiy reasons. Things like +8 strength modifiers for size large, and Pounce attacks.
Very simple very unbalanced powers that could have easily been fixed without a major system change or anything else. PF1 problems in this area where simply because they refused to do simple errata to fix them.
Whether athletics checks are meant to be included or excluded is another matter, but the first run at battleforms was clearly to disallow a lot of shenanigans. I could see blanket maneuvers being an issue, especially if new maneuvers get added to the game later.
If they were to alter battleforms to allow certain maneuvers, that seems more in line with their intended restrictions than just saying all maneuvers are on the table. That’s a pure guess and not my preferred outcome, but nonetheless.
No you don't sacrifice everything to the God of Balance. The game has to be interesting and full of flavour. Stopping animal forms from doing basic animal things is a game killer not a balance measure.
It could be argued that Athletics is there to allow climb, jump, and swim since animals are known for that.
They aready have those listed as speeds. So much of the use for Athletics there, well its sort of there still, but it is just not essential.
And while I’d love to say that I believe they intended to make it so battleforms can use any maneuver in while in them (and maybe stances), the interpretation that limits battleforms to not being able to use them for balance purposes is not out of the realm of RAI in my opinion, especially considering recent errata and other intended things.Battleforms were a problem in PF1. And I’m not saying that everything that was a problem in PF1 got overly nerfed in transition to PF2 (mostly it’s warranted where it was done) but battleforms being restricted as much as they are is certainly by design.
PF1 battle Forms where broken for a couple of very specifiy reasons. Things like +8 strength modifiers for size large, and Pounce attacks.
Very simple very unbalanced powers that could have easily been fixed without a major system change or anything else. PF1 problems in this area where simply because they refused to do simple errata to fix them.
Whether athletics checks are meant to be included or excluded is another matter, but the first run at battleforms was clearly to disallow a lot of shenanigans. I could see blanket maneuvers being an issue, especially if new maneuvers get added to the game later.
If they were to alter battleforms to allow certain maneuvers, that seems more in line with their intended restrictions than just saying all maneuvers are on the table. That’s a pure guess and not my preferred outcome, but nonetheless.
No you don't sacrifice everything to the God of Balance. The game has to be interesting and full of flavour. Stopping animal forms from doing basic animal things is a game killer not a balance measure.
PF1 polymorph issues have been a thing way before even PF1 because they’ve been present since Druids in 3.5 and Natural Spell existed.
Battleforms are balanced now is because of the restrictions on actions not because of pounce and abilityscores. Both of those were changed by proxy of how ability scores and action economy changed.
If that was all that was the problem, the “these are the only attacks you can make” wouldn’t even need to exist.
In addition, speeds only give you either climb or swim, not jump, and I think it’s fair to allow things without swim/climb speeds to perform those actions otherwise you get issues like drowning just because you’re polymorphed.
So there is still a need to use Athletics even if you can’t use the maneuvers.
And I also want animals to be able to do maneuvers and I didn’t write these rules. I do want animals/polymorphs/stances to be able to use maneuvers.
But I don’t know that Paizo would agree with that, because I’ve thought they would have agreed to finesse being attack roll compatible and that’s not the case either.
And one of the reasons I’m not sure they want maneuvers across the board is because this problem was brought up a while ago (previous errata thread I believe) so if they had a clear idea in mind of what they wanted to do, it would have been easy enough to make the pass in this errata.
It’s possible they didn’t see it in time, or just didn’t feel it was as big of an issue, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they just figured GMs can adjudicate because they don’t want to allow everything but do want to allow certain maneuvers (like escape).
And one of the reasons I’m not sure they want maneuvers across the board is because this problem was brought up a while ago (previous errata thread I believe) so if they had a clear idea in mind of what they wanted to do, it would have been easy enough to make the pass in this errata.
It’s possible they didn’t see it in time, or just didn’t feel it was as big of an issue, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they just figured GMs can adjudicate because they don’t want to allow everything but do want to allow certain maneuvers (like escape).
They have known about if for a long time now. The complaints on this forum have been loud and pretty much from the start. Like so many other major issues they have ignored them. Instead we get fixes like the attack roll debacle which fixed something obscure and causes more problems.
For the record, I've been complaining about it since January 30 this year in my guide, and SuperBidi mentioned in the forums on Feb 4 this year. Its been plenty public enough in the forums this year.
They aready have those listed as speeds. So much of the use for Athletics there, well its sort of there still, but it is just not essential.
Climb Speed: "You might still have to attempt Athletics checks to Climb in hazardous conditions, to Climb extremely difficult surfaces, or to cross horizontal planes such as ceilings. You can also choose to roll an Athletics check to Climb rather than accept an automatic success in hopes of getting a critical success. Your climb Speed grants you a +4 circumstance bonus to Athletics checks to Climb."
Swim Speed: "You might still have to attempt checks to Swim in hazardous conditions or to cross turbulent water. You can also choose to roll an Athletics check to Swim rather than accept an automatic success in hopes of getting a critical success. Your swim Speed grants you a +4 circumstance bonus to Athletics checks to Swim."
So the Skill is still important even if you have the speed.
So the Skill is still important even if you have the speed.
I made that point clear enough several posts back. Important - defintely no, but still relevant - yes.