For those who haven't heard, new errata just dropped. Discuss away!
Some of the stand out changes for me:
Held, Worn, and Stowed Items
Page 271: We've simplified the way we're handling characters carrying their gear so that you can define all your carried items in one of three categories. Replace the carrying and using items section with this text: "A character carries items in three ways: held, worn, and stowed. Held items are in your hands; a character typically has two hands, allowing them to hold an item in each hand or a single two-handed item using both hands. Worn items are tucked into pockets, belt pouches, bandoliers, weapon sheaths, and so forth, and they can be retrieved and returned relatively quickly. Stowed items are in a backpack or a similar container, and they are more difficult to access. Drawing a worn item or changing how you’re carrying an item usually requires you to use an Interact action (though to drop an item, you use the Release action instead). Table 6–2: Changing Equipment on page 273 lists some ways that you might change the items you’re holding or carrying, and the number of hands you need to do so. Many ways of using items require you to spend multiple actions. For example, drinking a potion worn at your belt requires using an Interact action to draw it and then using a second action to drink it as described in its Activate entry (page 532)."This change also removes several sorts of "container" items from the tables on 286-292, as they are no longer tracked separately from the items they store. These are: bandolier, belt pouch, satchel, scroll case, sheath, vial
Page 287 adds a paragraph on Wearing Tools: "You can make a set of tools (such as alchemist’s tools or healer’s tools) easier to use by wearing it. This allows you to draw and replace the tools as part of the action that uses them. You can wear up to 2 Bulk of tools in this manner; tools beyond this limit must be stowed or drawn with an Interact action to use." Fine clothing reduces that limit to light Bulk worth of tools.
This makes gear management SO much easier! When combined with the Battle Medicine and healers' tools errata, it goes a long ways towards clearing up some longstanding confusion.
Page 278: In critical hits, "When you make an attack and roll a natural 20...or if the result of your attack exceeds the target's AC by 10" was too broad a brush and thus slightly inaccurate for how to determine a critical hit, in an attempt to state the conditions succinctly. Replace the first section with "When you make an attack and succeed with a natural 20" so that's it's clear the natural 20 must succeed based on the total result in order to get a critical success.
So now if you roll a natural 20, but still fail to hit the AC, you do NOT get a critical hit. That seems like a fundamental change, which makes the 1/20 rules inconsistent. Nevertheless, if it comes up in play, your GM has already done something terribly wrong.
Pages 316-407 and 573: Damaging spells and items meant to harm PCs do way too much damage for your gear to survive if it could be targeted, so such spells almost never are supposed to be able to damage objects. A few target lines slipped by with "creatures or objects." Remove the ability to target or damage objects from acid splash, acid arrow, eclipse burst, polar ray, sunburst, fire ray, moon beam, force bolt, and the horn of blasting. Limit hydraulic push to "creatures and unattended objects."
So unless stated otherwise, you can't target objects with spells at all now. No burning down buildings with fireball or any other "crazy shenanigans." /snarc
Page 343: Even if you aren't a humanoid, you too can be a hero. In heroism, remove "humanoid" from the targets line so it just reads "1 creature"
LOL! XD
Page 345: Illusory disguise, a Perception check to disbelieve just happens, it isn't a free action, so change "attempt a Perception check to disbelieve the spell as a free action" to read "attempt an immediate Perception check to disbelieve the spell."
I can't seem to find the relevant text for this one. ???
|
Still nothing on battleforms
Page 205: In Drain Bonded Item, remove the unnecessary Requirement of "Your turn begins."
Nice, this restriction always felt pointless anyway.
Several classes were accidentally missing an important limitation for 10th level spells. In the following class features, add “You can’t use this spell slot for abilities that let you cast spells without expending spell slots or that give you more spell slots.”
Page 121: Miraculous Spell
Page 133: Primal Hierophant
Page 207: Archwizard's Spellcraft
I was right, wizards weren't supposed to be able to have that many 10ths.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
So now if you roll a natural 20, but still fail to hit the AC, you do NOT get a critical hit. That seems like a fundamental change, which makes the 1/20 rules inconsistent. Nevertheless, if it comes up in play, your GM has already done something terribly wrong.
This has always been the case. A natural 20 was never an automatic crit or even an automatic hit. it just improved the result of your roll by one step. If you crit fail on a nat 20 (level 1 hero attacking a level 20 dragon or something) it only upgrades your critfail to a normal fail.
Same goes the other way round for a natural 1. That level 20 dragon will hit (but not crit) the level 1 hero even on a natural 1.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So now if you roll a natural 20, but still fail to hit the AC, you do NOT get a critical hit. That seems like a fundamental change, which makes the 1/20 rules inconsistent. Nevertheless, if it comes up in play, your GM has already done something terribly wrong.This has always been the case. A natural 20 was never an automatic crit or even an automatic hit. it just improved the result of your roll by one step. If you crit fail on a nat 20 (level 1 hero attacking a level 20 dragon or something) it only upgrades your critfail to a normal fail.
Same goes the other way round for a natural 1. That level 20 dragon will hit (but not crit) the level 1 hero even on a natural 1.
Quite right. I misread things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was right, wizards weren't supposed to be able to have that many 10ths.Several classes were accidentally missing an important limitation for 10th level spells. In the following class features, add “You can’t use this spell slot for abilities that let you cast spells without expending spell slots or that give you more spell slots.”
Page 121: Miraculous Spell
Page 133: Primal Hierophant
Page 207: Archwizard's Spellcraft
The main awkwardness from this is that Cleric's Divine Font now caps out at 9th level. It's a minor nerf to heal focused Clerics, but more importantly weakens the top end of the damage curve for harm Clerics.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Page 278: In critical hits, "When you make an attack and roll a natural 20...or if the result of your attack exceeds the target's AC by 10" was too broad a brush and thus slightly inaccurate for how to determine a critical hit, in an attempt to state the conditions succinctly. Replace the first section with "When you make an attack and succeed with a natural 20" so that's it's clear the natural 20 must succeed based on the total result in order to get a critical success.So now if you roll a natural 20, but still fail to hit the AC, you do NOT get a critical hit. That seems like a fundamental change, which makes the 1/20 rules inconsistent. Nevertheless, if it comes up in play, your GM has already done something terribly wrong.
Actually it's not as rare as you think - a mook trying a third attack against your frontliner with shield raised will probably need that natural 20 to even hit.
But yeah, the correction to make things consistent is welcome.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Could some rules versed guy or lady please explain the implications on Battle Medicine in minute detail listing all relevant requirements and traits? I need some sanity check versus my own conclusions.
Thanks in advance.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Could some rules versed guy or lady please explain the implications on Battle Medicine in minute detail listing all relevant requirements and traits? I need some sanity check versus my own conclusions.
Thanks in advance.
AH... You need to be wearing/holding healers tools, have a free hand and make sure you hold the tools in your both hands while using the feat... Yeah, it makes less sense now post-errata. :P
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So magical staves can't have property runes. That's one way to settle all the questions about shifting staves. (It's a little sad that this also prevents things like a flaming staff of fire.)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Page 446: Attack Rolls. There was some confusion as to whether skill checks with the attack trait (such as Grapple or Trip) are also attack rolls at the same time. They are not. To make this clear, add this sentence to the beginning of the definition of attack roll "When you use a Strike action or make a spell attack, you attempt a check called an attack roll."
This is how it is but I don't really like it. This creates some weird stuff like A Grapple not benefitting from True Strike but a Grapple with Telekinetic Maneuver doing so.
It also really means you can't make a DEX-maneuver character by using Finesse Maneuver weapons (which might be good, making STR more important).I hope the balance is worth this exclusion.
Edit: While this might clear up some confusion about some rolls being both a skill check and an attack roll (which they are clearly not, now) it makes the trait name Attack now really badly chosen.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Could some rules versed guy or lady please explain the implications on Battle Medicine in minute detail listing all relevant requirements and traits? I need some sanity check versus my own conclusions.
Thanks in advance.
Well by RAW it now needs 2 free hands cos you need to draw the tools, which require 2 hands. No dispute about that.
Whether it's intended to only need 1 however...
All we can say is it no longer requires 0.
I believe that, by the rules, this actually removes font for clerics who can cast 10th level spells. I would house rule it to allow 9th level font though.
"You gain additional spell slots each day at your highest level of cleric spell slots."
(of course it's intended for 9th, but by the rules...)
And similar for wizards with drain bonded item.
So magical staves can't have property runes. That's one way to settle all the questions about shifting staves. (It's a little sad that this also prevents things like a flaming staff of fire.)
I see that the Magic Weapon spell now works on magical items, so it will work on magical staves. That's nice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Was there anything that's included in the Errata FAQ page, but not in the (2nd printing) PDF proper? The rulebook is so large so I'm having immense trouble with trying to find if anything listed was omitted by accident...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Upon a simple inspection, it seems that of the "Part 2" Errata listed as of writing this post, only the Alchemist's Medium Armor proficiency beyond 1st level was omitted in the change. Perhaps it was a last minute addition, then?
Still nothing on Snares, or any indication as to how much they weigh. Guess all those Arrows and bladed wheels and bear traps just come from Hammer Space then.
It's a shame about Staves being confirmed as Specific Magical weapons, but I can see the reasoning.
I like the change to held/worn/stowed. Simplifies things quite nicely.
Still wrapping my head around most of the other bits. I'll be interested to see how this thread (and the dozens of others that are all but guaranteed) develop.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Page 446: Attack Rolls. There was some confusion as to whether skill checks with the attack trait (such as Grapple or Trip) are also attack rolls at the same time. They are not. To make this clear, add this sentence to the beginning of the definition of attack roll "When you use a Strike action or make a spell attack, you attempt a check called an attack roll."This is how it is but I don't really like it. This creates some weird stuff like A Grapple not benefitting from True Strike but a Grapple with Telekinetic Maneuver doing so.
It also really means you can't make a DEX-maneuver character by using Finesse Maneuver weapons (which might be good, making STR more important).
I hope the balance is worth this exclusion.Edit: While this might clear up some confusion about some rolls being both a skill check and an attack roll (which they are clearly not, now) it makes the trait name Attack now really badly chosen.
So are maneuvers affected by MAP now? It says any action with the Attack trait increases MAP, but it only applies a penalty to attack rolls specifically.
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 do you get a -5 on your grapple/push attempt?
These alchemist changes are pretty interesting!
Also, it's sad that they removed all property runes from staves, not just shifting. Those missing elemental damage effects are going to hurt anyone building around staves.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm wondering why the errata "part 2" is split off, when "part 1" also contains lots of new entries that were not previously in the "Update 1.0" PDF document.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Page 446: Attack Rolls. There was some confusion as to whether skill checks with the attack trait (such as Grapple or Trip) are also attack rolls at the same time. They are not. To make this clear, add this sentence to the beginning of the definition of attack roll "When you use a Strike action or make a spell attack, you attempt a check called an attack roll."This is how it is but I don't really like it. This creates some weird stuff like A Grapple not benefitting from True Strike but a Grapple with Telekinetic Maneuver doing so.
It also really means you can't make a DEX-maneuver character by using Finesse Maneuver weapons (which might be good, making STR more important).
I hope the balance is worth this exclusion.Edit: While this might clear up some confusion about some rolls being both a skill check and an attack roll (which they are clearly not, now) it makes the trait name Attack now really badly chosen.
So are maneuvers affected by MAP now? It says any action with the Attack trait increases MAP, but it only applies a penalty to attack rolls specifically.
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 do you get a -5 on your grapple/push attempt?
It does seem like MAP will no longer apply to skill checks which is a little weird because if you grapple first, then your attack is penalized , but if you grapple second, that is a skill check so map doesn't apply
| 17 people marked this as a favorite. |
No One:
Paizo: We've decided to nerf Finesse Weapons in a super confusing way!
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I'm disappointed about the change between finesse and maneuver traits. How it originally was made picking a finesse weapon an interesting process.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Class Chapter (all spellcasting classes): Change the definition of cantrips to say "A cantrip is automatically heightened to half your level rounded up, which equals the highest-level of <Classname> spell slot you have." filling in the appropriate class name. This removes the ambiguities around the cantrip level of a non-spellcaster vs a multiclass spellcaster.I'm a little confused. Does it mean that a 4th level fighter with an ancestry cantrip can cast it at 2nd level but a 4th level fighter with basic casting multiclassing can cast his cantrips at 1st level only?
What about 2nd level Fighter with multiclass Spellcaster? Or a 4th level who doesn't get Basic Casting? What level are their cantrips???
What about 2nd level Fighter with multiclass Spellcaster? Or a 4th level who doesn't get Basic Casting? What level are their cantrips???Class Chapter (all spellcasting classes): Change the definition of cantrips to say "A cantrip is automatically heightened to half your level rounded up, which equals the highest-level of <Classname> spell slot you have." filling in the appropriate class name. This removes the ambiguities around the cantrip level of a non-spellcaster vs a multiclass spellcaster.I'm a little confused. Does it mean that a 4th level fighter with an ancestry cantrip can cast it at 2nd level but a 4th level fighter with basic casting multiclassing can cast his cantrips at 1st level only?
It would be weird if your cantrips are 2nd level at character level 3, but becomes 1st level again when you pick up basic casting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
RE: Maneuvers applying MAP as well as contributing to it
Page 449 in the CRB still says this
Sometimes a skill action can be an attack, and in these cases, the skill check might take a multiple attack penalty, as described on page 446.
The maneuver skill actions are still attacks even if they don't use attack rolls, so those skill checks must be what this passage is talking about.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
My biggest thing is why?
Were people complaining about Whips/Spiked Chain/Rapier/Sickle/Wolf Stance being overpowered?
Is it not intuitive that if you can Finesse with the weapon, and you can make a maneuver with a weapon, that it would follow that you can use that weapon dexterously to accomplish the maneuver?
Did Mirror Image need a buff against Maneuvers?
Who wanted this?
We've got Druids that can't escape grapples while they are Gorillas, but somehow this gets focus?
And for the love of god, there was no clearer way to make this change?
_____________
I'm excited for the Alchemist changes, but nerfing Spiked Chain again so the freaking Meteor Hammer can return to god-hood is annoying and I resent it.
SALT.
I hope there was some rational for future weapons/unarmed stances that caused this to be necessary because otherwise I'm not seeing any reasoning other than someone thought Finesse weapons/stances were too powerful (hard disagree).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My biggest thing is why?
Were people complaining about Whips/Spiked Chain/Rapier/Sickle/Wolf Stance being overpowered?
Is it not intuitive that if you can Finesse with the weapon, and you can make a maneuver with a weapon, that it would follow that you can use that weapon dexterously to accomplish the maneuver?
Did Mirror Image need a buff against Maneuvers?
Who wanted this?
We've got Druids that can't escape grapples while they are Gorillas, but somehow this gets focus?
And for the love of god, there was no clearer way to make this change?
_____________
I'm excited for the Alchemist changes, but nerfing Spiked Chain again so the freaking Meteor Hammer can return to god-hood is annoying and I resent it.
SALT.
I hope there was some rational for future weapons/unarmed stances that caused this to be necessary because otherwise I'm not seeing any reasoning other than someone thought Finesse weapons/stances were too powerful (hard disagree).
I'm also disappointed with the changes to finesse weapons. Being an agile warrior using a whip or spiked chain to trip people sounded super fun. It's still weaker than Str builds as the damage is lower (less Str and low weapon die). Not sure why Dex needed a further nerf
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Spiked Chain is literally a worse version of Meteor Hammer now. The only incentive to use it was that it is a Finesse Weapon that had Disarm and Trip as traits.
Meteor Hammer has both of those and reach and backswing, and if you're using DEX, you can't take advantage of the Maneuver traits really without pumping STR.
You're literally better off using another finesse weapon or just going STR now. I guess the Uncommon Trait makes sense now, because who the heck would want to use it?
I need to give myself a time out. The more I evaluate it, the more I hate it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am not sure it is actually a change for finesse weapons, I don't think they were ever supposed to be using your Dex instead of Str for maneuvers. I don't remember anyone saying by RAW that is how it was ever supposed to work.
My interpretation of the rules was always that STR was needing for "maneuver builds" no matter what weapon. With a 14 starting STR you will just be at a -1 anyway past level 4 anyway.
I read the errata and not sure how much things will really change for our games but it is nice things explained more clearly.
Main thing I am worried about is battle medicine seems like it was nerfed with these changes as far as I can tell. Since a player will need two hands free to use the tools so it will be much more action intense.
I know this isn't a video game and balancing isn't as simple, but I am glad they buffed the Alchemist a bit. It would be nice if they added more "balance changes". Would love a TTRPG that is 100% online so that it could be balanced more freely.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hope it's okay to repost my thoughts here.
I know this is a very RAW discussion and intent is very hard to glean, (and I also recognize that some parts of the errata are currently pretty messy so who knows at this point,) but I've kind of made it a small mission to remind people that PF2 isn't an electronic product with hardcoded rules and suggest what I think would be reasonable interpretations for home tables. I'm not aiming to downplay the frustrations of PFS players who may be more subject to RAW, or imply that there should be less discussion about rules and errata that should be officially cleaned up someday.
I don't really know what to say about multiclass cantrips yet since I can't look at all of the text (though I believe innate spells and cantrips work differently?). Alchemist armor proficiency always includes medium armor, they just forgot to add the text to the upgrades in the printing. The change to Alchemical Alacrity makes little sense without either Enduring Alchemy or the stowed item being able to persist longer than the others by default (because it's not as exposed to the air or something), so people who find giving the free feat(ure) to avoid a tax too much could consider the second possibility, maybe giving it an extra round.
And I'm probably forgetting things to address, but you get the picture — go for pleasant interpretations that don't seem to impede others if you can.
You're literally better off using another finesse weapon or just going STR now. I guess the Uncommon Trait makes sense now, because who the heck would want to use it?
Rogues and Swashbucklers maybe.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're literally better off using another finesse weapon or just going STR now. I guess the Uncommon Trait makes sense now, because who the heck would want to use it?Rogues and Swashbucklers maybe.
Except no, not really, because it's a d8 weapon that has no incentives for use except it is Finesse.
Rapier has deadly, Shortsword has Agile, etc. It's basically as bad as it was in PF1, which was sad (don't get me wrong, it was too strong on 3.5, but it got walloped). And those are 1 handed, Spiked Chain is 2 and Uncommon....
Agile alone makes up the 1 average damage of Spiked Chain.
EDIT: Forgot about Elven Curveblade which has Finesse and Forceful, so yeah, literally 0 reasons to use it unless you really have some kind of absolute obsession for Flails over Swords for Critical Specialization. Doesn't make up for Forceful in the slightest IMO.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am not sure it is actually a change for finesse weapons, I don't think they were ever supposed to be using your Dex instead of Str for maneuvers. I don't remember anyone saying by RAW that is how it was ever supposed to work.
My interpretation of the rules was always that STR was needing for "maneuver builds" no matter what weapon. With a 14 starting STR you will just be at a -1 anyway past level 4 anyway.
I read the errata and not sure how much things will really change for our games but it is nice things explained more clearly.
Main thing I am worried about is battle medicine seems like it was nerfed with these changes as far as I can tell. Since a player will need two hands free to use the tools so it will be much more action intense.
I know this isn't a video game and balancing isn't as simple, but I am glad they buffed the Alchemist a bit. It would be nice if they added more "balance changes". Would love a TTRPG that is 100% online so that it could be balanced more freely.
Yeah, I also never interpreted finesse builds the way some people ITT are. I'm pretty confused by the fact that there's any semblance of an outrage to be honest.
Is there a different location to see the errata. The website isn't showing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well by RAW it now needs 2 free hands cos you need to draw the tools, which require 2 hands. No dispute about that.
Whether it's intended to only need 1 however...
All we can say is it no longer requires 0.
How relevant this is, IDK, but Paizo has been stressing that the BB does not have any rules that are different from the CRB.
In the Cleric chapter, 2nd-Level Cleric Class Features
Battle Medicine
You know how to quickly heal your allies with Medicine. Write "Battle Medicine" in the Level 2 box in the Class section of your character sheet.Battle Medicine [reaction]
You can patch up wounds with your healer's tools and a free hand. Attempt a DC 15 Medicine check to heal yourself or an ally for 2d8 Hit Points. If you become an expert in Medicine, you can instead attempt a DC 20 Medicine check to heal for 2d8+10 Hit Points. You can heal a particular person only once each day with Battle Medicine.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I also never interpreted finesse builds the way some people ITT are. I'm pretty confused by the fact that there's any semblance of an outrage to be honest.I am not sure it is actually a change for finesse weapons, I don't think they were ever supposed to be using your Dex instead of Str for maneuvers. I don't remember anyone saying by RAW that is how it was ever supposed to work.
My interpretation of the rules was always that STR was needing for "maneuver builds" no matter what weapon. With a 14 starting STR you will just be at a -1 anyway past level 4 anyway.
I read the errata and not sure how much things will really change for our games but it is nice things explained more clearly.
Main thing I am worried about is battle medicine seems like it was nerfed with these changes as far as I can tell. Since a player will need two hands free to use the tools so it will be much more action intense.
I know this isn't a video game and balancing isn't as simple, but I am glad they buffed the Alchemist a bit. It would be nice if they added more "balance changes". Would love a TTRPG that is 100% online so that it could be balanced more freely.
If they needed to add errata then obviously there was a strong enough argument for finesse weapons letting you use dex for skill attacks.
The first time I read the finesse trait in the final core rulebook printing my very first thought was about how it affects trip because of the whip. Just because you didn't see the connection, doesn't mean that other interpretations were wrong.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Only adds, in my mind, the need for either a class or skill feat that lets you use Dex for Maneuvers when you use Finesse weapons. I'd prefer it as a skill feat; I think the application is narrow enough to not be overpowered, but if class I'd like both Monks and Swashbucklers to get it, and arguably Rogues and Bards. Possibly fighters, though it is only a partial fit for their style, same with Rangers.
Only adds, in my mind, the need for either a class or skill feat that lets you use Dex for Maneuvers when you use Finesse weapons. I'd prefer it as a skill feat; I think the application is narrow enough to not be overpowered, but if class I'd like both Monks and Swashbucklers to get it, and arguably Rogues and Bards. Possibly fighters, though it is only a partial fit for their style, same with Rangers.
While I would rather have the capability to just be a baseline character decision, I wouldn't be against this. I just want to see a character able to use their dexterity more than their brute force to Judo throw their opponents around. It's a relatively popular character archetype after all, and it would be a shame if it was either impossible, or required a Hyper specific character build to achieve.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Animated Paper
That sounds like a straight up tax given how many people though it was already a benefit.
Correct, it effectively would be a feat tax.
Changing the finesse trait to render said feat obsolete would be my preference as well, but if they're not going to do that for at least a year, a new feat sounds like the fastest way to get those builds back online.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
most people have been using the maneuvers with finesse weapons to use Dex (myself included)
but tbf Mark had said quite a bit ago that he didn't agree with that reading and it was on the errata list, so it didn't came as a surpise to me.
now if it is a change for the better or for worse only time will tell at this point, but for sure their intention was to restrict maneuvers to Str.
Given that atheltics is the only Str based skill, i'm personally not that upset that they want to keep it strictly Strength based.
What was the reasoning on why his reading was "good"?
It's not like these weapons allowed blanket every single maneuver, they allowed specific maneuvers and only in combination with Finesse.
____________________________
As for printing feats to solve a problem that didn't exist for a great deal of tables, yeah I guess. If you had released the Skill Feat with the errata, then I'd have probably said nothing, but now what? We wait til some random book comes out that solves our problems.
So the dextrous monk can actually be good at using maneuvers or the whip/spiked chain can be less than a waste of space in the equipment section?
Because I know when I picture a Swashbuckler using their Rapier to Disarm someone, I imagine them ripping it out of their hands with the strength of Hulk and not a quick twisting of the blade to jostle it loose from their grip (you know, like the iconic duel between Wesley and Inigo...)