Errata Part 2 Discussion Thread

[graystone]

Squiggit wrote:

Well, you were right at the time. No way to predict the future.

I know the feeling though. One of my players ran a Magus whose build was designed around using a shifting staff as her primary weapon. Final impressions of the class would have been pretty different if we had known that wasn't supposed to be a thing at the time.

LOL Well we never got a definitive answer if they could actually use staves for spells under their 4 slots so basing impressions off of staff use was iffy at best before this. I wasn't a fan of 'chasing the dragon' for the next true strike fix magus builds that where built around item use for true strike so this doesn't really alter my thoughts on the class.

[The Gleeful Grognard]

Ravingdork wrote:

The only issue with this argument is that if you don't have access to a particular item, you probably don't have access to its respective formula.

Inventor feat and or disassembling existing items. My party leveled to 10 and had a +2 item but no way of accessing 4 other +2 runes. So disassembling the item and then crafting a bunch was more than doable for the party crafter.

Squiggit wrote:

Well, you were right at the time. No way to predict the future.

I know the feeling though. One of my players ran a Magus whose build was designed around using a shifting staff as her primary weapon. Final impressions of the class would have been pretty different if we had known that wasn't supposed to be a thing at the time.

Was that ever RAW though? Specific weapons cannot have property runes if I recall correctly.

[Temperans]

Before the errata people were not sure because magic staffs were not labeled as "Specific Weapons".

Not its settled that it doesn't work.

[Ravingdork]

I wonder if they only "fixed" the shifting rune working with staves BECAUSE of the new Magus class.

It wouldn't be the first time Paizo nerfed an existing rule to rebalance or increase the value of a new product.

[TiwazBlackhand]

Honestly this errata had left me really confused about how Map works.

I make three attacks with a non-agile weapon, they go 0/-5/-10

I make three attacks with an agile weapon, they go 0/-4/-8

Please explain these scenarios.

A) I trip 3 times.
B1) I trip once then attack twice with a non-agile weapon
B2) I trip once then attack twice with an agile weapon.
C) I attack twice with a non-agile weapon then make my third attack with an agile weapon.
D) I attack twice with an agile weapon and then trip.

[Amaya/Polaris]

A) I trip 3 times. 0/-5/-10
B1) I trip once then attack twice with a non-agile weapon. 0/-5/-10
B2) I trip once then attack twice with an agile weapon. 0/-4/-8
C) I attack twice with a non-agile weapon then make my third attack with an agile weapon. 0/-5/-8
D) I attack twice with an agile weapon and then trip. 0/-4/-10

Does that clear things up for you?

[TiwazBlackhand]

Alfa/Polaris wrote:

A) I trip 3 times. 0/-5/-10

B1) I trip once then attack twice with a non-agile weapon. 0/-5/-10
B2) I trip once then attack twice with an agile weapon. 0/-4/-8
C) I attack twice with a non-agile weapon then make my third attack with an agile weapon. 0/-5/-8
D) I attack twice with an agile weapon and then trip. 0/-4/-10

Does that clear things up for you?

That's how i thought it worked, but I've seen a number of things saying Map doesn't apply to maneuvers like trip and shove because they're skill checks.

[Amaya/Polaris]

That was how a few people briefly thought they worked by the nitty-gritty of the rules, but they're skill checks that are still attacks, so they contribute to and suffer from MAP. By the spirit of the rules, it was always pretty clear that they should contribute to and suffer from MAP because multiple feats provide benefits as if that's the case.

What changed, or was clarified, is that the skill check doesn't simultaneously count as an attack roll (those are Strikes and spell attacks), which means that things which interact specifically with attack rolls don't interact with maneuvers.

[TwilightKnight]

I believe that Mark clarified that MAP applies to anything with the attack trait. Those maneuvers may be skill checks, but they have the attack trait. So they affect and are affected by MAP.

[Zapp]

TiwazBlackhand wrote:

Honestly this errata had left me really confused about how Map works.

I make three attacks with a non-agile weapon, they go 0/-5/-10

I make three attacks with an agile weapon, they go 0/-4/-8

Please explain these scenarios.

A) I trip 3 times.
B1) I trip once then attack twice with a non-agile weapon
B2) I trip once then attack twice with an agile weapon.
C) I attack twice with a non-agile weapon then make my third attack with an agile weapon.
D) I attack twice with an agile weapon and then trip.

The fundamental rule is that MAP is never based on previous actions. You never need to remember what your previous attacks did or didn't do (as long as they increase MAP). That is you never go "so first I got -4 and then I got another -5 so now my MAP is -9".

It's always: "if my second attack is agile that's -4" and "if my third attack is not agile that's -10".

With this in mind I hope your confusion is dispelled:

A) 0 -5 -10
B1) 0 -5 -10
B2) 0 -4 -8
C) 0 -5 -8 (not -9)
D) 0 -4 -10

Another way of thinking about this is that the "hidden variable" that you keep in your mind is ONLY the number of times the MAP has increased, not by how much.

Then when the time comes to apply the MAP, you simply calculate the proper penalty for your type of attack.

If a regular attack this number is either -5 or -10.
If an agile attack this number is either -4 or -8.
If a Ranger with a marked enemy it might be -3 or -6...
...or it might be -2 or -4.

And so on. These numbers never depend on previous numbers. It's only whether the MAP has not increased (0), increased once (normally -5) or increased more than once (normally -10).

[Bardarok]

Has there been a clarification on if Agile is supposed to work with maneuvers yet? The text just says attack not attack roll but since clearly finesse was not intended to apply maybe agile isn't either.

[PossibleCabbage]

What was the issue intended to be fixed with the maneuver change? Just that it was too easy to use them if you could eschew strength and use a finesse weapon?

[Midnightoker]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

What was the issue intended to be fixed with the maneuver change? Just that it was too easy to use them if you could eschew strength and use a finesse weapon?

I think the bigger issue was True Strike and Inspire Courage working with Maneuvers since they applied to attack rolls.

Finesse was just written in the same way, so it was caught in the crossfire.

Another possible reason is probably future-proofing to prevent accidental interactions with Maneuvers that may not have been intended to work with Finesse, I.E. Grapple and Shove.

Now, personally, I wouldn't be too worried about a Finesse Shove weapon, as that's probably within the realm of reason narratively, mechanically, and reasonably (IMO of course).

But, with that said, if for some reason a Grapple + Finesse weapon ever became a thing, that would definitely be a problem. Currently the only weapons that have Finesse and a Maneuver trait are Trip and Disarm (that I know of, perhaps APs have others) but it does raise the concern long term. I think it would have made more sense to just never give a Grapple weapon the Finesse Trait, but that's me.

Now that I've defended the potential reasoning: Thanks. I hate it.

[TiwazBlackhand]

Bardarok wrote:

Has there been a clarification on if Agile is supposed to work with maneuvers yet? The text just says attack not attack roll but since clearly finesse was not intended to apply maybe agile isn't either.

Based both on the finesse 'clarification' and the swashbuckler "agile maneuvers" feat, i would guess using and agile trip weapon does not give the trip maneuver ther benefit of agile.

[Ravingdork]

I mentioned the whole errata clarification in regards to maneuvers not benefiting from the Finesse trait to my three play groups.

Without exception, everyone in all three groups took the stance "People actually believed you could use your Dexterity modifier with maneuvers?"

So I guess we're not going to be too effected by this change, as (apparently) we didn't think it worked that way to begin with.

I wonder if the belief is largely just limited to the folks of these forums, or with people coming from older editions.

[Midnightoker]

TiwazBlackhand wrote:

Bardarok wrote:

Has there been a clarification on if Agile is supposed to work with maneuvers yet? The text just says attack not attack roll but since clearly finesse was not intended to apply maybe agile isn't either.

Based both on the finesse 'clarification' and the swashbuckler "agile maneuvers" feat, i would guess using and agile trip weapon does not give the trip maneuver ther benefit of agile.

One could argue that Agile Maneuvers applies to all maneuvers and whether or not you are wielding the weapon at all, which doesn't necessarily make it "less powerful" since you would need a weapon with both Agile and the trait to gain a similar benefit.

But more than likely, it is probably RAI that it does not apply.

Ravingdork wrote:

I mentioned the whole errata clarification in regards to maneuvers not benefiting from the Finesse trait to my three play groups.

Without exception, everyone in all three groups took the stance "People actually believed you could use your Dexterity modifier with maneuvers?"

So I guess we're not going to be too effected by this change, as (apparently) we didn't think it worked that way to begin with.

I wonder if the belief is largely just limited to the folks of these forums, or with people coming from older editions.

Anyone in the playtest who read the Dev comment that said it works that way probably does as well.

Also, it's not super outlandish to arrive at that conclusion when you consider how awful the Wolf Stance, Prehensile Hair, Whip and Spiked Chain became as a result of that ruling.

[Bardarok]

Ravingdork wrote:

I mentioned the whole errata clarification in regards to maneuvers not benefiting from the Finesse trait to my three play groups.

Without exception, everyone in all three groups took the stance "People actually believed you could use your Dexterity modifier with maneuvers?"

So I guess we're not going to be too effected by this change, as (apparently) we didn't think it worked that way to begin with.

I wonder if the belief is largely just limited to the folks of these forums, or with people coming from older editions.

Yeah a lot of the confidence in that interpretation was based on a devs comment in a facebook group during the playtest. So it's probably much more prevalent amongst the types of people who are likely to be aware of a devs comment on a facebook group during the playtest aka forum goers and nerds amongst nerds.

[AnimatedPaper]

I was surprised at first as well, but now that people have explained their logic and about the developer comment, it makes more sense.

[PossibleCabbage]

I think one thing is that you should never be able to finesse a shove or grapple maneuver. But you should be able to finesse a trip or a disarm if you are good at that sort of thing.

So this is probably a thing we can fix with feats.

[Midnightoker]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think one thing is that you should never be able to finesse a shove or grapple maneuver. But you should be able to finesse a trip or a disarm if you are good at that sort of thing.

So this is probably a thing we can fix with feats.

I'd love for it to be an Expert Athletics Skill Feat, just so it's not Class locked, but given Agile Maneuvers I doubt I'll get my wish.

[Unicore]

The weird part of agile and weapon traits to me is that, if it doesn't apply to the athletics checks, then you benefit from it if you maneuver than attack, but not attack and then Maneuver?

That feels particularly arbitrary to me, especially with the wording specifically not mentioning attack rolls. I may be wrong about that, but Mark was pretty quick to correct a lot of other confusion around attacks vs attack rolls, so if it is intended for agile to only apply to attack rolls and not attacks it would be nice to get some clarity on that. The RAI here does not seem very clear to me if it is not just the RAW, but I also didn't see the finesse change coming either.

[AnimatedPaper]

Agreed. If it isn't intended that maneuvers done through an Agile weapon benefits from that trait, then I think they should. It makes sense conceptually and doesn't involve swapping stats, which is a much steeper hill to climb, and would still leave room for the Agile Maneuvers feat, as the feat would free this from being weapon dependent.

[NECR0G1ANT]

Midnightoker wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think one thing is that you should never be able to finesse a shove or grapple maneuver. But you should be able to finesse a trip or a disarm if you are good at that sort of thing.

So this is probably a thing we can fix with feats.

I'd love for it to be an Expert Athletics Skill Feat, just so it's not Class locked, but given Agile Maneuvers I doubt I'll get my wish.

Since using DEX for finesse maneuver weapons would mean substituting one Ability Score for another, I doubt there will ever be any such class or skill feat in official release. Which is a shame.

In general, the designers are reluctant to allow that sort of thing for balance reasons. (Thief Rogues, finesse weapons, and Streetwise being exceptions). That's why Investigators didn't get Int to Perception, for instance.

[Midnightoker]

NECR0G1ANT wrote:

Midnightoker wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think one thing is that you should never be able to finesse a shove or grapple maneuver. But you should be able to finesse a trip or a disarm if you are good at that sort of thing.

So this is probably a thing we can fix with feats.

I'd love for it to be an Expert Athletics Skill Feat, just so it's not Class locked, but given Agile Maneuvers I doubt I'll get my wish.

Since using DEX for finesse maneuver weapons would mean substituting one Ability Score for another, I doubt there will ever be any such class or skill feat in official release. Which is a shame.

In general, the designers are reluctant to allow that sort of thing for balance reasons. (Thief Rogues, finesse weapons, and Streetwise being exceptions). That's why Investigators didn't get Int to Perception, for instance.

To be clear, I am speaking about substituing DEX to Trip and Disarm, not to an entire Skill Check.

And Courtly Graces does exactly that:

Quote:

Courtly GracesFeat 1

GeneralSkill
Source Core Rulebook pg. 260 2.0
Prerequisites trained in Society
You were raised among the nobility or have learned proper etiquette and bearing, allowing you to present yourself as a noble and play games of influence and politics. You can use Society to Make an Impression on a noble, as well as with Impersonate to pretend to be a noble if you aren’t one. If you want to impersonate a specific noble, you still need to use Deception to Impersonate normally, and to Lie when necessary.

And that's a level 1 Skill Feat that's accessible with a background.

Also, if we're honest, if a good portion of your community is already playing with that houserule and a good deal of them plan to ignore it (I particularly will until some alleviation comes and Reddit seems to have leaned that way as well, though anecdotal) then is it really so bad to give the people a compromise? It's not free and it represents training in a Skill.

Let's look at another example, which is indeed a Class Feat, but IMO it's better than the proposed Skill Feat:

Quote:

Scout's Charge Two Actions
Archetype Scout
Prerequisites Scout Dedication

You meander around unpredictably, and then ambush your opponents without warning. Choose one enemy. Stride, Feint against that opponent, and then make a Strike against that foe. For your Feint, you can attempt a Stealth check instead of the Deception check that's usually required, because you use the terrain around you to catch your foe off-guard.

Not only is this a 3 banger, because you get 3 actions for 2, but you can use your Stealth check instead of Deception (not only an Ability Score replacement, but an investment silo reduction and a CRAZY powerful ability).

So they already are doing that and then some with Class Feats IMO.

I've been wrong before, but them going the Class Feat route for the issue of no-DEX to trip and disarm seems inevitable in some form.

[PossibleCabbage]

The gymnast swashbuckler does need some fixing, since if as it stands you can't start with a maximized strength (as your class ability score remains dex) but your style specific options to gaining panache are "trip, grapple, disarm, or shove". Considering we already have an example of a subclass almost completely obsoleting an entire stat (the thief rogue), letting a gymnast swashbuckler use their main stat on 2 of the 4 things they're supposed to be doing seems reasonable.

[Midnightoker]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

The gymnast swashbuckler does need some fixing, since if as it stands you can't start with a maximized strength (as your class ability score remains dex) but your style specific options to gaining panache are "trip, grapple, disarm, or shove". Considering we already have an example of a subclass almost completely obsoleting an entire stat (the thief rogue), letting a gymnast swashbuckler use their main stat on 2 of the 4 things they're supposed to be doing seems reasonable.

I think the argument opposed is none of the Swashbuckler's get max-stat Panache in their secondary.

It's either CHA or it's STR for the Gymnast.

Now, IMO, I think the consequences for the Gymnast are the worst of all the Styles because Fort/Reflex are usually good saves and CHA has so much value as an "invested" stat in general (not that STR doesn't, but being a Fencer means you can Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Deception).

Not to mention Braggart's panache failure effect is zilch, Battledancer is zilch, Wit gets a "buy one get one free", and Fencer (who arguably has it just as bad) gets to go against Will saves.

The most reliable and best way to trigger Panache for a Swashbuckler is always Acrobatics to Tumble Through.

So from that perspective, even though I made the argument Gymnast got punched in the Gut, and I think they did a bit, the Gymnast might have had the strongest "gut" of the bunch.

Regardless, as a DEX primary, Swashbuckler (no matter the Style) got hit by this pretty hard, but maybe Gymnast deserved it a bit.

[Staffan Johansson]

Midnightoker wrote:

NECR0G1ANT wrote:

In general, the designers are reluctant to allow that sort of thing for balance reasons. (Thief Rogues, finesse weapons, and Streetwise being exceptions). That's why Investigators didn't get Int to Perception, for instance.

To be clear, I am speaking about substituing DEX to Trip and Disarm, not to an entire Skill Check.

And Courtly Graces does exactly that:

Quote:

Courtly GracesFeat 1

GeneralSkill
Source Core Rulebook pg. 260 2.0
Prerequisites trained in Society
You were raised among the nobility or have learned proper etiquette and bearing, allowing you to present yourself as a noble and play games of influence and politics. You can use Society to Make an Impression on a noble, as well as with Impersonate to pretend to be a noble if you aren’t one. If you want to impersonate a specific noble, you still need to use Deception to Impersonate normally, and to Lie when necessary.

And that's a level 1 Skill Feat that's accessible with a background.

Note that Courtly Graces doesn't let you substitute Intelligence for Charisma. It lets you substitute Society for certain uses of Diplomacy and Deception.

Come to think of it, while the game is reluctant to directly allow substituting one ability score for another, it is far less reluctant to allow substituting one skill for another, even if that skill uses a different ability score. You have Courtly Graces above, there's Streetwise, there's the chirurgeon alchemist's ability to use Crafting instead of Medicine, and probably some other cases. Heck, if you use a generous definition you could even include Escape (normally an unarmed attack, but you can also use Athletics or Acrobatics).

With that in mind, I think the solution for those who want to use Dexterity to Trip or Disarm would be an Acrobatics skill feat, allowing you to use that skill to do those things. Or maybe Acrobatics to Trip and Thievery to Disarm (which would probably be a class feat since it works with two skills, or be two separate feats). Similarly, I could see a feat that lets you use Thievery to Seek when searching for objects.

[Arachnofiend]

Literally the entire Investigator class is built around substituting one ability score for another. That ship has sailed.

[Deadmanwalking]

Arachnofiend wrote:

Literally the entire Investigator class is built around substituting one ability score for another. That ship has sailed.

Yes, but not without cost and not outside of combat. You need to spend an extra action to substitute Int, and sometimes you effectively can't even do that (if you roll low, basically). Devise Stratagem is good and powerful, but it is not by an means a free substition, in terms of what it takes to make it work in play.

[Captain Morgan]

Midnightoker wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

The gymnast swashbuckler does need some fixing, since if as it stands you can't start with a maximized strength (as your class ability score remains dex) but your style specific options to gaining panache are "trip, grapple, disarm, or shove". Considering we already have an example of a subclass almost completely obsoleting an entire stat (the thief rogue), letting a gymnast swashbuckler use their main stat on 2 of the 4 things they're supposed to be doing seems reasonable.

I think the argument opposed is none of the Swashbuckler's get max-stat Panache in their secondary.

It's either CHA or it's STR for the Gymnast.

Now, IMO, I think the consequences for the Gymnast are the worst of all the Styles because Fort/Reflex are usually good saves and CHA has so much value as an "invested" stat in general (not that STR doesn't, but being a Fencer means you can Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Deception).

Not to mention Braggart's panache failure effect is zilch, Battledancer is zilch, Wit gets a "buy one get one free", and Fencer (who arguably has it just as bad) gets to go against Will saves.

The most reliable and best way to trigger Panache for a Swashbuckler is always Acrobatics to Tumble Through.

So from that perspective, even though I made the argument Gymnast got punched in the Gut, and I think they did a bit, the Gymnast might have had the strongest "gut" of the bunch.

Regardless, as a DEX primary, Swashbuckler (no matter the Style) got hit by this pretty hard, but maybe Gymnast deserved it a bit.

I think Swasbucklers just need strength, to be honest, and that's OK. They use it for damage, they use it for maneuvers, and they use it for jumping around. You can make feats that let you work around some of that, but probably not all of it.

[Midnightoker]

Staffan Johansson wrote:

Note that Courtly Graces doesn't let you substitute Intelligence for Charisma. It lets you substitute Society for certain uses of Diplomacy and Deception.

I guess this wasn't clear, but that's exactly my point. However they want to slice it out, having Trip/Disarm (which are specific skill actions) work with DEX isn't OP.

In fact, it's actually more powerful to grant the use of a Skill via another Skill because it allows Skill siloing.

Making sure that those that want to be good at Athletics are actively investing in Athletics seems fair to me, allowing them to ignore it completely and silo Acrobatics is more powerful for the Swashbuckler than a Skill Feat that allows DEX instead of STR on two actions (Trip/Disarm) since by definition they have to invest even less to be good at the two things they were going to be doing most often in the Athletics column anyways (being able to cherry pick two of the best actions and not invest is good).

The Performance sub on Bard is a solid get too, since it not only allows you to use Performance for some of the best action, but also qualify for Skill Feats associated with those actions with Perform proficiency.

Captain Morgan wrote:

I think Swasbucklers just need strength, to be honest, and that's OK. They use it for damage, they use it for maneuvers, and they use it for jumping around. You can make feats that let you work around some of that, but probably not all of it.

Sure, in general, Athletics seems like something they should have and be doing.

I don't really think the restriction applying to DEX based Monks, Rogues, and various other DEX Primaries is necessarily fair.

And if we're speaking conceptually, being able to Dexterously Trip and Disarm is represented enough in pop culture that it's not only not hard to conceptualize, I'd argue it's easier to conceptualize specifically because the archetypes of people that exemplify doing those actions represent them as "dexterous" actions.

Which to be honest is why the Disarm/Trip actions are on a lot of Finesse weapons in the first place, because their concepts are heavily coupled.

[NECR0G1ANT]

I'm doubt that there will ever be an option to allow the substitution for DEX to Trip and Disarm.

Here's a list of skill feats to swap one skill for another specific skill action in 2E:

Acrobatic Performer
Bardic Lore, restricted to Enigma Bards
Courtly Graces
Impressive Performance
Streetwise
Versatile Performance, restricted to Polymath Bards

List of Class Features/Class Paths that swap out one skill for another specific skill action:

Bardic Lore
Chirugeon Research Field
Versatile Performance

List of Class Features that swap out one ability score for another:

Thief Racket
Devise a Stratagem

There are no skill feats that swap one Ability Score for another. Based on that, the only likely official way to get something like DEX-to-Trip/Disarm for a swashbuckler would be a new class feature, a new style or errata'ing the existing Gymnast style to be different than every other style.

There might be a skill feat that allow Acrobatics for Trip, which would be more in-line with other skill feats. But then Gymnast Swashbucklers would only need Dexterity and Acrobatics, something the designers avoided for every other style.

TLDR, there won't be DEX-to-maneuvers skill feats or class features.

The rules would be more elegant if DEX-to-maneuvers were permitted by weapon traits.

[AnimatedPaper]

Athletic Strategist lets you use intelligence for Athletic maneuver checks under certain conditions as well.

Also, at what point do we send for an old priest and a young priest to work on Paizo's website?

[PawnJJ]

Acrobat archetype lets you use acrobatics in place of athletics for a trip attack at level 10. But you can only do it once a minute and you have to have already succeeded at a tumble through.

Paizo obviously doesn't want at will dex for maneuvers.

[Midnightoker]

NECR0G1ANT wrote:

The rules would be more elegant if DEX-to-maneuvers were permitted by weapon traits.

Here I agree.

The best way to balance not letting someone abuse DEX to a maneuver is to force them to use weapons that allow it to work together so you can control:

1. What damage die they can deal

2. How many hands are occupied

3. What other abilities they are capable of (critical specialization effects for instance)

4. Still require significant investment and training/access to the weapon inn question

...

By tethering Finesse + Maneuver to the weapons themselves, you're essentially limiting the circumstances for "breaking" the Ability Score application by limiting multiple windows at once. Not to mention, most of those weapons weren't causing any problems (and I'd argue some of them are now pointless as a result).

But alas, it doesn't sound like it's going to happen.

[TwilightKnight]

In my home games, weapons with the finesse and trip or disarm traits can use Acrobatics instead of Athletics to perform those maneuvers if they wish. I see no problem with it. YMMV

[Midnightoker]

TwilightKnight wrote:

In my home games, weapons with the finesse and trip or disarm traits can use Acrobatics instead of Athletics to perform those maneuvers if they wish. I see no problem with it. YMMV

Are you concerned that Swashbucklers/Rogue would be too strong from skill funneling?

[NECR0G1ANT]

TwilightKnight wrote:

In my home games, weapons with the finesse and trip or disarm traits can use Acrobatics instead of Athletics to perform those maneuvers if they wish. I see no problem with it. YMMV

Then Gymnast Swashbucklers wouldn't really need anything besides DEX and Acrobatics to gain panache, unlike every other style. So this rule makes one Class Path far more SAD than others.

Whether or not this is a problem is indeed YMMV.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

NECR0G1ANT wrote:

TwilightKnight wrote:

In my home games, weapons with the finesse and trip or disarm traits can use Acrobatics instead of Athletics to perform those maneuvers if they wish. I see no problem with it. YMMV

Then Gymnast Swashbucklers wouldn't really need anything besides DEX and Acrobatics to gain panache, unlike every other style. So this rule makes one Class Path far more SAD than others.

Whether or not this is a problem is indeed YMMV.

Athletics is still valuable for climbing, swimming, and jumping, the latter especially in combat.

I don't really see a problem with this when there are opportunity costs for "siloing" skills in this manner, compared to even Unified Theory. It would have to be an issue if not investing in Strength and Athletics has no other apparent downside besides what the player is looking to gain.

[TwilightKnight]

Midnightoker wrote:

Are you concerned that Swashbucklers/Rogue would be too strong from skill funneling?

No, because I add a wide array of play elements to my campaigns. The more hyper focused a character is, the less effective they will be most of the time. My players are told this from the beginning. I have complete control over the environment so you don’t need to have ultramaximized abilities. I will adjust to the PCs. Unlike org p,any where I have to RAW. Also, if we find some character build or collection of abilities results in an OP character, we can dial it back to control power creep.

[Invictus Novo]

I may be missing something obvious on this, but I'm confused as to how much a character can carry as "worn items" now. I see the limit of only 2 bulk of tools, but nothing else. So, could I wear say...68 potions and 29 scrolls (assuming I have the bulk capacity overall)? Seems unrealistic, but I'm curious if there is a ruling I'm missing.

[graystone]

Invictus Novo wrote:

So, could I wear say...68 potions and 29 scrolls (assuming I have the bulk capacity overall)?

Yes, yes you can. They all fit in your pockets now...

[Deadmanwalking]

Only the GM saying no. Same as that was all that prevented wearing 27 bandoliers before the change.

[graystone]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Only the GM saying no. Same as that was all that prevented wearing 27 bandoliers before the change.

Yeah, but 27 bandoliers used to cost money [27 silver]! Pockets are free! ;)

[graystone]

I do have a question though: How does the Vaultbreaker's Harness interact with the new rules? Do the tools count as worn tools? If so, do they count against your 2 bulk tool limit? I'm unsure as it's both pockets AND a backpack... So are they stowed or worn?

[OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0]

Midnightoker wrote:

TiwazBlackhand wrote:

Bardarok wrote:

Has there been a clarification on if Agile is supposed to work with maneuvers yet? The text just says attack not attack roll but since clearly finesse was not intended to apply maybe agile isn't either.

Based both on the finesse 'clarification' and the swashbuckler "agile maneuvers" feat, i would guess using and agile trip weapon does not give the trip maneuver ther benefit of agile.

One could argue that Agile Maneuvers applies to all maneuvers and whether or not you are wielding the weapon at all, which doesn't necessarily make it "less powerful" since you would need a weapon with both Agile and the trait to gain a similar benefit.

But more than likely, it is probably RAI that it does not apply.

Ravingdork wrote:

I mentioned the whole errata clarification in regards to maneuvers not benefiting from the Finesse trait to my three play groups.

Without exception, everyone in all three groups took the stance "People actually believed you could use your Dexterity modifier with maneuvers?"

So I guess we're not going to be too effected by this change, as (apparently) we didn't think it worked that way to begin with.

I wonder if the belief is largely just limited to the folks of these forums, or with people coming from older editions.

Anyone in the playtest who read the Dev comment that said it works that way probably does as well.

Also, it's not super outlandish to arrive at that conclusion when you consider how awful the Wolf Stance, Prehensile Hair, Whip and Spiked Chain became as a result of that ruling.

[Emphasis mine] Yes, I’m pretty much in this camp - I’m pretty sure I’ll be houseruling this to allow the agile trait for those particular instances where it feels the weapon itself would actually be beneficial in the maneuver AND should, still be employed as a weapon, take advantage of this action penalty softening.

I guess this is a verisimilitudinous approach thing - I’m also going to change the improvised weapons rules (again on a case by case basis) if I understand them correctly:

You get -2 “item penalty” to attacks with improvised weapons. So, compared to a fist, which “almost all characters start out trained in” you are at a 4 point disadvantage to whack someone with a bottle (base -2 to hit) compared to whacking them with a fist (base +2 to hit)?

[OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0]

And can someone point me to a definition of the difference between carried, stowed and worn? My CRB says:

CRB, p274 wrote:

BULK

This entry gives the armor’s Bulk, assuming you’re wearing the armor and distributing its weight across your body. A suit of armor that’s carried or worn usually has 1 more Bulk than what’s listed here (or 1 Bulk total for armor of light Bulk).

Umm. Wait. Wut? The way my poor brain understands this is that if I’m wearing my Hide Armor it is 2 Bulk, but if it is worn by me it is 3 Bulk. What am I missing? Was this cleared up in original errata?

[OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0]

I just read the first Errata, and it defines Worn, Stowed etc, but not this weird armor worn/wearing thing.

[Arachnofiend]

NECR0G1ANT wrote:

TwilightKnight wrote:

In my home games, weapons with the finesse and trip or disarm traits can use Acrobatics instead of Athletics to perform those maneuvers if they wish. I see no problem with it. YMMV

Then Gymnast Swashbucklers wouldn't really need anything besides DEX and Acrobatics to gain panache, unlike every other style. So this rule makes one Class Path far more SAD than others.

Whether or not this is a problem is indeed YMMV.

One could argue that the Gymnast being more SAD is a balancing factor since none of the other styles have MAP on their panache generators.

[Midnightoker]

Arachnofiend wrote:

NECR0G1ANT wrote:

TwilightKnight wrote:

In my home games, weapons with the finesse and trip or disarm traits can use Acrobatics instead of Athletics to perform those maneuvers if they wish. I see no problem with it. YMMV

Then Gymnast Swashbucklers wouldn't really need anything besides DEX and Acrobatics to gain panache, unlike every other style. So this rule makes one Class Path far more SAD than others.

Whether or not this is a problem is indeed YMMV.

One could argue that the Gymnast being more SAD is a balancing factor since none of the other styles have MAP on their panache generators.

That’s a really good point. And having MAP on something with critical failures that bad means you’re doing it first action or you’re doing acrobatics to tumble through pretty much.