Rogue Class Preview

Deranged Stabby-Man wrote:

Fuzzypaws wrote:

Thievery: ... Can this be renamed Legerdemain please?

I don't get the hang-up on this. 90% of what you do with the skill ain't exactly reputable.

There may be adversarial GMs who could argue thievery is illegal and might rule using the thievery skill is an unlawful act. We've all seen these semantic arguments on the forums; if changing the name of the thievery skill would nip those in the bud, I'm all for it.

Here's a solution: Don't play with adversarial GMs.

People like that change their tune really quickly when nobody wants to play with them anymore.

Being a guy who has played a rogue that refused to steal stuff and break into people's houses, I have zero qualms with the skill that is used to disable traps and open the treasure chest I found in a 1000 year old dungeon being called "Thievery".

Just because a locksmith knows how to pick a lock, doesn't mean he's a thief, but just because he isn't a thief, doesn't mean his ability to pick locks wouldn't make him good at it.

This, like the Fighter, just strikes me as....."meh". It's not bad, but it doesn't wow. I do like Gang Up and Blank Slate, but the rest....

Also, what is it with PF2 and trying to create niches by just taking rules everybody could use and gating it behind classes? First AoO, now the whole flat footed thing. It just seems they couldn't think of anything cool so they decided to limit other classes to make the Rogue look special.

Milo v3 wrote:

The 14th level abilities from this and the fighter blog seem very... restrained. Hope they didn't tone down things too much.

Instant Opening might not seem as cool as it actually is because it might be easy to assume that it requires some kind of check (or a failed save, or a roll of some kind) in order to work. But it actually works automatically. So one action from you equals two rounds of AC debuffs and all your sneak attack-related favorites. And it's not flanking, so all-around vision-type abilities won't help them.

That isn't why it seems underwhelming. It's the 14th level part. The average campaign is long over. Most folks won't ever see it in play.

I'm really not sure about the feat spam. Can't tell yet if they're going to be trivial, traps (some certainly are, like the storm domain power for druids), or just fifty-eleven things to keep track of, but handing them out every 1/2 level or level, they don't seem like they're on a scale where they can be meaningful or defining.

Plus, if they're general skill feats.. just having more of them doesn't make the rogue special. Just hangs the class with the obligation to spread itself thin on mundane abilities.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

From one of the earlier blog post preview we learned the following:
- Rage Powers, Rogue talents, Arcane Discoveries, etc are now called "Class Feats" for the appropriate class, and you get these every even level.
- Every odd level you get a skill feat, an ancestry feat, or a skill feat. We don't know the exact frequency of each, but we know # General Feats + # Skill Feats = 15 over 20 levels.

So we're getting a lot of choices. Basically everything you get to pick as part of advancement is called a "Feat" now.

MusicAddict wrote:

What we've seen so far, we know we get
1) Ancestry feat at first level and a Class Feat (Earlier blogs and fighter class preview blog)
2) Skill Feat at second level and Class feats on every even level (Progression blog)
3) General Feats on Odd levels(progression blog)

Presumably we get much more skill feats than the one listed at second level, and likely one or two "free" ancestry feats at certain levels.
We will have A LOT of feats.

Thanks for the clear explanation. I'm still not sure that we're actually getting more feats. Some of the feats being counted in PF2 were class abilities in PF1. If we were to add the number of class abilities and feats one gained in PF1, how would they compare to the number of feats gained in PF2? Now, if there is choice in the class feats one gains as one progresses, I can see the potential for more varied builds. But if every character of a particular class gains the same class feats at the same levels (which, I assume, could be altered by archetype choice?), one's feat choices become a little more restricted and I'd wonder if we're really gaining more feats or not.

You'll get a list of class feat that you can take. The preview have only shown us a couple of them, but that's because there only that, a preview. They will be like the rogue talents. For example: You'll have a choice of one of ~5-10 Rogue feats each two levels, one of ~5-10 skill feats each levels (only for rogue! one each two levels for other classes), one of maybe ~10 general feat and some ancestry feats each undisclosed levels, probably chosen among a comparable number of choices that you had for "alternate racial traits". That's 10 class feats, 10 general feats, 20 skill feats, and X ancestry feats... so 40+X feats at lvl 20 for the rogue. Currently, I count 27 instances of class features + feats for a non-human rogue lvl 20 (not counting new sneak dices or new +1 to previous class features).

1) I am very worried about the continued reliance on sneak attack. If that will remain the case for the PF2e rogue, I'd like more good options for the rogue to make sneak attacks happen on her own without necessarily relying on the fighter to flank, or a wizzie to debuff, or all the non-stealthy clankers in armor to hang back while the stealthy scouts surprise & engage.

Yet no comment on the mechanics which do exactly that?

I don't see where you are expressing interest in Rogue-specific combat style. If you want to fight like Fighter, then play a Fighter, Lore Warden seems #1 favorite for next Archetype, or do Ranger or whatever works for you if you want skillsy martial. We know BARBARIANS can handle major party healing role with non-class option, so it's not a stretch to think Rogues can also access serious capabilities not tied strictly to class, if you prefer.

EDIT: Here's an idea though: Why not offer a means to count "cornering" an enemy against wall as 'flanking' or Flat-Footed?
(would need strict positioning and/or requirement for more than one "blocked" side, otherwise too common)
Definitely adds another tactical layer to Rogue play, but maybe not SO beneficial other Sneak Attack triggers are meaningless.
Seems pretty reasonable, given the reason you can't (conventionally) Flank them is they are cornered against wall!

For any that want to discuss Dex to damage, I invite you to this thread. Lots of good discussion so far.

I really don't like the rogue's new artwork:(

You have to wait till 9th level to get debilitating strikes, why not 6th or even 5th.

This one is fairly low on surprises, I think. Pretty much everything seems natural, except the move of Debilitating Strike to a much higher level. I think we'll have to see the entire class before deciding if that's too high.

I'm very much in favor of removing concepts like the surprise round and flat-footed AC from the game as well as the rule that everyone is flat-footed until their first action. It simply was added complexity for very little benefit in terms of both realism or tactical potential.

It's unclear if Dex to damage is gone. I'd be all for it. Dex to damage made sense for Unchained Rogue, because the point was to rebalance the game in the poor guy's favor. If you redesign from the start, you're supposed to be balanced in the first place, so there's no need for that kind of overcompensation.

Mark Seifter wrote:

Milo v3 wrote:

The 14th level abilities from this and the fighter blog seem very... restrained. Hope they didn't tone down things too much.

Instant Opening might not seem as cool as it actually is because it might be easy to assume that it requires some kind of check (or a failed save, or a roll of some kind) in order to work. But it actually works automatically. So one action from you equals two rounds of AC debuffs and all your sneak attack-related favorites. And it's not flanking, so all-around vision-type abilities won't help them.

That isn't why it seems underwhelming. It's the 14th level part. The average campaign is long over. Most folks won't ever see it in play.

I'm really not sure about the feat spam. Can't tell yet if they're going to be trivial, traps (some certainly are, like the storm domain power for druids), or just fifty-eleven things to keep track of, but handing them out every 1/2 level or level, they don't seem like they're on a scale where they can be meaningful or defining.

Plus, if they're general skill feats.. just having more of them doesn't make the rogue special. Just hangs the class with the obligation to spread itself thin on mundane abilities.

Why is the storm druid reaction a trap? I keep seeing people say that, but doing 3d12 on a crit (when an attack is more than 10 vs AC) I can do about 18 points of damage, which is probably better than my AoO wouldve been if I weren't a melee druid. AND he cant hit me with 3 attacks next round. That sounds pretty good to me...

eddv wrote:

And for like the third time I really need to object to the name Thievery for rogue skills. Just call it something else.

Yes. Please. Thievery has too much of a negative connotation. Those skills have perfectly legitimate uses, too. I don't want a black cloud hanging over the whole skill set unnecesarily.

Agree, but not because it's "illegitimate", but because it's "too broad", and one might think that this includes Deception/Bluff.

Mark Seifter wrote:

Milo v3 wrote:

The 14th level abilities from this and the fighter blog seem very... restrained. Hope they didn't tone down things too much.

Instant Opening might not seem as cool as it actually is because it might be easy to assume that it requires some kind of check (or a failed save, or a roll of some kind) in order to work. But it actually works automatically. So one action from you equals two rounds of AC debuffs and all your sneak attack-related favorites. And it's not flanking, so all-around vision-type abilities won't help them.

That isn't why it seems underwhelming. It's the 14th level part. The average campaign is long over. Most folks won't ever see it in play.

I'm really not sure about the feat spam. Can't tell yet if they're going to be trivial, traps (some certainly are, like the storm domain power for druids), or just fifty-eleven things to keep track of, but handing them out every 1/2 level or level, they don't seem like they're on a scale where they can be meaningful or defining.

Plus, if they're general skill feats.. just having more of them doesn't make the rogue special. Just hangs the class with the obligation to spread itself thin on mundane abilities.

Emphasis mine. Stop it. You don't know it's a trap. There's not enough material in these blog posts to know the game's math, nor how it plays, well enough to know that.

Looks Ok just ta few concerns but these seem to be themes in the second ed. Like others I have concerns about delaying debilitating strikes until 9th level and instant opening at 14th. This seems a little to late, but many of these types of features appear delayed to later levels (base don my sample of two, this and the fighter) so I suspect that may be a conscious design to curb the power levels. Hopefully we'll see game design that encourages more adventure to occur at these levels.

Sadly I think Twist the Knife will be seriously underwhelming. Assuming sneak accumulates at a similar rate to 1st ed it amounts to something in the order of 2-5 points of persistent damage, which given the significant increase in HP that appears to exist is a trivial amount of damage - you'd need 3-4 rounds of bleed from a high level rogue to bleed out a lowly first level adventurer and something like 20 rounds of bleed to threaten a 10th level clerics pool of HP. I'll wait until the test document comes out naturally but to me it's just seems a little 'meh' at this time.

So much of is in a similar vein to the unchained Rogue, sounds good. Broadening opportunities for sneak attack is also a good idea.

GentleGiant wrote:

Leedwashere wrote:

eddv wrote:

And for like the third time I really need to object to the name Thievery for rogue skills. Just call it something else.

Yes. Please. Thievery has too much of a negative connotation. Those skills have perfectly legitimate uses, too. I don't want a black cloud hanging over the whole skill set unnecesarily.

Yes, we can't have your PCs, who have just killed 50+ people and robbed their dead bodies, accused of something as demeaning as... thievery!

By a class called the rogue no less.

Pigeonholing character personalities and backgrounds by class is like completely pointless in a system like pathfinder where Archetypes encourage capturing a wide spectrum of possible character personalities for each class.

Mark Seifter wrote:

Milo v3 wrote:

The 14th level abilities from this and the fighter blog seem very... restrained. Hope they didn't tone down things too much.

Instant Opening might not seem as cool as it actually is because it might be easy to assume that it requires some kind of check (or a failed save, or a roll of some kind) in order to work. But it actually works automatically. So one action from you equals two rounds of AC debuffs and all your sneak attack-related favorites. And it's not flanking, so all-around vision-type abilities won't help them.

That isn't why it seems underwhelming. It's the 14th level part. The average campaign is long over. Most folks won't ever see it in play.

I'm wondering with lvl 14 seeming more grounded class feat wise and the 1000xp per level if characters aren't expected to level more often in 2nd edition? Maybe the average campaign will get there now.

Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

1) I am very worried about the continued reliance on sneak attack. If that will remain the case for the PF2e rogue, I'd like more good options for the rogue to make sneak attacks happen on her own without necessarily relying on the fighter to flank, or a wizzie to debuff, or all the non-stealthy clankers in armor to hang back while the stealthy scouts surprise & engage.

Yet no comment on the mechanics which do exactly that? No need for "real" flank anymore, just simultaneous threat from any angle. No-roll Flat-Foot debuff for round-and-half.

I can't comment on the actual mechanics until I've seen the actual mechanics. It sounds nice from what has been revealed so far, but I need to see the nitty gritty in the playtest.

I don't see where you are expressing interest in Rogue-specific combat style. If you want to fight like Fighter, then play a Fighter, Lore Warden seems #1 favorite for next Archetype, or do Ranger or whatever works for you if you want skillsy martial. We know BARBARIANS can handle major party healing role with non-class option, so it's not a stretch to think Rogues can also access serious capabilities not tied strictly to class, if you prefer.

We have a whole bunch of freedom right now from the wealth of PF1e options. The PF1e STR-based rogue is a popular build. Many people have repeatedly expressed a desire for better options for PF1e rogues to do better in ranged combat. I'm not asking to make the PF2e rogue into a fighter. I'm saying if a player wants build a STR-focused PF2e rogue instead of a DEX-focused one, let the player have the option to trade out the finesse bits for options that'll work for that build. I'm saying let a player trade out those finesse bits for the option to build a rogue that can do well at ranged weapon combat.

I don't want a Lore Warden or a Fighter; if I wanted them, I'd already be playing them. I want a rogue with a few more flexible combat options, which doesn't seem to be asking too much.

Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

1) I am very worried about the continued reliance on sneak attack. If that will remain the case for the PF2e rogue, I'd like more good options for the rogue to make sneak attacks happen on her own without necessarily relying on the fighter to flank, or a wizzie to debuff, or all the non-stealthy clankers in armor to hang back while the stealthy scouts surprise & engage.

Yet no comment on the mechanics which do exactly that?

No need for "real" flank anymore, just simultaneous threat from any angle. No-roll Flat-Foot debuff for round-and-half.

I don't see where you are expressing interest in Rogue-specific combat style. If you want to fight like Fighter, then play a Fighter, Lore Warden seems #1 favorite for next Archetype, or do Ranger or whatever works for you if you want skillsy martial. We know BARBARIANS can handle major party healing role with non-class option, so it's not a stretch to think Rogues can also access serious capabilities not tied strictly to class, if you prefer.

EDIT: Here's an idea though: Why not offer a means to count "cornering" an enemy against wall where they can't move freely to both sides (otherwise just adjacent to wall is too common) as 'flanking' or Flat-Footed? Definitely adds another tactical layer to enabling Rogue play. And maybe not SO beneficial that every melee Rogue feels obligated to take it.

But most characters don't have this so combatants won't have strong reason to consistently avoid it unless they manage to recognize the Rogue using it or superior class abilities that imply it's possibility. If they recognize somebody using some other class ability they may assume they aren't a Rogue, but then discover "oh s%&!! Rogue multiclass!" etc.

The strangest thing to me is giving the rogue all of these cool mobility abilities and then elminating the most major need for mobility.

Not a complaint necessarily, just odd

Er, wait, so only rogues can consider people flat-footed now? That's odd, and I don't know how well creating a more or less unique debuff would work compared to just a global rule.

Quandary wrote:

Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

1) I am very worried about the continued reliance on sneak attack. If that will remain the case for the PF2e rogue, I'd like more good options for the rogue to make sneak attacks happen on her own without necessarily relying on the fighter to flank, or a wizzie to debuff, or all the non-stealthy clankers in armor to hang back while the stealthy scouts surprise & engage.

Yet no comment on the mechanics which do exactly that?

No need for "real" flank anymore, just simultaneous threat from any angle. No-roll Flat-Foot debuff for round-and-half.

I don't see where you are expressing interest in Rogue-specific combat style. If you want to fight like Fighter, then play a Fighter, Lore Warden seems #1 favorite for next Archetype, or do Ranger or whatever works for you if you want skillsy martial. We know BARBARIANS can handle major party healing role with non-class option, so it's not a stretch to think Rogues can also access serious capabilities not tied strictly to class, if you prefer.

EDIT: Here's an idea though: Why not offer a means to count "cornering" an enemy against wall where they can't move freely to both sides (otherwise just adjacent to wall is too common) as 'flanking' or Flat-Footed? Definitely adds another tactical layer to enabling Rogue play. And maybe not SO beneficial that every melee Rogue feels obligated to take it.

But most characters don't have this so combatants won't have strong reason to consistently avoid it unless they manage to recognize the Rogue using it or superior class abilities that imply it's possibility. If they recognize somebody using some other class ability they may assume they aren't a Rogue, but then discover "oh s%&!! Rogue multiclass!" etc.

The strangest thing to me is giving the rogue all of these cool mobility abilities and then elminating the most major need for mobility.

Not a complaint necessarily, just odd

Well... To be fair, the Mobility description strongly hint that what I thought would be the case will actually be: There's not only AoO that trigger with movement. there will be other reactions too. I would love to see a "trip" reaction, probably as a rogue feat, that let you trip a foe passing through an adjacent square.

[EDIT]

Er, wait, so only rogues can consider people flat-footed now? That's odd, and I don't know how well creating a more or less unique debuff would work compared to just a global rule.

Not really, only at the start of the turn. Now lot of debuff have been renamed "flat-footed", like the effect of flank, that anyone can have. Also, the fighter had an ability in its preview that could cause the foe to be flat-footed.

Er, wait, so only rogues can consider people flat-footed now? That's odd, and I don't know how well creating a more or less unique debuff would work compared to just a global rule.

No. Flat footed now grants an attacker a +2 to hit I believe. It no longer functions like your AC or your touch Defense.

Rogues can do more than other classes when someone is flat footed such as sneak attack but everyone benefits from a flat footed target.

Did they re-define 'flat-footed' for pf2?
The blog says:"Flanking a foe is the easiest way for the rogue to make her foe flat-footed"

So that makes a flank way more powerful, instead of the normal +2 to hit, you can make your opponent lose dex. And does the condition of flat-footed only apply from the rogue-flankers point of view, or do all allies treat the foe as flat-footed?

Did they re-define 'flat-footed' for pf2?

The blog says:"Flanking a foe is the easiest way for the rogue to make her foe flat-footed"

So that makes a flank way more powerful, instead of the normal +2 to hit, you can make your opponent lose dex. And does the condition of flat-footed only apply from the rogue-flankers point of view, or do all allies treat the foe as flat-footed?

Nah flatfooted does what flanking does now, there's no more losing dex to ac.

Did they re-define 'flat-footed' for pf2?

The blog says:"Flanking a foe is the easiest way for the rogue to make her foe flat-footed"

So that makes a flank way more powerful, instead of the normal +2 to hit, you can make your opponent lose dex. And does the condition of flat-footed only apply from the rogue-flankers point of view, or do all allies treat the foe as flat-footed?

*point to the post just above your own*

Did they re-define 'flat-footed' for pf2?

The blog says:"Flanking a foe is the easiest way for the rogue to make her foe flat-footed"

So that makes a flank way more powerful, instead of the normal +2 to hit, you can make your opponent lose dex. And does the condition of flat-footed only apply from the rogue-flankers point of view, or do all allies treat the foe as flat-footed?

No, Flat Footed is now just -2 AC. There's no more Flat Footed AC, only normal and Touch.

I figure a Flanked opponent is considered Flat-footed period. So it works out the same as the old +2.

I really like the Rogue, even if its VERY HIGH number of feats feels like they will be hard to track.

I'm liking what I'm hearing, but Debilitating Strike should come at a lower level. 6th, perhaps.

Er, wait, so only rogues can consider people flat-footed now? That's odd, and I don't know how well creating a more or less unique debuff would work compared to just a global rule.

What they stated in the preview is that Rogues will have an ability that lets them consider opponents who have not yet acted during the first round as flat-footed.

I believe others will be able to find opponents flat-footed under other circumstances, such as flanking, but not simply by going first in the first round.

Can we retain two separate skills for dealing with mechanical devices and with stealing things? Those are completely unrelated skills - it would make more sense to merge Acrobatics and Stealth than Disable Device and Sleight Of Hands.

What's more, there is a long (like millennia long) standing division among thieves that separates those who pick pocket and those that break in to the point where many thieves would feel insulted by being taken for the other group.

i find it a bit odd that people complain about feats seeming too weak at certain levels when they have no idea about the power level the game will have...you can't make accurate assumptions about 2e based on 1e...you have to take 2e as it's own separate thing...i think this assumption is the basis of most of the negativity i've seen...

now about the rogue...i see a lot of the unchained rogue in the preview and that makes me happy...i just hope them getting skill feats every level doesn't overshadow everyone else's skill choices (perhaps this will be akin to how fighters in 1e got a feat every level but it seems like every class gets that now)...i guess it really depends on how personal skills are in 2e...in 1e pretty much every non-physical skill only needed to be taken by one pc...anything more than that was redundant and a waste of skill points other than as character flavour...it would be nice to see an in-game use for multiple characters investing in the same skill...

Well, I have gone from bored to downright disappointed.

These "Legendary" abilities are PITFUL for level 15+. Unless those are the Levels where the wizard gets his first summon and the Cleric gets his first undead, being able to flat foot a target, and Immunity to scrying are just pitiful options here.

This is all like lame versions of SOP/ SOM characters. SOM doesn't even have resistance to scrying under Legendary. It has detect surface thoughts under that at level 5.

It has a resist scrying option available from level 1 which scales with level. And in SOP everybody has WAY more options than just a feat a level.

While I enjoyed this post. I feel they didn't even come close to getting the Rogue right.

I like the concept of sneak attack. But I am sorry you have failed to grasp the concept of hitting a vital spot. WHY MUST I BE FLANKING TO HIT A VITAL SPOT? Seriously, this is a stupid concept. If SOMEONE is trained to hit vital spots then they SHOULDN'T rely on a friend to do so. Starfinder was on the right path with the Trick Attack. I as a rogue should have the following ways for a Trick Attack:
1. Perception to notice weakness in the creature you are fighting, or in armor.
2. Knowledge check to recall information about known weakness of creatures etc.

I hate you make the ROGUE BE SO RELIANT on another creature.

I have also seen feat, feat, feat, feat etc. WHY ARE THERE SO MANY FEATS? How is that supposed to speed things up? Now we have all of these feats to remember. So if the Rogue gets a Skill feat every level, a general feat and class feat every other level. If second edition sticks to a similar level of play for Society, thats 11 Skills Feats, 12 General and Class Feats. Assuming you get those every odd level. It could be 1-2 less. Either way that is a potential 21 Feats for the Rouge. THAT IS ABSURD.

Also I was really hoping for something like the Operative Specialization. I liked the concept of specializations. I can be a thief, hacker, spy etc. Then I get bonus tied to that Specialization. The ROGUE would have been perfect with this. Rogue archetypes that did similar things like this in 1st edition were crap and didn't do much. So much potential to make the Rogue amazing but I feel let down.

There's some good in here, some bad. I just hope that they listen to our praises and critiques.

Well, I have gone from bored to downright disappointed.

These "Legendary" abilities are PITFUL for level 15+. Unless those are the Levels where the wizard gets his first summon and the Cleric gets his first undead, being able to flat foot a target, and Immunity to scrying are just pitiful options here.

This is all like lame versions of SOP/ SOM characters. SOM doesn't even have resistance to scrying under Legendary. It has detect surface thoughts under that at level 5.

It has a resist scrying option available from level 1 which scales with level. And in SOP everybody has WAY more options than just a feat a level.

To be fair, that same Deception ability might also make one immune to Alignment based attacks, spells, and damage. No smites, no holy/unholy weapons, and protection from [whatever] doesn't apply to you.

In addition to immunity to scrying, detect magic for your buff(s)/items, and other such debuffs that would invalidate your stealth, presumably.

Given the mathematics behind feat length, page count, and the number of levels in the game, it might be safe to start looking at the class feats at each level as being either a binary or trinary choice, similar to how different deeds became available, but without them all being available.

I'm not sure if this is good or bad.

Well, I have gone from bored to downright disappointed.

These "Legendary" abilities are PITFUL for level 15+. Unless those are the Levels where the wizard gets his first summon and the Cleric gets his first undead, being able to flat foot a target, and Immunity to scrying are just pitiful options here.

This is all like lame versions of SOP/ SOM characters. SOM doesn't even have resistance to scrying under Legendary. It has detect surface thoughts under that at level 5.

It has a resist scrying option available from level 1 which scales with level. And in SOP everybody has WAY more options than just a feat a level.

I mean the anti-scrying ability mimics Mind Blank, which is an 8th level spell...

I mean the anti-scrying ability mimics Mind Blank, which is an 8th level spell...

And Mind Blank + Invisibility is basically unbeatable and one imagines some of the legendary stealth stuff is straight up "invisible".

I mean the anti-scrying ability mimics Mind Blank, which is an 8th level spell...

More like Mask from Divination which is a 5th level spell. I guess mind blank is blanket immunity but its really so late in the game.

I prefer being able to straight up hide vs invisibility. Invisibility is so easy to break compared to straight hiding. If I am hiding you almost have to reply on PERCEPTION to see me. I have a friend with a sniping slayer and at 11th she has a base 51 stealth. If she is in area of Normal or Bright light she uses hellcat stealth at a minus 10. Still a base 41 Stealth. Not many creatures have a SUPER HIGH perception. if she has cover even HARDER. We have had GMs ask what the lowest she can get. They say don't even roll. With the lowest the creature can even see with a nat 20. This is my opinion though. Her invisibility beat with True Seeing, See Invisibility, Invisibility purge.

What was shown in this teaser seems about what I would expect for the Rogue class in PF2. As with any of the teasers shown thus far it sounds good but I'll wait until the playtest goes live to offer feedback.

Can we retain two separate skills for dealing with mechanical devices and with stealing things?

Agreed. If anything it seems appropriate for Disable Device to be special application of Engineering Lore via Class Ability, using DEX instead of INT.

Not quite the same thing... and not Rogue related...

But the whole Wild Empathy "just like Diplomacy... but not" thing always confused me. Should +X to Diplomacy effects work with Wild Empathy? IMHO it should be unique application of (your choice) Diplomacy or Handle Animal. It also was never clear how attitude is critical to using Handle Animal. AFAIK only unclear implication in (splat) Exclusive trick that Friendly/Helpful were necessary for using Handle Animal on creature, which is reasonable if one views HA tricks as akin to Diplomacy "requests", but it never stated that outright.

Wow. So, in the second paragraph of Rogue Features:

[quote =Rogue Blogpost]But wait, there's more! ...at 9th level...

How is that enticing? And way to emphasise the "wait".

I understand that the new XP system might increase speed of leveling; and a design goal of PF2 is to address high level play, but...Really? I'm continually beggared by the expectation management approach of the blogs.

* Nothing here explains Stealth as a mechanical concept. Which I find odd, considering the Rogue's use of/interaction with it. Sure, skillsblog blah blah blah, but still...

* As others have posted, SF's Trick Attack seems better and less situational than Surprise Attack as presented here.

* Nothing feels very updated OR upgraded, but nor does it seem outlandish. Maybe I want outlandish.

* Nice job on the 2.1 of Merisiel, Wayne. Lovely dagger. Feet are hard to draw for me, but I think those will look fine in colour.

I always liked Mechanics as a skill, juxtaposing Knowledge (Engineering), Ride (vehicles), Profession (driver), and Disable Device.

From there I had Finesse, which combined Escape Artist and Sleight of Hand.

tivadar27 wrote:

Sounds pretty solid, and some of the effects sound really interesting. That being said, I've gotten no preview on how Dexterity helps the rogue in combat. I think playtests have shown the party rogue applying Dexterity to their attack rolls, but how is that done? Just via Agile Weapons by default (as in 5e), with a Feat? I'd like to hear more about this, given that this is pretty much *the* iconic ability that almost every rogue swears by!

My question is, when did Backstab (or finding/removing traps, or just plain *stealing*) stop being the "iconic ability" for rogues? And when did Finesse (or whatever you want to call it) start?

I've been playing Rogues (or as they were originally called, Thieves) since first edition AD&D, and it wasn't until 3e that I even heard of using Dexterity for my melee attacks. It was the whole reason my thief characters would look for items to boost their strength as well as their dexterity. My thief/rogue characters have always focused on sneaking in/out of places, or removing someone's spine before they knew I was there.

Yes, Strength-based rogues should be possible, but Finesse has been iconic for a while, particularly since the printing of Unchained. I'd agree, the lack of information about traps is deafening here, but I'm also assuming that might be directly tied to the Thievery skill. this means anyone can do it, but a Rogue gets additional Skills so is more likely to have sunk points into it.

To me, a rogue is 3 things:
1. A skill monkey.
2. Able to sneak attack when an enemy is distracted.
3. Able to use Finesse rather than Strength to do the job.

We've gotten info on 2 of those, but not the 3rd. I'm *guessing* the last one will be something open to any class with agile weaposn, but I honestly have no idea right now (note: I'm not actually asking for Dexterity to Damage here, just to attack rolls).

I never understood this sentiment about ability scores. What bleeds more, a harder stab or a stab into a place that's more vital? There's an argument that STR shouldn't even be your attack OR damage stat, and that it should only be used for gear prerequisites, but the D&D legacy prevents that paradigm. The argument for strength seems only to come from the angle of keeping fighters and barbarians as a 2-stat class

What good is a well placed axe swing that fails to break through armour?

Who would you rather face on the ring Mayweather or Tyson (both on their prime*)? I'd bet Tyson does way more permanent damage than Mayweather could.

STR has its place as an attacking stat, now if your argument is that some classes like the Rogue who opt for precision instead of damage should have a way to express that by using Dex to hit (and maybe even damage) I don't disagre. But in most other cases Str Should be the attacking stat.

I hope a large percentage of monsters aren't immune to percision damage like they were in 1e.

You serious? Cause there's relatively few things immune to precision damage. Elementals, Incorporeal creatures (if you don't have ghost touch), oozes, Aeons, and swarms...That's not so many.

Instant Opening might not seem as cool as it actually is because it might be easy to assume that it requires some kind of check (or a failed save, or a roll of some kind) in order to work. But it actually works automatically. So one action from you equals two rounds of AC debuffs and all your sneak attack-related favorites. And it's not flanking, so all-around vision-type abilities won't help them.

I was assuming that it it didn't require anything special. It's just... not very epic compared to things like being able to teleport, transform into a dragon, create demiplanes, jump across lakes, etc.

The 14th level abilities previewed for Rogue and Fighter both seem like the sort of things which would come online around 5th/6th level at most from their flavour.

Emeric Tusan wrote:

I hope a large percentage of monsters aren't immune to percision damage like they were in 1e.

You serious? Cause there's relatively few things immune to precision damage. Elementals, Incorporeal creatures (if you don't have ghost touch), oozes, Aeons, and swarms...That's not so many.

I could've sworn Undead & Constructs were immune as well...

FrostFox wrote:

Emeric Tusan wrote:

I hope a large percentage of monsters aren't immune to percision damage like they were in 1e.

You serious? Cause there's relatively few things immune to precision damage. Elementals, Incorporeal creatures (if you don't have ghost touch), oozes, Aeons, and swarms...That's not so many.

I could've sworn Undead & Constructs were immune as well...

I knew that undead were changed from 3.5 to PF1, but one of my players dropped that bomb on me mid combat that constructs were also not immune to it.

They won that fight, easily.

FrostFox wrote:

Emeric Tusan wrote:

I hope a large percentage of monsters aren't immune to percision damage like they were in 1e.

You serious? Cause there's relatively few things immune to precision damage. Elementals, Incorporeal creatures (if you don't have ghost touch), oozes, Aeons, and swarms...That's not so many.

I could've sworn Undead & Constructs were immune as well...

You’re thinking of D&D 3.5.

It’s a common error.

I feel like the biggest change we are going to see is going to come from the skill system.

Crayon wrote:

I could've sworn Undead & Constructs were immune as well...

You’re thinking of D&D 3.5. It’s a common error.

Gotta wonder which causes more eye rolls at Paizo... People commenting to them about another 3.x confusing it for Pathfinder ("we agree, that's why we changed it"),