Rogue Class Preview

Mark Seifter wrote:

GM Eazy-Earl wrote:

One thing I've noticed (or inferred) from these class previews is that most of the "cool stuff" requires a feat and it appears feats in PF1 that were available to anyone are now class-specific and some things in PF1 that didn't require a feat at all will require one in PF2. Am I reading this correctly? Will one acquire feats more often in PF2? I'm concerned PCs may actually be able to do less cool things than they can now and in order to do a couple of cool things, one will be forced down a very specific and limited path of feat choices. Please tell me my read on this is wrong and the character building options and choices in PF2 will be just as varied and plentiful as PF1.

Are there any of these in particular that seem like you could just do them automatically in PF1? Your options and choices should wind up being more varied than in PF1 (though obviously, the playtest book isn't going to have more options than an entire edition right away).

AoOs are the glaring one, and now we're being told flat-footed AC on the first round is also a class feature. (There seems to be a strong sentiment in the community that AoOs at least should be unlockable to any PC with a feat.)

It's distressing to me that Reactive Pursuit is a rogue feat, when Step Up was available to anyone (and incredibly vital to a lot of character concepts, such as mage-killers!)

Mobility as a rogue feat is another example of a feat that was generally available in PF1, and is now seemingly locked behind a class wall. (Same with Gang Up, although I imagine mostly only characters with Sneak Attack took that one anyway so I'm not as worried about it.)

I want to believe that PF2 will allow more customization than PF1, but based off the tidbits we have so far, it looks like more and more abilities that had been available to any character are being locked behind class walls. That scares me!

1. From what we've been told, the AoO reaction is available at the cost of a feat to non-Fighters. Pretty sure that was in the fighter blog.

I'm also a little concerned that some of these abilities sound like they kick in at too-high levels (in part because where will spellcasters be at those levels? probably getting class options that leave the poor Rogue in the dust if it's anything like PF1)

But I guess we'll have to wait and see whether this all feels well balanced in playtesting

Exactly what worries me as well...

In addition to dealing extra damage when attacking flat-footed foes, at 9th level the rogue also applies debilitating strikes to such attacks, allowing her to entangle or enfeeble her foes on top of the normal punishment.

Why do they keep putting these kind of cool stuff at high levels? Applying conditions should begin happening at level 3, 5 at absolute most. Like the Fighter's preview, the Rogue's is making me kind of sad with the direction they are going.

At 2nd level, a rogue could take Mobility, allowing her to move at half her speed and ignore all sorts of reactions triggered by movement, such as attacks of opportunity.

So Rogues can, by level 2, just do a hard-counter to what they are peddling as one of the defining features of the Fighter? Greeeat...

I'm kinda bummed.

I feel bad for Paizo. First they get ripped for the fighter and the super human things it can do. Now they ripped for the rogue not doing enough.

Has it occurred to people that this article has been tempered down to not show off the super human things the rogue can do to avoid early controversy without full understanding of the rules.

It’s fun to speculate, but the criticism seem pretty harsh this early on for the rogue. I get that not everything will match everyone’s taste but these are the same people who brought you PF1. I think the devs deserve a little more respect.

Would you want people criticizing your work before it’s fully displayed? Didn’t think so.

Its like art everybody's a critic.

Hmm, it seems like swashbuckler and vigilante should be archetype now in 2e since it does seem like rogue has down their base concepts

Hmm, it seems like swashbuckler and vigilante should be archetype now in 2e since it does seem like rogue has down their base concepts

I really feel like both of those especially the vigilante would be better served as an archetype.

It all looks great to me. I love the current rogue class. I'm sure I'll love the new one.
I get so tired *yaaawn* of reading about people who try to parse out average damage output and compare classes like it's a PVP video game.
"My rogue doesn't outdamage the fighter. Rogues are broken. Wwaaaahhhh."
Play the game. Solve the mystery. Rescue the princess's puppy. Stop complaining.

RumpinRufus wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

Are there any of these in particular that seem like you could just do them automatically in PF1? Your options and choices should wind up being more varied than in PF1 (though obviously, the playtest book isn't going to have more options than an entire edition right away).

AoOs are the glaring one, and now we're being told flat-footed AC on the first round is also a class feature. (There seems to be a strong sentiment in the community that AoOs at least should be unlockable to any PC with a feat.)

It's distressing to me that Reactive Pursuit is a rogue feat, when Step Up was available to anyone (and incredibly vital to a lot of character concepts, such as mage-killers!)

Mobility as a rogue feat is another example of a feat that was generally available in PF1, and is now seemingly locked behind a class wall. (Same with Gang Up, although I imagine mostly only characters with Sneak Attack took that one anyway so I'm not as worried about it.)

I want to believe that PF2 will allow more customization than PF1, but based off the tidbits we have so far, it looks like more and more abilities that had been available to any character are being locked behind class walls. That scares me!

1. From what we've been told, the AoO reaction is available at the cost of a feat to non-Fighters. Pretty sure that was in the fighter blog.

2. Reactive Pursuit may be a Rogue class feat, but there's a distinct possibility that A) it could be available to any character for a feat, similar to the Fighter AoO, or B) it could be strictly superior to the old Step Up. We'll just have to see. Besides, there could be other ways of closing distance with Reactions that we haven't heard of yet.
3. The Mobility feat listed in the blog straight-up ignores Reactions rather than giving an AC bonus. That's far better than Mobility ever was, and despite being named the same thing they're clearly different abilities. It's more like using Acrobatics to move without provoking, except there's no skill check required. You just succeed.

1. We've been told "other classes can get" AoOs, but it hasn't been confirmed that all classes can get them.

2/3. You're right that the new Mobility seems stronger than the old Mobility, and Reactive Pursuit seems stronger than Step Up. As long as there are options generally available to all classes that are as good as the old Mobility and Step Up, I'll be happy. I'm on board with rogues having a stronger versions as their class feat.

I just don't want to get to the point that I'm trying to build a touch-attack wizard, and find out it's simply not viable because the reactions I'm provoking would be prohibitive, and since I'm not a 2nd-level rogue I can't take Mobility.

Has it occurred to people that this article has been tempered down to not show off the super human things the rogue can do to avoid early controversy without full understanding of the rules.

Debilitating Strike was pushed to 9th level. So no, that absolutely wasn't even a consideration.

And what kind of insane person was accusing the Fighter of being "too superhuman", given that it takes him 14 levels to learn how to properly use a shield? And even then, he needs to concentrate real hard to not just let it hang in his hand uselessly each turn...

I want to know if fainting is still a thing. It is my preferred style.

*swoon*

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.

You forgot creatures without discernible anatomy, like some aberrations such as the gibbering mouther, creatures with fortification (a denizen of leng for example) and for many purposes, creatures with all around vision or Characters with Uncanny Dodge.

I recently GMed Strange Aeon and one of the PC had sneak attack and it was a running joke how little he could use it.

I feel bad for Paizo. First they get ripped for the fighter and the super human things it can do. Now they ripped for the rogue not doing enough.

Has it occurred to people that this article has been tempered down to not show off the super human things the rogue can do to avoid early controversy without full understanding of the rules.

It’s fun to speculate, but the criticism seem pretty harsh this early on for the rogue. I get that not everything will match everyone’s taste but these are the same people who brought you PF1. I think the devs deserve a little more respect.

Would you want people criticizing your work before it’s fully displayed? Didn’t think so.

It's almost as if there are numerous people responding according to their personal preferences to two separate blog posts, representing several different points of view, some of which are contradictory! It's true that some of the criticism levelled against Paizo has been overly harsh, reactionary, or even flat-out rude, but there are also many people providing constructive criticism, voicing their concerns in a respectful manner, and even showing enthusiasm and appreciation for Paizo's efforts. I'm sure you mean well, but I think you may be unintentionally pouring gasoline onto the fire with your post. Don't poke the bear...

I feel bad for Paizo. First they get ripped for the fighter and the super human things it can do. Now they ripped for the rogue not doing enough.

At least it's different people becoming unhappy for each time. We're nothing if not consistent.

I think the devs deserve a little more respect.

Would you want people criticizing your work before it’s fully displayed? Didn’t think so.

I've been quite vocal in my dislike for certain aspects. Not once have I said they don't know what they're doing. I am quite confident they know exactly what they're doing. It's just quite possible what they're doing isn't what I want them to be doing.

Finally if they don't want comments and reactions to what they post, they wouldn't have a tool for us to make such comments and reactions. Part of being the community here at the Paizo website is posting your thoughts on all things Pathfinder related. They don't get to just have the positive reactions.

And what kind of insane person was accusing the Fighter of being "too superhuman", given that it takes him 14 levels to learn how to properly use a shield? And even then, he needs to concentrate real hard to not just let it hang in his hand uselessly each turn...

People have been talking about how they want fighters to be able to do all sorts of extraordinary things (my over the top example has been "swim across the pacific ocean as a single action" to which people have posted they would react positively if fighters could do that in the new edition).

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.

This is my preference as well. :) Also, Mechanics would be the skill for attacking with siege / ship weapons, and making / setting traps, while Finesse would have "use rope" and such.

Oh hey no more 'flat-footed until you have acted'. I love it.

I hate to see Debilitating Strike at 9th, but then again I also realise how big a deal those debuffs are with >10<.

Put me in the crowd of people who doesn't want Dex-to-damage as a primary feature.

Those kinds of skills mess with the purpose of the different ability scores, and if we're using Starfinder progression for them it's really not as important as it used to be.

Aiken Frost wrote:

And what kind of insane person was accusing the Fighter of being "too superhuman", given that it takes him 14 levels to learn how to properly use a shield? And even then, he needs to concentrate real hard to not just let it hang in his hand uselessly each turn...

People have been talking about how they want fighters to be able to do all sorts of extraordinary things (my over the top example has been "swim across the pacific ocean as a single action" to which people have posted they would react positively if fighters could do that in the new edition).

No one was saying swim across the ocean in a single action. :P The relevant reference was to Beowulf, where yes he was basically swimming at boat speed, and without ever running out of endurance while being able to fight sea monsters along the way, but that's a very far cry from "Teleport via Wave."

If a legendary ability for Deception is basically Mind Blank/non-detection, I wonder what we get for Stealth? Immunity to "cheat" senses like Blindsight, scent and tremorsense? The ability to have the equivalent of Greater Invisibility?
But PLEASE give us Dex to Damage. Being stuck with base weapon damage because you needed the Dexterity too much to afford Strength above 10 sucks. It's part of what made Unchained Rogue slightly better than its Core counterpart.

If a legendary ability for Deception is basically Mind Blank/non-detection, I wonder what we get for Stealth? Immunity to "cheat" senses like Blindsight, scent and tremorsense? The ability to have the equivalent of Greater Invisibility?

But PLEASE give us Dex to Damage. Being stuck with base weapon damage because you needed the Dexterity too much to afford Strength above 10 sucks. It's part of what made Unchained Rogue slightly better than its Core counterpart.

See I'd rather just see the rogue not NEED dex to damage for it to be good.

I'm at work but I just had to log in to say, I'm licking my lips as I read this. My first few characters were all Halfling Rogues, and this sounds great.

Well basically all damage with the exception of just a little tiny bit from your stats looks like it is shifting over to variable damage a la sneak attack, which should help rogues more just by virtue of them getting more of it.

Now, if you think having more variable damage doesn't sound that great, well neither do I and we can show them how much the math for that will probably result in a more plodding game in our feedback forms at the appropriate time.

But it does mean that sneak attack is a fair bit more powerful now by comparison which sort of does eliminate the need for Dex to Damage in its own way.

Harveyopolis wrote:

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.

I agree, but find rogue to be more or less ok. Certainly better than the old Theif. The class names that I find most problematic are Barbarian and Monk. Barbarian is a cultural slur, not a class. I much prefer Berserker, because that's what they do, go into a berserk rage (although someone mentioned in another thread an idea for a re-themed Barbarian or maybe an archetype that renames this Battle Focus to get more of a feel of some kind of hyper-focused state as opposed to being the Hulk). And monk really is a term that to me brings up cloistered dudes in a monastery more than it does a Kung-Fu master. What do we call the cloistered religious ascetics if monk is already taken?

But it's probably too late to change any of this.

the rogue art shows dual wielding, but nothing in the preview concerning it =(

the rogue art shows dual wielding, but nothing in the preview concerning it =(

You can make three attacks per round if you want. Nobody's stopping you using more than one weapon to do it.

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.

You forgot creatures without discernible anatomy, like some aberrations such as the gibbering mouther, creatures with fortification (a denizen of leng for example) and for many purposes, creatures with all around vision or Characters with Uncanny Dodge.

I recently GMed Strange Aeon and one of the PC had sneak attack and it was a running joke how little he could use it.

I just ran SA for a party with a rogue last year, and my player used sneak attack all the time.

I was overjoyed whenever a monster was immune/resistant to sneak attack because it meant he couldn’t hit it with slow reactions, and I might actually get to make an attack of opportunity before they rushed to surround the monster and bash it to pieces.

The notion of "Thievery" tells of further consolidated skills (Disable Device and Sleight of Hand, maybe more, rolled into one). Not happy about this at all. It's another step towards 4e, one that may well be too far for me. The whole point of being a skill monkey is greatly diminished by consolidated skills.

From what they've said, skills are going to be a much more impactful part of the game in P2e than P1e.

If that's the case, then removing the granularity of the skills system will be completely counter to that idea.

The notion of "Thievery" tells of further consolidated skills (Disable Device and Sleight of Hand, maybe more, rolled into one). Not happy about this at all. It's another step towards 4e, one that may well be too far for me. The whole point of being a skill monkey is greatly diminished by consolidated skills.

Joana wrote:

From what they've said, skills are going to be a much more impactful part of the game in P2e than P1e.

If that's the case, then removing the granularity of the skills system will be completely counter to that idea.

I believe the idea is that by reducing the number of skills, you can invest more in each one to get the associated feats.

I agree with some consolidation. It just feels that they're doing a bit too much of it. Nature in particular seems insane.

I'm ok with consolidating non-Int based skills as a balancing factor. However with the change in proficiency that may be less required.

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

Which is one of the places it's most needed. Consolidation is part of it; skills actually being awesome and allowing you, at high levels, to pull of truly fantastic feats worthy of myth and legend are absolutely a godsend for this game.

Devs, please keep up the good work, and don't be afraid to err on the side of epic!

Personally, I’m overjoyed about Thievery, and a condensed skill list in general.

That said, I’m willing to bet there will still be a lot of granularity in skills thanks to Skill Feats. A rogue who spends all their Skill Feats on cool lockpicking/trapsmith abilities is going to feel a lot different than one who spends them on pickpocketing/concealed weapon talents, even though they might both have the same Thievery bonus.

Trimalchio wrote:

the rogue art shows dual wielding, but nothing in the preview concerning it =(

You can make three attacks per round if you want. Nobody's stopping you using more than one weapon to do it.

If that's all TWF is, then what's the point of it? You'd just be reducing your damage vs. fighting with a 2-hander and lacking the defensive boost of a shield.

Fortunately we already know that feats designed to make TWF a more attractive option exist.

Personally, I’m overjoyed about Thievery, and a condensed skill list in general.

That said, I’m willing to bet there will still be a lot of granularity in skills thanks to Skill Feats. A rogue who spends all their Skill Feats on cool lockpicking/trapsmith abilities is going to feel a lot different than one who spends them on pickpocketing/concealed weapon talents, even though they might both have the same Thievery bonus.

That's just going to increase the time people spend going "wait, did I have a bonus to thievery in this situation? no wait, it was for this other use-case" as well as increase the number of times it happens by a lot

I was ok with how PF1e consolidated the 3.5 skills because I feel it did it just enough to not become too broad. There still are cases where the 3.5 skills are superior. Having a penalty on visual Perception checks causes far more confusion than having a penalty to Spot ever did. The main improvement PF1e did over 3.5 was fixing the confusing math involved.

I don't like where this rogue is going. This seems to be a continuation of the effort that was started in Unchained to morph the rogue into a combat-focused "striker"-type character class and away from lying, cheating, manipulation, and burglary.

I want more Moist Von Lipwig and Bilbo Baggins and less Assassin's Creed.

Based on what we've seen so far, I wouldn't be surprised if TWF is a Ranger Class Feat.

I don't like where this rogue is going. This seems to be a continuation of the effort that was started in Unchained to morph the rogue into a combat-focused "striker"-type character class and away from lying, cheating, manipulation, and burglary.

I want more Moist Von Lipwig and Bilbo Baggins and less Assassin's Creed.

Well with double the skill feats of any one else if you want your rogue to be those things it is very likely you can do just that, and probably at least one other thing too.

As a lot of awesome things seem to be moving to skills, I'm looking forward to playing my ex-surgeon Rogue who can heal and hurt.

Based on what we've seen so far, I wouldn't be surprised if TWF is a Ranger Class Feat.

Valeros has been doing a bit of TWF in the playtests and the iconic Rogue preview art shows TWF as well so I don't think that is the case. The benefit may be moving to having two options which I would be fine with. The fighter example had a heavier weapon as their main, but using the offhand agile weapon for the additional hits as they suffer less accuracy loss for iteratives.

Zaister wrote:

Trimalchio wrote:

the rogue art shows dual wielding, but nothing in the preview concerning it =(

You can make three attacks per round if you want. Nobody's stopping you using more than one weapon to do it.

If that's all TWF is, then what's the point of it? You'd just be reducing your damage vs. fighting with a 2-hander and lacking the defensive boost of a

We do not even know if two-handed fighting is still handled the same way as in First Edition, so this statement makes no sense.

I don't like where this rogue is going. This seems to be a continuation of the effort that was started in Unchained to morph the rogue into a combat-focused "striker"-type character class and away from lying, cheating, manipulation, and burglary.

I want more Moist Von Lipwig and Bilbo Baggins and less Assassin's Creed.

Fortunately, the blog states "Its design allows you to focus on the kind of rogue you want to play, from a ruthless slayer who infiltrates dungeons to a swindler charming away coin from gullible townsfolk"

I'm kinda disappointed by this preview. I expected a few more innovations and changes, but the class feels much the same to me instead.

Flying comepletely under the radar, making everyone let their defenses down.

Perfect Rogue blog :3

Personally, I’m overjoyed about Thievery, and a condensed skill list in general.

That said, I’m willing to bet there will still be a lot of granularity in skills thanks to Skill Feats. A rogue who spends all their Skill Feats on cool lockpicking/trapsmith abilities is going to feel a lot different than one who spends them on pickpocketing/concealed weapon talents, even though they might both have the same Thievery bonus.

I don't at all object to the consolidation - just the name. Its too negatively connotated.

So to get a confirmation from the Devs cause I think this thought has been implied but, Do class feats for the rogue equate to the old rogue talents in PF1? In the act of "unifying" or trying to standardize stuff, it can sound confusing also at times.

rude gesture .... really.... so childish .....( that rude gesture)

So to get a confirmation from the Devs cause I think this thought has been implied but, Do class feats for the rogue equate to the old rogue talents in PF1? In the act of "unifying" or trying to standardize stuff, it can sound confusing also at times.

Yep, instead of everything having its own name like Rogue Talents or Rage Powers or Revelations it’s Class Feats now.

I, for one, appreciated 4E's focus on different ability scores, with a primary and secondary ability for each class. It makes for a more varied party makeup than just demanding Str for melee.

I do hope Rogues still get Dex to hit and damage, though given how magic weapons and Power Attack work, I assume weapon damage is going to have more weight than the ability scores on the long run. I believe there's also a proficiency bonus on damage (right?), so it might not be such a big deal. I do like the idea of a Bard using Cha for fencing.

Yes, I'm a bit sad to see Debilitating Strike come in so late, but let's see how the rest of the class will shape up. Those saying that the campaign is long over at 14th level: Don't apply P1 assumptions to P2.

Sadly, between this and the Fighter, I'm getting a distinct impression 2e won't be a game for me...

Not agreeing/disagreeing with you, but would you care to give your reasons?

It shows in the art that the rogue is twf with 2 different weapons. Has PF2 fixed the "problem" that to be "optimal" both twf weapons had to be the same? Certain feats/class features made you literally focus on a certain weapon so to get the full benefit you would need 2 of the same weapon.

This is something that's been bugging me since the podcast. I hate, hate, hate abilities like Nimble Dodge.

+2 to AC vs a single attack and it has to be declared before the attack is rolled just means that I'll use it, my enemy will either hit or miss me easily and then I'll feel like the ability is a complete waste over and over until I find a better use for my reaction and use that instead.

If it applied after the attack roll result is announced then I feel like I'm actually dodging something.

If it applies to every attack that enemy makes in the round then at least I feel like I'm getting some value out of my action as there's a decent chance that +2 will make a difference spread out over multiple attacks each turn.

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.

5th level seems like an appropriate time to get debilitating strikes since that is approximately the time that full casters get their big 3rd level spells.

Also, based upon my cursory reading of Starfinder, I think that I would prefer Trick Attack over Sneak Attack due to issues like plagued the PF1 rogue, such as creatures immune to flanking, critical hits, and sneak attack. In order to be competitive, the rogue needs its defining feature to be less situational. There needs to be reliant ways to trigger the sneak attack feature.

Shadrayl of the Mountain wrote:

Based on what we've seen so far, I wouldn't be surprised if TWF is a Ranger Class Feat.

Valeros has been doing a bit of TWF in the playtests and the iconic Rogue preview art shows TWF as well so I don't think that is the case. The benefit may be moving to having two options which I would be fine with. The fighter example had a heavier weapon as their main, but using the offhand agile weapon for the additional hits as they suffer less accuracy loss for iteratives.

By TWF, I mean feat support for TWF. Valeros in the playtest just had the option of attacking with either weapon, kind of like Starfinder, which seems like really weaksauce TWF.

Edit: sorry, it's late and I didn't read that well before posting. But yeah, I don't think that's much of a use for TWF compared to Two-handed weapons or Sword & Shield. Without feat support, TWF like this would be rather mechanically weak.