Rogue Class Preview

So a +1 weapon adds an additional dice of damage instead of a static +1 to damage?

Well, we know that Rogues get Dex to Attack and Damage from other blogs... with melee, but now the big question: Do they get Dex to damage with Ranged weapons, or are they constantly outshone by the burly knight or orc barbarian with bows and crossbows? And before you start quoting Shadiversity at me, I ask this: What race, since Tolkien, has had the reputation for being the most devastating archers: Strong Orcs, or Dexterous Elves?

But Legolas was an elven warrior not a rogue and with most rogue having high intelligence take the feat that adds Int modifier to missile damage most fighters use Int as a dump stat

It is a bummer that Debilitating Strike is moving back to level 9, but I think it is worth acknowledging that the reason a level 4 rogue needed it was to keep up with full BAB martials. If I understand proficiency correctly, all classes are now full BAB. Meaning the only thing making a fighter or a barbarian hit more often will be their own unique class features. So we will see how much this change matters in practice.

So a +1 weapon adds an additional dice of damage instead of a static +1 to damage?

Yes it does.

gustavo iglesias wrote:

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.

Maybe we played different Strange Aons. Yes, he could sneak attack VS a couple of non relevant dudes like cultists and stuff. But from the top of my head, some of the strongest fights, the ones they had real trouble at the level they fought were

I take it the dice damage added is equal to the base weapon dice damage?

LOL at the first paragraph.

Is that an indication of a little Anti-Paladin Aggression there?

[Redacted]

Gustavo, let's see some spoiler tags on that!!

I take it the dice damage added is equal to the base weapon dice damage?

That's what I understood listening yes

I want to see how skills play in combat. I think that will affect my view of the rogue's role a lot.

gustavo iglesias wrote:

[Redacted]

Gustavo, let's see some spoiler tags on that!!

Done. I thought about them, but I believed no plot was revealed. In any case, better safe than sorry

RumpinRufus wrote:

gustavo iglesias wrote:

[Redacted]

Gustavo, let's see some spoiler tags on that!!

Done. I thought about them, but I believed no plot was revealed. In any case, better safe than sorry

Revealing a whole bunch of specific monsters you fight is pretty spoilery for the experience, even if not for the plot.

I take it the dice damage added is equal to the base weapon dice damage?

There's another playtest video with an evil cleric wielding a +1 mace for 2d8+x damage. So yeah.

Some weapons also have the "deadly" ability, dealing additional damage on top of that. A rapier crit deals 2d6+x+1d8 damage. I think shortbows were also mentioned as "deadly" weapons.

I take it the dice damage added is equal to the base weapon dice damage?

I think there's been a dagger +1 doing 2d4+ damage, not sure if we know of other magic weapons. So we can assume that +1 adds a d4 to damage or the damage die of the weapon.

Maybe someone else knows more...

Edit: Ah yes, look at Blave's comment (above mine).

Dragon78 wrote:

I take it the dice damage added is equal to the base weapon dice damage?

There's another playtest video with an evil cleric wielding a +1 mace for 2d8+x damage. So yeah.

Some weapons also have the "deadly" ability, dealing additional damage on top of that. A rapier crit deals 2d6+x+1d8 damage. I think shortbows were also mentioned as "deadly" weapons.

Deadly's been stated specifically as bonus damage on a crit, if I recall correctly.

gustavo iglesias wrote:

RumpinRufus wrote:

gustavo iglesias wrote:

[Redacted]

Gustavo, let's see some spoiler tags on that!!

Done. I thought about them, but I believed no plot was revealed. In any case, better safe than sorry

Revealing a whole bunch of specific monsters you fight is pretty spoilery for the experience, even if not for the plot.

True, to some extent. I thought that saying "you fight cthulu stuff in Strange Aeon" is like "you fight mummies in Mummy's mask" or "you fight giants in giant slayer", but in any case, better to be safe. So tags used and problem solved

ChibiNyan wrote:

Keep in mind that the Mobility ability that everyone is overlooking means the Rogue becomes the master of conga-line combat as he can very easily walk circles around enemies to always be able to flank. AOOs were kind of a barrier to getting in position before, but not with this.

The fighter blog actually states that an AoO happens when you walk away from someone (presumably leaving their threatened area). This is how 5e does it and it means you can run circles around an enemy anyway (not counting any other enemies nearby).

Mobility might still protect you from other reactions, of course and I think it'll be useful nonetheless.

Not sure if that's what they are going for, but at least it reads this way.

It is as you said. I hope AOOs still apply for trying to walk in circles. It's not been 100% confirmed either way. The a reason 5e got rid of flanking was that it would become laughably easy to gain Advantage on attack rolls for almost no risk... So I figure Paizo also realizes this interaction.

I'm pretty sure the main reason why 5e do not use flanking is because the goal of being playable without a grid.

master_marshmallow wrote:

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.

I MISS USE ROPE SOOOO MUCH!!!!

I TOTALLY FORGOT THAT I INCLUDED THAT TOO!!!!

I'm pretty sure the main reason why 5e do not use flanking is because the goal of being playable without a grid.

Really? I remember it being mentioned in some post from them when a guy asked about why there was no flanking in the game. Might be both I guess! Granted -2 AC probably cant be compared to Advantage so wouldn't be as dumb in PF.

If Finesse becomes a weapon property, then we might get a feat in playtesting that is a rogue class feat that enables DEX/Damage with such weapons, keeping it a rogue only thing, but still not mandating it.

This seems the best solution in a vacuum.

If Finesse becomes a weapon property, then we might get a feat in playtesting that is a rogue class feat that enables DEX/Damage with such weapons, keeping it a rogue only thing, but still not mandating it.

This seems the best solution in a vacuum.

This is apparently provably already a thing from level 1 based on Merisiel in demo games.

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.

In the playtests, we have seen several examples of combatants (both PCs and monsters) making one attack with a heavier weapon and their remaining attacks with agile weapons. That seems to be a version of two weapon fighting that requires no special abilities.

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 am curious where you might be getting the "it has to be declared before the attack" part? The preview only states: Nimble Dodge, a reaction that increases the rogue's Armor Class by 2 at a whim.

At a whim is pretty open and certainly would not, to me, imply I have to declare my reaction before the other party rolls their attack. My expectation is that reactions can come at anytime and can interrupt current actions. Like deciding to nimble dodge after seeing the attack roll, or even after seeing the damage roll. Using shield Block after seeing the damage roll potentially.

Now it's absolutely plausible I missed some other clarification that indicated more clearly the timing on this and/or reactions as a whole.. but without such a clarification I see no reason that one could not Nimble Dodge at any point before the action is fully resolved and thus decide either because it's a crit you don't want to take or they rolled max damage but the +2 AC would make it a miss that you would like to use your reaction at that point.

The more I see pictures of Merisiel and exactly how many blades she has on her person, the more I think that the Quick Draw feat is stupid.

Eben TheQuiet wrote:

Just to reiterate and build up on what others have said (because adding weight to their arguments is important).

I really, really hope the Rogue doesn't give us dex to attack or damage, at least not as a baseline assumption. Strength rogues should be a thing, especially given PF2's stated goal of flexibility ad modularity. Dex to attack should be a weapon quality, in my opinion. And I don't love Dex to damage, but I'm okay with it being an option for players that want to use it ... so make it a Feat. And if it's a Class feat, make it accessible to all the classes where it makes sense: rogue, monk, fighter, maybe even Ranger.

I’m quite happy with Rogue getting Dex-to-damage with finesseable weapons. If I’m playing a Rogue, it’s for that effortless expertise. Strength Rogues should be viable because the weapons are doing twice as much damage- and, ideally, getting an archetype that trades Dex-to-damage for some expanded weapon proficiencies.

I think Dex for attack and damage is fine if it's bound to specific weapons that are known to deal less damage. If they have Finesse weapons only go up to 1d6 damage (no more increase crit range...), for example, but have your traditional greatsword. With the way +1 magic items work, Strength Rogues will still be legit, but Finesse rogues will probably be better with a full attack (higher chance to hit for extra sneak attacks).

I think Dex for attack and damage is fine if it's bound to specific weapons that are known to deal less damage. If they have Finesse weapons only go up to 1d6 damage (no more increase crit range...), for example, but have your traditional greatsword. With the way +1 magic items work, Strength Rogues will still be legit, but Finesse rogues will probably be better with a full attack (higher chance to hit for extra sneak attacks).

Do we know if a +1 Great Sword will be doubled, as in 2d6 to 4d6, or just get another dice for 2d6 to 3d6? And technically, all weapons now have variable crit ranges with the "Beat by 10" rule.

Do we know if a +1 Great Sword will be doubled, as in 2d6 to 4d6, or just get another dice for 2d6 to 3d6?

We do. They haven't said for sure whether Greatswords will remain 2d6 weapons, but they have said that they won't get left behind like this.

An easy solution would be just making the greatsword 1d12. It being different from the greataxe was always a tad weird given the identical longsword/battle axe and short sword/hand axe damage.

And technically, all weapons now have variable crit ranges with the "Beat by 10" rule.

Sure, but at least on the first attack it's the same variable crit range for all weapons.

tivadar27 wrote:

I think Dex for attack and damage is fine if it's bound to specific weapons that are known to deal less damage. If they have Finesse weapons only go up to 1d6 damage (no more increase crit range...), for example, but have your traditional greatsword. With the way +1 magic items work, Strength Rogues will still be legit, but Finesse rogues will probably be better with a full attack (higher chance to hit for extra sneak attacks).

Do we know if a +1 Great Sword will be doubled, as in 2d6 to 4d6, or just get another dice for 2d6 to 3d6? And technically, all weapons now have variable crit ranges with the "Beat by 10" rule.

We don't even know a greatsword will be 2d6. But the general indication from devs has been that we can expect these to deal exceptional damage on crits and when enhanced with magic.

I like playing skill monkeys, so I am happy that you've pumped them full of various skills.

However, I am really disappointed you moved debilitating strikes from level 4 to 9. That just makes this class extremely bland for low levels. Looks like their in combat turn will always be 'move up around and hit'. There is nothing 'cool' to do other than throw extra D6s in the event the bad guy isn't immune to flanking/SA.

Level 1-5 play in PF1E is generally boring. I hope you aren't trying to extend low level play to level 9-10 because that would make the game so monotonous. No! you can't do cool things until level 11 so please wait 2-3 years in to get there before you character truly feels epic or cool.

Do we know if a +1 Great Sword will be doubled, as in 2d6 to 4d6, or just get another dice for 2d6 to 3d6? And technically, all weapons now have variable crit ranges with the "Beat by 10" rule.

Strictly speaking, no, but at the same time, they have to both be doubled, or else scaling magical weapons make no sense. That +1 Bastard Sword (2d10) is now better than a +2 Great Sword (3d6)... So while I say "no", what I mean is "if not, then WTF!"

EDIT: Ninjagoed!

Ninja in the Rye wrote:

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 am curious where you might be getting the "it has to be declared before the attack" part? The preview only states: Nimble Dodge, a reaction that increases the rogue's Armor Class by 2 at a whim.

At a whim is pretty open and certainly would not, to me, imply I have to declare my reaction before the other party rolls their attack. My expectation is that reactions can come at anytime and can interrupt current actions. Like deciding to nimble dodge after seeing the attack roll, or even after seeing the damage roll. Using shield Block after seeing the damage roll potentially.

Now it's absolutely plausible I missed some other clarification that indicated more clearly the timing on this and/or reactions as a whole.. but without such a clarification I see no reason that one could not Nimble Dodge at any point before the action is fully resolved and thus decide either because it's a crit you don't want to take or they rolled max damage but the +2 AC would make it a miss that you would like to use your reaction at that point.

I don't mean to be a debbie downer... But Paizo has ALWAYS designed these types of actions to have to be declared before knowledge of the end result is known (exceptions to this philosophy have also always been considered exceptionally powerful by the design team as well). Starfinder actually has a paragraph in the combat chapter dedicated to saying you must use rerolls before the GM declares the result of the first die roll.

And like Ninja in the Rye, I've always hated this design philosophy. I want to minimize the times my ability is wasted. It's one thing for a reroll to be wasted because the second die roll is just as poor as the first. It's another thing for me to use the reroll, get a worse result and find out the first result would of been fine. I also think it is annoying to have to tell the GM "please don't declare my result right away so I can weight my reroll options".

As is, the Class Cannon Podcast showed the rogue having to declare the use of the nimble dodge before being attacked and being unable to go back and declare it. And I feel that it shares same sense of disappointment and frustration if I waste the ability on a Nat 1 roll only for the enemy to get a hit by an attack that only beat my ac by 1 on the second attack.

The more I see pictures of Merisiel and exactly how many blades she has on her person, the more I think that the Quick Draw feat is stupid.

At a quick glance, on that picture, I see 10. :P

The fact that a +2 AC bonus has both a 10% chance to block a hit and a 10% chance to negate a critical in an ideal scenario (i.e. your attacker can roll 10 above your AC) is small comfort, and completely misses the point. "Reaction for +2 AC against one attack" is one of many abilities that have been previewed that sound, if not pathetic for the level they come in, boring and unimaginative- which is a bad sign when you'd be expecting Paizo to bring their A game to hype things up.

"Boring"is in the eye of beholder, but being able to turn an only-just crit into a normal hit, or an only-just hit into a miss. seems pretty useful to me. And it has a damn site better than 10% chance of working, purely because you pick your moment to use it, so you are going to use it when you have a reasonable expectation of it working.

_
glass.

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.

In the playtests, we have seen several examples of combatants (both PCs and monsters) making one attack with a heavier weapon and their remaining attacks with agile weapons. That seems to be a version of two weapon fighting that requires no special abilities.

Someone doing that in PF1 wouldn't be considered TWFing based on the FAQ. It's merely smart lower level gameplay tactics and getting the most out of multi-action attacks with lesser risk of missing.

Unless they killed the TWF sacred cow, they weren't actually using TWF.

Am I the only one tired of the clichéd tumbling rogue ala Xena?

I prefer Errol Flynn, and I never get tired of watching his movies.

I'm pretty sure the main reason why 5e do not use flanking is because the goal of being playable without a grid.

You don't need a grid to determine flanking.

I've run games using 40k terrain. We just used a piece of string between the two potential flankers if the string from any point on one allies base to any point on the other allies based passed the center of the opponent's base, you had flanking.

If Finesse becomes a weapon property, then we might get a feat in playtesting that is a rogue class feat that enables DEX/Damage with such weapons, keeping it a rogue only thing, but still not mandating it.

I would prefer it was a thing that just happened with appropriate weapons (maybe with a feat allowing you to apply it to weapons of borderline appropriateness). The reason being that the character who need it most are not so much the primary weapon users, as characters like (some) Bards who are not primarily weapon users, but still end up making quite a few weapons attacks. And those are the characters who are, by and large, least able to afford feats.

Of course, everybody seems to be getting more feats in PF2, so that may be less of an issue - but it still matters that feat is in fact available to them.

ETA:

So you want them to be equal to the martial classes (fighter, barbarian etc.) AND have all the skill stuff on top of that?

Why play a martial character then?

I can't speak for Grey Yeti, but for myself:

1) They are a martial class.
2) I want all classes to be equal, martial or otherwise.

_
glass.

GentleGiant wrote:

So you want them to be equal to the martial classes (fighter, barbarian etc.) AND have all the skill stuff on top of that?

Why play a martial character then?

I can't speak for Grey Yeti, but for myself:

1) They are a martial class.
2) I want all classes to be equal, martial or otherwise.

_
glass.

They are a martial class, but not the primary damage dealing class. I think I expect the following, speaking martially:

I mostly like what I see in this.

The way the blog is written, it seems that sneak attack, surprise attack and debilitating strikes are always there and don't have to be selected via a class feat. So, there are definitley some things that every rogue gets. This is nice. Waiting 'til 9th level to get debilitating strike(s) is less so. I'll reserve judgement on that 'til I've seen the playtest doc.

One thing concerns me.

"The design goals for the rogue were simple: she had to be nimble, skillful, and able to take full advantage when enemies are unaware."

I really only ever play rogues. I almost never play rogues with archtypes. Because every archtype writer under the sun seems to think that trap finding is optional and can be dropped on a whim—never to return. To me trap finding is the class defining rogue ability.

For a large part of first edition rogues were the only class that could disable magical traps with disable device. I'm really hoping that in this new edition, rogues are once again the absolute best at dealing with traps/hazards. They can be joint best, but they need to be capable of being best.

Trap finding, good reflex saves and evasion. Not addressed at all.

I am liking it so far but here is a thought.

Would trying to hide with 1 action then attacking twice be a viable stratgey? Assuming there is sttuff to hide behind.

Trap finding, good reflex saves and evasion. Not addressed at all.

The Proficiencies thread specified that they do get Master Reflex Saves, which is what now grants Evasion, and that they were one of only a few to do so. So that's covered.

Trapfinding, I suspect, would be a Skill Feat (or more accurately, set of Skill Feats, though you likely only need one to handle magical traps, others would be things like reflexively spotting traps or disabling them faster, or whatever), meaning that anyone could take it...but that Rogues, having twice the Skill Feats of anyone else, are more likely to do so and be better at it.

continues to sound like you're not giving martial classes any active abilities to play with, just passive/conditional benefits, you need to give them cool combat tricks that open up a lot of options or it's going to result in PF2.0 the same problems PF1 has.

continues to sound like you're not giving martial classes any active abilities to play with, just passive/conditional benefits, you need to give them cool combat tricks that open up a lot of options or it's going to result in PF2.0 the same problems PF1 has.

Wat

Frogsplosion wrote:

continues to sound like you're not giving martial classes any active abilities to play with, just passive/conditional benefits, you need to give them cool combat tricks that open up a lot of options or it's going to result in PF2.0 the same problems PF1 has.

Wat

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/path-of-war/

Rysky wrote:

Frogsplosion wrote:

continues to sound like you're not giving martial classes any active abilities to play with, just passive/conditional benefits, you need to give them cool combat tricks that open up a lot of options or it's going to result in PF2.0 the same problems PF1 has.

Wat

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/path-of-war/

So cool activated abilities? We’ve gotten glimpses of those in these blogs. They’ll definitely have more.

No thanks, I like what im hearing in the blogs.

Frogsplosion wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Frogsplosion wrote:

continues to sound like you're not giving martial classes any active abilities to play with, just passive/conditional benefits, you need to give them cool combat tricks that open up a lot of options or it's going to result in PF2.0 the same problems PF1 has.

Wat

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/path-of-war/

So cool activated abilities? We’ve gotten glimpses of those in these blogs. They’ll definitely have more.

Not to mention they very briefly and vaguely discuss like 3 or 4 'feats' for the class when you can expect to be able to have around 11 by level 20 if you focus on a class which means there's likely significantly more than that available. And that is just the Class Feats. There's a lot yet to be revealed.

Regarding traps: I really hope they do something more interesting with them this time around. As both a player and a DM, I find traps super boring. I hope they can somehow manage to please both the people who want Rogues to be the trap masters, and people like me, who hate the whole, "we need a rogue to deal with traps” thing.

All this has only scratched the surface of the rogue. In the end, this class is a toolbox of tricks, cunning, and mayhem, adaptable to a variety of situations in and out of combat. 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, or even a hard-boiled hunter of fugitives. It's up to you!

I really like this summary and I can't wait to see how the playtest executes this class concept.