Rogue Class Preview

Just going to throw this out there... the answer should be: lots and lots. Starfinder - by comparison - has roughly 50% the feats in Pathfinder CRB.

...

In PF1, most classes have rather a large number of choices of feats, talents, tricks, infusions, spells, or whatnot, even in Core, that there are many practical and survivable builds. I believe PF2 should have roughly the same size menu to choose from, even if it means other things need to be shorter than you might wish.

I agree with the sentiment of the first part, and if Fighter has 30-40 feats to choose from (as Mark indicated), I'll probably be very happy (assuming they're relatively "usable"). This makes sense, as I'd imagine have 3-4 new feats to potentially select every even level is the right number.

That being said, the second part is somewhat untrue. Let's ignore spells, as those are sort of a separate thing. Rogue only had 15 talents to choose from, some of which were ununsable. Barbarians were better, with 28. The rest of the classes (obviously) had only a few choices to make which dictated a lot of the things they got. There were around 150 general feats (not including item creation/metamagic), which is decent, but at the same time, I'm hoping we'll have significantly *more* options overall in this version.

EDIT: Note that many feat options were class-specific, so I could see this version of core being alright with ~100 general feat options. I'd also like to see a fair amount of overlap of class feats, say maybe 20% or so being available in at least one other class. This both helps decrease the design space, and doesn't lock more generic choices in to one specific class.

My only feedback is that Paizo shouldn't wait too long to make fun abilities available to classes.

For example, debillitating strike was at 4th level for the Unchained Rogue, there's no need to make it start at level 6.

Most of PF is played at levels 1-8, it's a shame that many fun abilities are only available at level 12+.

Paizo makes this mistake in general, for example the Kineticist. They should be allowed to do trips and entangles at level 1 (the alchemist had those bomb options at level 1) but they need to wait until level 4. The ability didn't automatically work, there's no reason it shouldn't have been available earlier. That's just one example of many.

My only feedback is that Paizo shouldn't wait too long to make fun abilities available to classes.

For example, debillitating strike was at 4th level for the Unchained Rogue, there's no need to make it start at level 6.

Debilitating strike was *extremely* powerful in PF1e. I'd agree with the principle here, but if they, for example, give the rogue the ability to sicken an enemy using an action early on, then that's cool. The ability to both damage and apply a heavy debuff for a single action probably should be higher level...

Debilitating strike was *extremely* powerful in PF1e. I'd agree with the principle here, but if they, for example, give the rogue the ability to sicken an enemy using an action early on, then that's cool. The ability to both damage and apply a heavy debuff for a single action probably should be higher level...

Fortunately, PF2 will use the new, shiny, clever system of 3 actions. If debilitating strike is too good for a single action at lvl 4, then make it 2 actions :)

Needing a class ability to be able to get any kind of surprise is awful.

Flanking making a character flat footed is worse.

Mark Seifter wrote:

Darius Alazario wrote:

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.

Compared to '3 or 4' class feats, the fighter alone has more than 10 times that number (not going to be more specific because, as Jason has said, we aren't through with copyfitting, so we don't know how many are going to fit).

Just going to throw this out there... the answer should be: lots and lots. Starfinder - by comparison - has roughly 50% the feats in Pathfinder CRB. Most classes have a fraction of the selectable options available to a class in PF CRB. It results in most levels feeling like there's a one-best-choice, and the math of the game does punish varying from those choices much, so there's an obvious One True Build.

Huh. That's interesting. My impression was that Starfinder classes had a lot more substantive options to make than PF1 CRB classes.

(For example, consider the fighter/soldier. The PF1 CRB fighter gets to choose extra feats, and that's pretty much it. The SF soldier gets to choose extra feats, and gear boosts, and primary and secondary style techniques.)

The variety of interesting class choices was actually one of my favorite things about Starfinder. And I'm pleased to see that it looks like they're also trying to ensure that there are a lot of interesting class choices in PF2.

Needing a class ability to be able to get any kind of surprise is awful.

Flanking making a character flat footed is worse.

Flanking does what flanking has always done, so I don't understand what you're saying here.

As for "class ability to get surprise", I think it does make sense. In the new system, going first is a *huge* advantage by itself as you can do something pretty close to a full attack even as a melee class. (Sudden Strike means you essentially only lose your -10 attack, which probably wasn't hitting anyway...).

Needing a class ability to be able to get any kind of surprise is awful.

Flanking making a character flat footed is worse.

Where did you read nobody can ever be surprised unless the other side has a rogue?

In the podcast, when they explained initiatives, they said the guy trying to stealth almost surprised the other side (my gut feelung: would happen in a crit). I'm pretty sure other options exist. Some classes (like rogues) will autosucceed in certain circumstances

Flanking as flat-footed is the same (+2 relative to hit), except now rogues don't have to waste paragraphs e plain ing sneak attack works VS flat footed characters AND characters who are flanked, even if those characters are not flat-footed.

Needing a class ability to be able to get any kind of surprise is awful.

Flanking making a character flat footed is worse.

The revealed "rogues treat others as flat footed in the first round of combat" has nothing to do with surprise. Presumably surprise rounds and all the advantages they can entail are still in the game.

[

Huh. That's interesting. My impression was that Starfinder classes had a lot more substantive options to make than PF1 CRB classes.

They do, in my opinion.

In the podcast, when they explained initiatives, they said the guy trying to stealth almost surprised the other side (my gut feelung: would happen in a crit). I'm pretty sure other options exist. Some classes (like rogues) will autosucceed in certain circumstances

I thought about this and I can't see any way this would work. It's similar to the problem 1e had with surprise rounds and multiple people on both sides stealthing. Some people's rolls may be greater than 10 over the other side's rolls, but not everyone's, and if Alice is 10 over Bob, and Charlie is 10 over Doug, but Alice is not 10 over Doug, what happens...

Perhaps if you beat someone by 10 in initiative they are flat-footed to you (and rogues just have to beat them/automatically critical, but certainly not a surprise round.

EDIT: This might have been what you were saying, just using "surprised" in place of "flat-footed".

Needing a class ability to be able to get any kind of surprise is awful.

Flanking making a character flat footed is worse.

This blog doesn't say you need a class ability to get surprise. It says that folk aren't flat footed until they've acted in the first round. The class ability makes them flat footed for the rogue. Under the current rules, you could be attacked in two separate rounds while flat footed by someone who surprised you and then beat you in initiative.

The current rules have the horrible effect that you can be lying in wait for someone, attack them, GM decides there is no surprise round (for whatever reason) get beaten in initiative and be flat footed. WTF!!!! I'm ambushing them!!!

Flat footed has changed what it means, your armour class is 2 worse than it would normally be. In terms of effect this is exactly what happened in the previous edition. Explaining a concept once and then reusing it, this is a good thing.

Nathanael Love wrote:

Needing a class ability to be able to get any kind of surprise is awful.

Flanking making a character flat footed is worse.

The revealed "rogues treat others as flat footed in the first round of combat" has nothing to do with surprise. Presumably surprise rounds and all the advantages they can entail are still in the game.

"Flanking a foe is the easiest way for the rogue to make her foe flat-footed, but at 1st level, she also gets the surprise attack feature. Thanks to surprise attack, during the first round of combat, the rogue treats any creature that has not taken its turn yet as if it were flat-footed."

If you aren't flat footed, you aren't surprised.

And it doesn't say "the easiest way to activate sneak attack" it says "the easiest way to make her foe flat-footed"--

So unless they just misspoke, flanking now gives a +2 to hit and denies dex and dodge and other bonuses?

I'm liking what I'm seeing! About time the rogue class got some love. I am concerned that some of the cool abilities kick in a higher levels.

I do have one question- does every combatant begin the round flat-footed as in PF 1e? I kind of hope so, because I hate trying to remember and then tracking this.

Please don't call rogue skills "thievery." This word is very is too specific to be applied broadly.

I'm also in favor of the no Dex to Damage. Dex should be just applied to hit; use the precision damage for that. Unless, of course, the PC has to spend feats on it.

Huh. It's... cool, I guess? It doesn't really feel all that earth-shattering, and, like with the fighter, I guess it just leaves me with a 'meh' feeling.

What are you talking about? These are a huge changes to the Rogue; people will actually play a rogue now. Frankly, I'm getting sick and tired of naysayers every time Paizo posts a blog post which doesn't align 100% with someone's desires. Step back, look at the big picture. I came into this 2nd edition news with many doubts and a bad attitude about this new edition myself. But you have to remember we are getting only bits of information (I'll leave the issue with this alone for now) and haven't even gotten to the actual playtest rules yet. I'm still waiting for the D&D 4e / D&D 5e shoe to drop, though, as I hate those systems and hope PF 2e doesn't go that route. So far, they are not. Looks like we'll have plenty of options to customize. I also don't want fighters to be able to jump 100 feet into the air without dedicating a substantial portion of their reqs to doing so.

So I don't love the implication that "Sneak attack is the defining characteristic of rogues" and I hope that there's an archetype I can take to trade it away for something that makes the trade worth it.

Uhh...What would you like to see the Rogue's defining characteristic be, then?

I love rogue melees, but am OK with the fact that they shouldn't be the same as fighters. They should be "on par" with fighters with regard to melee, but in a different way.

Is the math being changed to make bleed attacks do anything? If you're hitting someone for 4d6 twice a round, doing an extra 2d6 each round is nice, I guess, but hardly worth a feat. If bleed stacked with itself and wasn't trivial to fix, then that might be worthwhile.

WHAT?! Doing an extra 2d6 per round isn't worth a feat?! I must be misreading your post.

I always felt that 13th level or so is the point when the characters become kind of gonzo. Also, I'm very curious to know whether spells that have a huge effect on campaigns will be gated higher, such as Raise Dead and Teleport. (And I would support that change.)

I'd also support this change, and I usually play spell casters!

Also from what we've seen rogues will be able to keep up to a degree with other classes. Fighters will be solid and consistent whereas rogues will rely more on situational circumstances that let them get their damage output. This should mean when the circumstances are right they do more damage, but they have to rely on teamwork and the right conditions to get those situations to crop up.

This is exactly how rogues should be.

[So unless they just misspoke, flanking now gives a +2 to hit and denies dex and dodge and other bonuses?

No misspeaking, just them presenting incomplete info as part of this release (again, this was presented in one of the playthroughs..., I don't think it's been mentioned in the Blog). Flat-footed is now a flat -2 to AC, no denying dex anymore. That may be where the confusion is coming in.

Nathanael Love wrote:

[So unless they just misspoke, flanking now gives a +2 to hit and denies dex and dodge and other bonuses?

No misspeaking, just them presenting incomplete info as part of this release (again). Flat-footed is now a flat -2 to AC, no denying dex anymore. That may be where the confusion is coming in.

Where is that stated?

tivadar27 wrote:

Nathanael Love wrote:

[So unless they just misspoke, flanking now gives a +2 to hit and denies dex and dodge and other bonuses?

No misspeaking, just them presenting incomplete info as part of this release (again). Flat-footed is now a flat -2 to AC, no denying dex anymore. That may be where the confusion is coming in.

Where is that stated?

Sorry, just updated my post, it was mentioned in one of the playthroughs.

AGAIN, PAIZO, IF YOU'RE GOING TO USE MECHANICAL KEYWORDS IN YOUR RELEASES, SAY WHAT THOSE KEYWORDS MEAN!

Nathanael Love wrote:

tivadar27 wrote:

Nathanael Love wrote:

[So unless they just misspoke, flanking now gives a +2 to hit and denies dex and dodge and other bonuses?

No misspeaking, just them presenting incomplete info as part of this release (again). Flat-footed is now a flat -2 to AC, no denying dex anymore. That may be where the confusion is coming in.

Where is that stated?

Sorry, just updated my post, it was mentioned in one of the playthroughs.

AGAIN, PAIZO, IF YOU'RE GOING TO USE MECHANICAL KEYWORDS IN YOUR RELEASES, SAY WHAT THOSE KEYWORDS MEAN!

Yah for sure, because I hate play through podcasts as is (or I don't listen to them, I don't spend my time on that) so listening to one for a system I don't even know (or that doesn't exist) is beyond unappealing to me.

Though that makes the other problem that now no one is ever denied dex mod?

tivadar27 wrote:

Nathanael Love wrote:

tivadar27 wrote:

Nathanael Love wrote:

[So unless they just misspoke, flanking now gives a +2 to hit and denies dex and dodge and other bonuses?

No misspeaking, just them presenting incomplete info as part of this release (again). Flat-footed is now a flat -2 to AC, no denying dex anymore. That may be where the confusion is coming in.

Where is that stated?

Sorry, just updated my post, it was mentioned in one of the playthroughs.

AGAIN, PAIZO, IF YOU'RE GOING TO USE MECHANICAL KEYWORDS IN YOUR RELEASES, SAY WHAT THOSE KEYWORDS MEAN!

Yah for sure, because I hate play through podcasts as is (or I don't listen to them, I don't spend my time on that) so listening to one for a system I don't even know (or that doesn't exist) is beyond unappealing to me.

Though that makes the other problem that now no one is ever denied dex mod?

They wanted to simplify AC a bit, so now there's only Regular and Touch, which I'm fine with. I don't know if invisibility will provide a benefit *beyond* flat-footed, but it might (for example, auto-crit on a hit or something).

people will actually play a rogue now.

If I took every sentiment like that I've seen on the forums at face value, then Pathfinder would be a weird game where no one plays anything.

Where are people getting the impression that "Twist the Knife" would be 4d6=2d6 bleed instead of 4d6=2 bleed?

tivadar27 wrote:

Nathanael Love wrote:

tivadar27 wrote:

Nathanael Love wrote:

[So unless they just misspoke, flanking now gives a +2 to hit and denies dex and dodge and other bonuses?

No misspeaking, just them presenting incomplete info as part of this release (again). Flat-footed is now a flat -2 to AC, no denying dex anymore. That may be where the confusion is coming in.

Where is that stated?

Sorry, just updated my post, it was mentioned in one of the playthroughs.

AGAIN, PAIZO, IF YOU'RE GOING TO USE MECHANICAL KEYWORDS IN YOUR RELEASES, SAY WHAT THOSE KEYWORDS MEAN!

Yah for sure, because I hate play through podcasts as is (or I don't listen to them, I don't spend my time on that) so listening to one for a system I don't even know (or that doesn't exist) is beyond unappealing to me.

Though that makes the other problem that now no one is ever denied dex mod?

Losing Dex mod was insignificant in PF1 with the big beefy high AC creatures that had low Dex anyway. This makes flat-footed always consistent, avoids having to keep track of a separate AC value for everyone, and is more powerful than just +2 to hit anyway... giving -2 AC to the enemy when flatfooted means 10% less chance of a crit failure and 10% more chance of a critical hit.

Also re your other thing from earlier, as has been mentioned, "Surprise Attack" is maybe a badly named ability but doesn't imply anything about other characters not being able to get surprise. You can almost assuredly still ambush your enemies and get a surprise round, and I'd be really... surprised (boooo, I know) if people weren't flat-footed when surprised. After all, part of the whole point of attacking from Stealth is that Stealth makes enemies flat-footed to you when they can't detect you. They've just cleaned it up so that when it's not a surprise round, you aren't flat-footed on the first round. Which is a change I agree with.

The central problem with the rogue in the 3.x design space has always been the weakness of skills.

It seems to me that the rogue is leaning heavily on the new skill system to be interesting and do cool things because most of the class stuff previewed just isn't interesting.

Also re your other thing from earlier, as has been mentioned, "Surprise Attack" is maybe a badly named ability but doesn't imply anything about other characters not being able to get surprise. You can almost assuredly still ambush your enemies and get a surprise round, and I'd be really... surprised (boooo, I know) if people weren't flat-footed when surprised. After all, part of the whole point of attacking from Stealth is that Stealth makes enemies flat-footed to you when they can't detect you. They've just cleaned it up so that when it's not a surprise round, you aren't flat-footed on the first round. Which is a change I agree with.

I'm actually hoping they get rid of the surprise round entirely. If you have a huge situational bonus to Stealth, then you get to act first in initiative, and with the 3 action system, that's a pretty big advantage by itself.

As I mentioned above, "Surprise" was always inexact in 1e (and in 5e for that matter). You could have some of one team aware of some of the other team, but not aware of others, which means there should be a surprise round, but if A knows C and D are there, and B knows about C only, but C only knows about A... Well, you get the point. Who should act in the surprise round could not be determined exactly in 1e.

I could see one of the following bonuses applying to initiative:
1. Enemies who you critically succeed in initiative attacks against are flat-footed to you.
2. If you critically succeed in initiative against all enemies, you may take 1 additional action on your turn in combat.

nogoodscallywag wrote:

people will actually play a rogue now.

If I took every sentiment like that I've seen on the forums at face value, then Pathfinder would be a weird game where no one plays anything.

They'd play Wizard, I guess. But only at high levels! ^_^;

I'm actually hoping they get rid of the surprise round entirely. If you have a huge situational bonus to Stealth, then you get to act first in initiative, and with the 3 action system, that's a pretty big advantage by itself.

As I mentioned above, "Surprise" was always inexact in 1e (and in 5e for that matter). You could have some of one team aware of some of the other team, but not aware of others, which means there should be a surprise round, but if A knows C and D are there, and B knows about C only, but C only knows about A... Well, you get the point. Who should act in the surprise round could not be determined exactly in 1e.

I could see one of the following bonuses applying to initiative:
1. Enemies who you critically succeed in initiative attacks against are flat-footed to you.
2. If you critically succeed in initiative against all enemies, you may take 1 additional action on your turn in combat.

Definitely disagree with this. Surprise rounds reward clever tactics. It would be awful IMO if you set up an ambush, and the enemy still got to act before you.

As for your example, per the rules if you are aware of an enemy then you get to act in the surprise round. A, B, and C would all get to act. I've literally never had a problem determining who should act in a surprise round.

As for your example, per the rules if you are aware of an enemy then you get to act in the surprise round. A, B, and C would all get to act. I've literally never had a problem determining who should act in a surprise round.

So if the teams are (A, B) and (C, D) and no one sees A, but everyone else sees each other, then they're all aware of an enemy and get to go in the surprise round/there is no surprise round?

Huh. That's interesting. My impression was that Starfinder classes had a lot more substantive options to make than PF1 CRB classes.

(For example, consider the fighter/soldier. The PF1 CRB fighter gets to choose extra feats, and that's pretty much it. The SF soldier gets to choose extra feats, and gear boosts, and primary and secondary style techniques.)

I hear you... but.

SF has half the feats that CRB does. I'll grant, a number of PF feats got collapsed in SF (such as all the combat maneuver feats). But a PF fighter still has a lot more choice.

What I've found with my soldier (melee), is that once I've taken the gear trick for melee, I'm left for nearly the rest of my career picking tricks for "not what my character does 99% of combats." The choices are mostly "do other things less badly". None of those are attractive.

I had a similar experience with my short-lived solarian as well. The choices weren't very attractive because they didn't synergize or stack. They were just more things I didn't want to find myself doing in combat.

The variety of interesting class choices was actually one of my favorite things about Starfinder. And I'm pleased to see that it looks like they're also trying to ensure that there are a lot of interesting class choices in PF2.

My turn to say "huh". Just to throw a third into the mix, I kind of dread when my technomancer gets new magic hacks. Because again, nothing fits together.

If you aren't flat footed, you aren't surprised.

I suspect it's the other way round, based on Starfinder.

In SF, you're only flat-footed if you're surprised.
If there's no surprise round, or you're aware of the enemy then you aren't flat-footed (no penalty to AC), but you can't make AoOs (reactions) until after you've acted for the first time.
If you're surprised (not aware of the enemy) then you're flat-footed (-2 AC) until you act for the first time.

Therefore, this class ability means that the rogue can still treat somebody who hasn't acted yet as flat-footed, even if the target is aware of the combat starting and not flat-footed to anybody else.

RumpinRufus wrote:

As for your example, per the rules if you are aware of an enemy then you get to act in the surprise round. A, B, and C would all get to act. I've literally never had a problem determining who should act in a surprise round.

So if the teams are (A, B) and (C, D) and no one sees A, but everyone else sees each other, then they're all aware of an enemy and get to go in the surprise round/there is no surprise round?

Correct, in that case there is no surprise round. Everyone has seen an enemy, so everyone is drawing their weapons, etc.

Not thrilled to wait for 9th level that which I already get much, much earlier...

Nathanael Love wrote:

If you aren't flat footed, you aren't surprised.

I suspect it's the other way round, based on Starfinder.

In SF, you're only flat-footed if you're surprised.

They've already stated you are also flat-footed when flanked. And that there is no flat-footed AC. Instead, it sounds like the old Flanked state is called Flat-footed and broadened as to when it applies. What I've seen mentioned is that being flat-footed means -2 AC.

As of yet, I am not sure how I feel about this to be honest. I mean, this is reversed from the usual +2 to hit for the attacker into a -2 AC for the defender. If it is a relational status then it wont really matter one way or the other.. that is: If you are flanking an enemy you treat that enemy as flat-footed. This would imply that the bonus only applies to your attacks. But if instead it is: When an enemy is flanked they are flat footed. This would mean not only do you and your flanking partner have an easier time hitting them, but your archer friend 30' away does too. Which does make some sense, after all they can't watch out for that incoming arrow as well if they're dealing with two melees surrounding them already, but it also makes this tactic REALLY powerful I think. Two allies surround an enemy and now all of you not only have an easier time hitting them but 10% higher chance of crit and 10% lower chance of fumble. That's a big gain for the entire party off two people's positioning.

Nathanael Love wrote:

If you aren't flat footed, you aren't surprised.

I suspect it's the other way round, based on Starfinder.

In SF, you're only flat-footed if you're surprised.
If there's no surprise round, or you're aware of the enemy then you aren't flat-footed (no penalty to AC), but you can't make AoOs (reactions) until after you've acted for the first time.
If you're surprised (not aware of the enemy) then you're flat-footed (-2 AC) until you act for the first time.

Therefore, this class ability means that the rogue can still treat somebody who hasn't acted yet as flat-footed, even if the target is aware of the combat starting and not flat-footed to anybody else.

Also note that given the wording, it sounds like you can't take reactions until it's your turn. I believe I read somewhere that each character got "3 actions and 1 reaction on their turn" (note: I can't seem to find it now). This would mean you can't take a reaction until you've acted, much like Pathfinder 1e.

Correct, in that case there is no surprise round. Everyone has seen an enemy, so everyone is drawing their weapons, etc.

Fair, that does simplify the overall system, but I've definitely seen it interpreted in other ways. For example, it's common for the rogue to be stealthing/invisible and the GM to give them a surprise round even when the parties see each other simultaneously. I like *your* interpretation better for the record :-P. The other one gets into weird corner cases.

Surprise Attack would feel a little more valuable if it was an automatic crit if it hit, like the 5e Assassin Power. With Sneak Attacks doubling on crit, that'd be far better.

Also note that given the wording, it sounds like you can't take reactions until it's your turn. I believe I read somewhere that each character got "3 actions and 1 reaction on their turn" (note: I can't seem to find it now). This would mean you can't take a reaction until you've acted, much like Pathfinder 1e.

See, I'm not sure if it was "you get 3 actions and one reaction" or "on your turn you may take 3 actions and ready one reaction." I'm really hoping that it turns out to be that on your turn you 'slot' a reaction which can then be used at will until your next turn. If you take AoO as your reaction, then you may make attacks of opportunity until your next turn. If you take Shield Block as your reaction, then you may block as many things as you want with your shield until your next turn. If you take Nimble Dodge, you essentially give up your reaction to increase your AC by 2 until your next turn. Ranged characters might get a "quick shot" reaction that automatically rolls a ranged attack (at -5, probably) at enemies who move *into* melee range. (That would be cool. I want that.) Basically, I want to slot a repeatable reaction. However, the wording could go either way, and I'm intensely curious as to how this works.

tivadar27 wrote:

Also note that given the wording, it sounds like you can't take reactions until it's your turn. I believe I read somewhere that each character got "3 actions and 1 reaction on their turn" (note: I can't seem to find it now). This would mean you can't take a reaction until you've acted, much like Pathfinder 1e.

See, I'm not sure if it was "you get 3 actions and one reaction" or "on your turn you may take 3 actions and ready one reaction." I'm really hoping that it turns out to be that on your turn you 'slot' a reaction which can then be used at will until your next turn. If you take AoO as your reaction, then you may make attacks of opportunity until your next turn. If you take Shield Block as your reaction, then you may block as many things as you want with your shield until your next turn. If you take Nimble Dodge, you essentially give up your reaction to increase your AC by 2 until your next turn. Ranged characters might get a "quick shot" reaction that automatically rolls a ranged attack (at -5, probably) at enemies who move *into* melee range. (That would be cool. I want that.) Basically, I want to slot a repeatable reaction. However, the wording could go either way, and I'm intensely curious as to how this works.

There's a fighter feat that let you have an extra reaction to shield block... So no. The reactions don't repeats. Also, the rogue could only Nimble Dodge one attack in the Glass Cannon podcast.

I'm not sure having any lvl 1 character with a shield be immune to all non crit attacks from an equal foe would be a good idea Silverlite.

Where are people getting the impression that "Twist the Knife" would be 4d6=2d6 bleed instead of 4d6=2 bleed?

The vague hope that the option might be remotely relevant, rather than utterly worthless. Paizo's history on bleed doesn't lend much hope.

WHAT?! Doing an extra 2d6 per round isn't worth a feat?! I must be misreading your post.

In what universe is an extra seven damage per round relevant at level 7, even assuming the enemy doesn't have a trivial means of eliminating the bleed? It's like thinking the flaming/frost/etc +1 weapon enchantments are better than a static +1. Sure, it's a "cool" ability, but the math doesn't back it up.

For those who object to "thievery" being a skill, what other name would you suggest? Purloin? Pilfer? Filching? Larceny? None of those are particularly more appropriate than "thievery," since the end result of taking something from someone forcefully, is all the same.

In what universe is an extra seven damage per round relevant at level 7, even assuming the enemy doesn't have a trivial means of eliminating the bleed?

Ooh, I think I know the answer to this one! The universe in which this is a brand new edition with heavily revised combat math and a completely reworked feat system and action economy! It's awfully silly to simply assume bleed will be bad in PF2 just because it was bad in PF1. Granted, I don't know that it won't be bad, but I'm going to give Paizo the benefit of the doubt until I see the finalized rules.

For those who object to "thievery" being a skill, what other name would you suggest? Purloin? Pilfer? Filching? Larceny? None of those are particularly more appropriate than "thievery," since the end result of taking something from someone forcefully, is all the same.

A bunch of us have suggested "Legerdemain"

It doesn't have the same linguistic baggage as any of those other words. The point is that the skill isn't just for taking something from people forcefully. There are more uses than that for picking locks, disabling traps and sleight of hand than just stealing stuff, and calling the whole skill set by the name "thievery" gives the impression that's all it's for, rather than just one application of the skill set.

EDIT: heck, even the way you phrased the question shows the problem with the word "thievery" as a choice perfectly.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

For those who object to "thievery" being a skill, what other name would you suggest? Purloin? Pilfer? Filching? Larceny? None of those are particularly more appropriate than "thievery," since the end result of taking something from someone forcefully, is all the same.

A bunch of us have suggested "Legerdemain"

It doesn't have the same linguistic baggage as any of those other words. The point is that the skill isn't just for taking something from people forcefully. There are more uses than that for picking locks, disabling traps and sleight of hand than just stealing stuff, and calling the whole skill set by the name "thievery" gives the impression that's all it's for, rather than just one application of the skill set.

Since it covers all that Finesse or something similar might work better, though I’m partial to Skulduggery even though it’s as negative as Thievery.

I just like saying it :3

I have no problem with "finesse" either. I just like saying "legerdemain" the way you like saying "skulduggery" :P

Leedwashere wrote:

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

For those who object to "thievery" being a skill, what other name would you suggest? Purloin? Pilfer? Filching? Larceny? None of those are particularly more appropriate than "thievery," since the end result of taking something from someone forcefully, is all the same.

A bunch of us have suggested "Legerdemain"

It doesn't have the same linguistic baggage as any of those other words. The point is that the skill isn't just for taking something from people forcefully. There are more uses than that for picking locks, disabling traps and sleight of hand than just stealing stuff, and calling the whole skill set by the name "thievery" gives the impression that's all it's for, rather than just one application of the skill set.

Since it covers all that Finesse or something similar might work better, though I’m partial to Skulduggery even though it’s as negative as Thievery.

I just like saying it :3

Skulduggery.

For those who object to "thievery" being a skill, what other name would you suggest? Purloin? Pilfer? Filching? Larceny? None of those are particularly more appropriate than "thievery," since the end result of taking something from someone forcefully, is all the same.

Sleight of Hand and Disable Device were fine already.

Sleight of Hand and Disable Device were fine already.

i don't mind thievery cause it's just a word...though i guess they should get it over with and just call it "rogue skill"...then people can complain instead about how "my paladin can't use that skill anymore cause it says rogue"...

I find them both a little too niche to take on most characters.

I'd like to see the "magic tricks" side of Sleight of Hand included with Deception instead of Thievery. Thievery is then solely the home of stealing, lock-picking, and bypassing anti-intrusion measures and earns its bad reputation.

For those who object to "thievery" being a skill, what other name would you suggest? Purloin? Pilfer? Filching? Larceny? None of those are particularly more appropriate than "thievery," since the end result of taking something from someone forcefully, is all the same.

I always liked Security Systems representing trap skills. Legerdemain or Trickery might work depending on exactly what is part of the skill.

na, pallys can do whatever now.

Deranged Stabbyman wrote:

Where are people getting the impression that "Twist the Knife" would be 4d6=2d6 bleed instead of 4d6=2 bleed?

The vague hope that the option might be remotely relevant, rather than utterly worthless. Paizo's history on bleed doesn't lend much hope.

Nogoodscallywag wrote:

WHAT?! Doing an extra 2d6 per round isn't worth a feat?! I must be misreading your post.

In what universe is an extra seven damage per round relevant at level 7, even assuming the enemy doesn't have a trivial means of eliminating the bleed? It's like thinking the flaming/frost/etc +1 weapon enchantments are better than a static +1. Sure, it's a "cool" ability, but the math doesn't back it up.

Yeah, in the Past, Bleed has been rather lackluster. If it stacked, or was harder to get rid of, that'd be great. After all, it's meant to be sustained damage, but not necessarily a primary damage source. Me? I'm hoping for Dex Damage on Ranged Attacks, and a completely OUT THERE wish is that they make Surprise Attack work like 5e Assassin where if it hits, it's an auto crit. Doing that with a Deadly weapon like a Rapier or Shortbow, and a Rogue might actually be able to act out their Medieval Sam Fisher fantasies on lone, unaware targets.