Is this "really" an error this late? It been half a month and i still can not find anything that says Rogue Resilient is a typo, some people (including myself) have thought it is but when Day 1 Errata came and Rogue was NOT Errata'd it makes me wonder if this is on purpose. If someone could show me where one Dev said that rogues are not suppose to bump all three saves at level 17, pleae show me. I will greatly appericate it, thank you.
I'm a bit confused by the post. What exactly are you considering to be an error?
Rogue Resilience is a level 9 class feature. Previously it only gave Expert proficiency to Fortitude saves (and was instead called Great Fortitude). Remaster added the degree of success increase from success to critical success.
In comparison, Witch gets Expert proficiency in Fortitude saves but not the degree of success increase, but they get it at level 5 instead of level 9.
What are you meaning with 'bump all three saves at level 17'? I'm not seeing any level 17 ability that does that.
I believe the rogue is the only class that can promote all saves from a Success to a Critical Success.
That seems wrong to me. If anyone got that, it should have been the monk.
OK.
Well, I have nothing other than the rules themselves to go on. So, if it is an error, it is one that will need to have errata. At the moment, it is very clear and unambiguous. And while it may be strange that other classes don't get that - it is certainly not a problem. The other classes haven't actually lost anything just because Rogue gained something.
This seems to be widely hated by the online fans (see Animist playtest) but is something that at least one Paizo developer is trying to get away with (see Animist playtest). Whether this change was accidental, the Rogue going rogue, or widely internally endorsed I can't say. For now PFS has to use it as printed and other GMs can decide to revert it.
Someone at Paizo loves the rogue this edition. That is one brutal class. Only real weaknesses is soft hit points and slower AC progression.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Only real weaknesses is soft hit points and slower AC progression.
Which - when you state it that way - is a pretty big 'only real weakness' considering that there are a lot of enemies that attack AC and do a lot of HP damage at a time.
I was hoping someone had a link or a statement proving that it was wrong because the idea that Rogues can just critical success frightens me. Since if anyone is meant to do this it would certainly be the monk.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This seems to be widely hated by the online fans (see Animist playtest) but is something that at least one Paizo developer is trying to get away with (see Animist playtest).
The playtest animist only got advancements on one save, not three.
This seems to be widely hated by the online fans (see Animist playtest) but is something that at least one Paizo developer is trying to get away with (see Animist playtest).The playtest animist only got advancements on one save, not three.
It was the first case of advancement from success to crit on an expert rather than master save. The universal reaction everywhere was one million monkeys on one hundred forums typing on keyboards that this was an unprecedented mistake, but then Shakespeare informed us this was a brilliant planned advance in game design.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It was the first case of advancement from success to crit on an expert rather than master save. The universal reaction everywhere was one million monkeys on one hundred forums typing on keyboards that this was an unprecedented mistake, but then Shakespeare informed us this was a brilliant planned advance in game design.This seems to be widely hated by the online fans (see Animist playtest) but is something that at least one Paizo developer is trying to get away with (see Animist playtest).The playtest animist only got advancements on one save, not three.
It's not wholly unprecedented. Fighters have always had success to critical success at expert will proficiency, albeit limited to fear effects.
It still feels weird to me that the rogue gets it on all fort saves at expert, tho. It isn't necessarily a mistake, but when you have exactly one instance where one class bucks an otherwise pretty clear trend, it gets people asking if that was intended. And I don't feel it's an unwarranted question.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It was the first case of advancement from success to crit on an expert rather than master save. The universal reaction everywhere was one million monkeys on one hundred forums typing on keyboards that this was an unprecedented mistake, but then Shakespeare informed us this was a brilliant planned advance in game design.This seems to be widely hated by the online fans (see Animist playtest) but is something that at least one Paizo developer is trying to get away with (see Animist playtest).The playtest animist only got advancements on one save, not three.
IIRC it was not so much widely hated as surprising and expected to be a typo because it was so different from what we're used to.
IIRC it was not so much widely hated as surprising and expected to be a typo because it was so different from what we're used to.
I think it was less hated and more like "Why does getting master in fort give them the will save upgrade?".
That's what I remember too.
People were actually complaining that Animist didn't get enough save proficiencies.
People were confused because one of the class features gave a proficiency bump in one save and a degree of success boost in a different save as part of the same class feature.
That one was very confusing. I didn't understand it and I am not sure if it was a mistake or not.
Still this doesn't answer if anyone had a statement saying this was an accident or not.
There was a day 1 errata. If it was a total accident, then it probably would have been addressed there. It might still eventually get an errata, but it is unlikely just a complete mistake. Minimally, there is still debate about what to change about it, but more likely, some folks in the development team at least want it to be this way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There was a day 1 errata. If it was a total accident, then it probably would have been addressed there. It might still eventually get an errata, but it is unlikely just a complete mistake. Minimally, there is still debate about what to change about it, but more likely, some folks in the development team at least want it to be this way.
While I get where you're coming from, there are errors, typos, or points of confusion in the original CRB that took years to reach errata (and honestly a few points of confusion that have just been transplanted directly into player core).
Not to mention that there has been some sort of internal power struggle at Paizo over rules direction anyways, so that muddies it up even more.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am just saying things like “ wizards get a first level feat” get addressed very quickly when it is something the development team identifies as “that just doesn’t belong there and is obviously misleading players. Things that take longer could be “but what do we mean by that?” Questions that take time and agreement.
Rogues getting that text in there about there waves could still be “what do we mean here?” In a way that is taking time to sort, but it is clear rules text that doesn’t contradict itself or anything else in the game so there is less reason to assume it is just there by mistake than to read it at face value until we hear otherwise. If it wasn’t supposed to be there at all, it really seems like something would have been said by now.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rogues are awesome. The rogue game designer rolled his Deception and Diplomacy skill to convince the others in the design team that a rogue with better a better Fort save was balanced and necessary because rogues disarm traps and work with poisons. He got a great roll and successfully lobbied for an even better rogue in PF2.
There was a day 1 errata. If it was a total accident, then it probably would have been addressed there. It might still eventually get an errata, but it is unlikely just a complete mistake. Minimally, there is still debate about what to change about it, but more likely, some folks in the development team at least want it to be this way.While I get where you're coming from, there are errors, typos, or points of confusion in the original CRB that took years to reach errata (and honestly a few points of confusion that have just been transplanted directly into player core).
Not to mention that there has been some sort of internal power struggle at Paizo over rules direction anyways, so that muddies it up even more.
Say more about that?
Say more about that?There was a day 1 errata. If it was a total accident, then it probably would have been addressed there. It might still eventually get an errata, but it is unlikely just a complete mistake. Minimally, there is still debate about what to change about it, but more likely, some folks in the development team at least want it to be this way.While I get where you're coming from, there are errors, typos, or points of confusion in the original CRB that took years to reach errata (and honestly a few points of confusion that have just been transplanted directly into player core).
Not to mention that there has been some sort of internal power struggle at Paizo over rules direction anyways, so that muddies it up even more.
I too am curious about what you mean by internal Power Struggle. This is getting juicy.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I too am curious about what you mean by internal Power Struggle. This is getting juicy.
Office politics are rarely what it seems from the outside, boring, sometimes dramatic, and often blown out of proportion. There isn't much to speak of on this, much of what has been alluded to is melodrama and misunderstanding but going any more in-depth about those rumors is not polite/respectful to the staff nor is it conducive to the sane operations of this forum or any official Paizo community.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, to be clear, I personally am fine with rogues getting just the success boosting side of the save bump. Fortitude saves are brutal on rogues and that doesn’t really change with success bumps, because they fail fort saves all the time and don’t have a lot of hit points to help them out when it is against poison and death effects. Successful saves are rarely the things killing PCs in the games I see, compared to failed saves and especially crit failed saves, which don’t get any help here.
The idea that, when rogues get lucky, the get really lucky doesn’t read like any kind of mistake to me personally. I just also acknowledge that they are in good enough shape that if removing the fort save success bump was the big nerf they get, it really wouldn’t be much of a needle mover, nor get much back lash. But I think rogues having more “luck” like mechanics feels pretty right on to me.
They already get bonus damage, more skills and skill feats. They get less hit points to balance the Skill Monkey aspect. they get the only source for Dex to damage making strength less required, get crazy feats high level. If anyone should "bump" saves it should be the monk.
If they don't give this same tactic to Investigator Remastered next year then someone at Paizo rolled a Deception and got it past the rest of the team.
I heard when the Advanced Player's Guide came out that oddly the four classes were actually much weaker then the Core Book's classes and looking back I can see why people would say that. Rogue just needs to flank vs Investigator's 1 action to DS or if you're lucky free action. Swashbuckler needing Panache which is hard vs equal or higher level enemies. Witch being worst wizard and Oracle being worse at spell-casting. Actively getting debuffed to use their class gimmick.
Not sure where you're getting that rogues fail fort often seeing as they're opening with 16 con. Well, thieves are and ruffians can by taking sentinel to dump dex.
The secret bonus here is that by 12-14 half-elves can multitalented monk or barbarian to get master fort to go with that save bump. Then retrain it away at 17 when canny acumen kicks in.
Of course. Rogues are always getting +3 CON bonus. They just dump their class's key attribute. It's so obvious.
I too am curious about what you mean by internal Power Struggle. This is getting juicy.Office politics are rarely what it seems from the outside, boring, sometimes dramatic, and often blown out of proportion. There isn't much to speak of on this, much of what has been alluded to is melodrama and misunderstanding but going any more in-depth about those rumors is not polite/respectful to the staff nor is it conducive to the sane operations of this forum or any official Paizo community.
Yeah, I would agree with that. I have worked on development teams before. People always have differing opinions on the end goal. That is just part of the nature of having more than one person on the team.
Pretty much exactly the same as how we on the rules and advice forums have differing opinions on things. Calling that a power struggle seems a bit overblown.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rogues really want Wis too. Perception is the key to trap finding, which everyone expects them to do. They also tend to want Charisma a lot, at least the ones I have seen. I don't think I've seen 1 rogue start with a 16 in Con yet, not even my own dwarf one, out of probably 10 I have played with. Fortitude saves have brought down Barbarians and Fighters in games I have played. They have been the death of 3 Rogues I have seen. A lot of death effects ride on them, as do higher level poisons. Probably more rogues should start with 16 Con, but it is definitely not a default that I have seen.
Cunning Acumen is also useful for boosting fort to master but it is not hard to run 14 con, 14 wis and 18 dex, 12 int str or cha. Also some Ancestries makes it better then others for min-maxing, I.E Dwarf (+Con, +Wis, +Free, -Aha), or Thief Elf (+Dex, +Int, +Free, -Str) which is obviously more powerful then a Orc (+str, +Free)
In all honestly however in a Free Archetype game getting any Multiclass as a Rogue to bump Fort save to Master is insane.
"Rogues deserve the best saves in the game because sometimes they'll bump CHA instead of CON" feels kind of hollow when there are a lot of classes that are significantly more MAD that don't get anywhere near that largesse in their proficiencies.
Also, to be clear, I personally am fine with rogues getting just the success boosting side of the save bump. Fortitude saves are brutal on rogues and that doesn’t really change with success bumps, because they fail fort saves all the time and don’t have a lot of hit points to help them out when it is against poison and death effects. Successful saves are rarely the things killing PCs in the games I see, compared to failed saves and especially crit failed saves, which don’t get any help here.
The idea that, when rogues get lucky, the get really lucky doesn’t read like any kind of mistake to me personally. I just also acknowledge that they are in good enough shape that if removing the fort save success bump was the big nerf they get, it really wouldn’t be much of a needle mover, nor get much back lash. But I think rogues having more “luck” like mechanics feels pretty right on to me.
This is true. I do see rogues failing Fort saves often. They don't get that Master boost from the general feat until level 17. Then it becomes a little better if they build up Con.
I'd recommend everyone to build CON in game. Just for the HP and Fort saves it gives.
At this rate I am starting to believe it is not a misprint...
At this rate I am starting to believe it is not a misprint...
I suspect a lot of the energy that would go towards errata for Player Core 1 is currently occupied by making sure Player Core 2 gets done. I wouldn't expect anything is official until we get the first big errata. It's not like "rogue saves are too good for some levels" is a thing is a problem that's going to escalate if you don't fix it quickly enough.
This is true. I do see rogues failing Fort saves often. They don't get that Master boost from the general feat until level 17. Then it becomes a little better if they build up Con.
Technically you can get it as early as 12 by archetyping into monk.
Ironically, you probably won't, even with FA, because the classic case for rogue archetyping into monk has its level 12 and 14 feats spoken for already, but you could.
This is true. I do see rogues failing Fort saves often. They don't get that Master boost from the general feat until level 17. Then it becomes a little better if they build up Con.Technically you can get it as early as 12 by archetyping into monk.
Ironically, you probably won't, even with FA, because the classic case for rogue archetyping into monk has its level 12 and 14 feats spoken for already, but you could.
Yup this is true but I was trying to avoid using class feats for Saving throws but FA which a lot of tables play with can greatly improve the defenses of characters more then assist their offensive capabilities. It's odd, Paizo is okay with master in saving throw but not in weapons or armor.
This is true. I do see rogues failing Fort saves often. They don't get that Master boost from the general feat until level 17. Then it becomes a little better if they build up Con.Technically you can get it as early as 12 by archetyping into monk.
Ironically, you probably won't, even with FA, because the classic case for rogue archetyping into monk has its level 12 and 14 feats spoken for already, but you could.
The rogue has so many good feats. It's so hard to archetype as a rogue. Level 6 and 8 are almost always spoken for. Level 2 is almost always mobility. Level 10 is your improved debilitation feats. You have Blank Slate or something at level 16. They have such good feats.
The rogue has so many good feats. It's so hard to archetype as a rogue. Level 6 and 8 are almost always spoken for. Level 2 is almost always mobility. Level 10 is your improved debilitation feats. You have Blank Slate or something at level 16. They have such good feats.This is true. I do see rogues failing Fort saves often. They don't get that Master boost from the general feat until level 17. Then it becomes a little better if they build up Con.Technically you can get it as early as 12 by archetyping into monk.
Ironically, you probably won't, even with FA, because the classic case for rogue archetyping into monk has its level 12 and 14 feats spoken for already, but you could.
It is like Rogues are pretty much almost the prefect class!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rogue has so many good feats. It's so hard to archetype as a rogue. Level 6 and 8 are almost always spoken for. Level 2 is almost always mobility. Level 10 is your improved debilitation feats. You have Blank Slate or something at level 16. They have such good feats.It is like Rogues are pretty much almost the prefect class!
Rgoue is one of those classes that has enough good feats that you want to take two feats at every level. It is always a trade off.