With that change in the Remaster it seems like delivering Sneak Attack with a ranged spell is no longer possible. The wording in Sneak Attack makes no allowances for using spells. Am I missing something?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As always "not reprinted" does not equal "deleted from the game".
Eldritch Trickster and Magical Trickster are no different in that regard. They haven't had some special "these are deleted" errata.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, Sneak Attack by itself has always been worded to be with weapon strikes only.
No, having Eldritch Trickster and Magical Trickster not reprinted in Player Core does not mean that those are not available. They can still be used from the Advanced Player's Guide. Even PFS allows this.
And something similar may eventually be printed again later.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Although, it may not get reprinted, as the number of spells you could even use with it anymore have dwindled. So if you want to use it, you should probably do so keeping a lot of the old spells too, or else it would end up being a pretty disappointing feature.
Which isn't to say don't use it, but just, if you are going to ask your GM about using it anyway, ask them about spells you can use it with too.
|
No, Sneak Attack by itself has always been worded to be with weapon strikes only.
Sneak Attack explicitly works with “ an agile or finesse unarmed attack,” and none of the verbiage limits it to strikes, only to a specific set of attacks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Player Core 2 seems to be including a bunch of content from the APG, so it's conceivable player options for Player Core 1 classes will appear in that book, including possibly the Eldritch Trickster.
It's clear that some things were put in Player Core 2 because it was going to take a little more time to figure out how to make them function with the remaster rules (e.g. the Champion class) and these sorts of things don't need to be entirely limited to "whole classes."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If it returns, it really needs to be upgraded. The current version of Eldritch Trickster is really quite terrible.
The use case for it is for characters that will never see level 4. Because at level 4 you can get everything you could get from Eldritch Trickster and have a different Racket on top of it. At level 4 all you gain from Eldritch Trickster is a level 2 Rogue feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As always "not reprinted" does not equal "deleted from the game".
Eldritch Trickster and Magical Trickster are no different in that regard. They haven't had some special "these are deleted" errata.
While I agree with you in general, I think it's understandable for people to be a little unsure when we're talking about an option that comes from a book specifically within the remaster umbrella.
Personally, I expect to see it return, as it is generally well-liked and well-used, in addition to being a classic character type. Either as a Rogue Racket in PC2, once all the kinks are worked out, or, my preferred choice, pulled altogether and repackaged as a new Archetype that can be used by multiple classes.
Part of the pc1+2 rearrangement was to *Not* split content over multiple books, so we probably won't See a magical trickster Racket there
But I can certainly Imagine the Feed being added to an arcane trickster archetype that has more versatility
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I expect to see it return, as it is generally well-liked and well-used, in addition to being a classic character type. Either as a Rogue Racket in PC2, once all the kinks are worked out, or, my preferred choice, pulled altogether and repackaged as a new Archetype that can be used by multiple classes.Part of the pc1+2 rearrangement was to *Not* split content over multiple books, so we probably won't See a magical trickster Racket there
But I can certainly Imagine the Feed being added to an arcane trickster archetype that has more versatility
Archetypes are going to be in PC2 however. So its possible that class archetypes for PC1 classes may be printed there.
But then you don't have a working concept 'rogue-caster' from level 1 (one cantrip from ancestry is not enough).
Yes. Eldritch Trickster is useful at level 1. And probably at level 2 and level 3 as well. I did also mention that, so I'm not sure if you are actually disagreeing with me here or not.
And also not taking Magical Trickster feels like a loss if you make 'rogue-caster' at all. And then caster archetype feats take all the feat budget and you can't take any of rogue staple goodies like Mobility, Dread Striker (how else to make enemies off-guard?), Gang Up (though if you are mostly ranged that's not that useful). And then in return you get 2 cantrips, a couple of slots and caster accuracy until level 7 (if you also sacrifice DEX). I'm just not sure why I'm doing this and whether I should :)
Are we reading the same Eldritch Trickster Racket?
The one that only gives you the multiclass archetype at level 1 and nothing else?
It changes the level that you can get Magical Trickster, but you still have to pay a feat slot for it. So you can't get both Magical Trickster and Mobility at level 2.
How about some concrete examples. Two level 6 Rogue character builds trying to pattern from the feat list that you mentioned. You didn't list any of the level 1 feats, so I am going with Trap Finder. It shouldn't make a difference in the outcome of the example.
Rogue1: Eldritch Trickster Racket
Level1
* Multiclass Archetype Dedication
* Trap Finder
Level 2
* Magical Trickster
Level 4
* Mobility
Level 6
* Dread Striker
Rogue2: Thief Racket
* Dex to Damage
* Trap Finder
Level 2
* Multiclass Archetype Dedication
Level 4
* Magical Trickster
Level 6
* Dread Striker
The difference... Eldritch Trickster gets the level 2 Rogue feat Mobility (in a level 4 feat slot). And Thief instead gets Dex to Damage.
There is very little point in keeping Eldritch Trickster past level 3.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The best eldritch trickster build, in my opinion is the wisdom based Druid archetype, who starts with an 18 Wis and trap finder, and can be the best trap finder in the game, but can still get scorching ray, which is the best case use of magical trickster feat, when you use it as an opening if you stealth and win initiative. It is not possible anymore, but I don’t think it is particularly powerful as far as rogues go.
Which part isn't possible any more?
Scorching Ray is in Secrets of Magic. That hasn't gone anywhere.
Druid Archetype is certainly still available. And still Wisdom based in Player Core.
And as I mentioned earlier, Eldritch Trickster hasn't vanished or become unplayable. Even PFS still allows it. So the only ones stopping you from playing that character if you really want to is you and your own friends.
And maybe your settings on Pathbuilder2e. You might have to tweak the character configuration options in order for it to show up. I haven't checked - for obvious reasons.
I wasn’t arguing you couldn’t build it with legacy material, just that it is not a rogue build possible with the remastered rogue. You can’t get Wis as a key attribute anymore, which makes magical trickster much less valuable as a feat. You are already dealing with accuracy issues as a rogue caster. And without Wis KAS, you are no longer better as a trap finder than any other rogue.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wasn’t arguing you couldn’t build it with legacy material, just that it is not a rogue build possible with the remastered rogue. You can’t get Wis as a key attribute anymore, which makes magical trickster much less valuable as a feat. You are already dealing with accuracy issues as a rogue caster. And without Wis KAS, you are no longer better as a trap finder than any other rogue.
But you can still do that. Nothing stops that when using either premaster or remaster material. Eldritch Trickster isn't removed, inaccessible or incompatible due to the remaster. It just wasn't in PC1.
The first thing I said was that you can still build it with legacy material. So it is as viable a remastered choice as building an evocation wizard with silent spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wasn’t arguing you couldn’t build it with legacy material, just that it is not a rogue build possible with the remastered rogue.
The confusion is that you are literally saying both in the same sentence. Eldritch Trickster Rogue can* be built, and building an Eldritch Trickster Rogue is not possible to build.
* Technically the wording is that you 'didn't say that it couldn't be built'. But that is equivalent to saying that it can be built.
Other than Wisdom, there are Rackets that allow key attribute in casting attribute.
And we are now talking about a 5% difference in accuracy only since the cantrip damage is no longer tied to attribute bonus.
I wasn’t arguing you couldn’t build it with legacy material, just that it is not a rogue build possible with the remastered rogue.The confusion is that you are literally saying both in the same sentence. Eldritch Trickster Rogue can* be built, and building an Eldritch Trickster Rogue is not possible to build.
* Technically the wording is that you 'didn't say that it couldn't be built'. But that is equivalent to saying that it can be built.
Remastered Rogue =/= Rogue.
The remastered Rogue class does not have an eldritch trickster racket. There are still a whole lot of classes that don't have a remastered version at all, so I guess I can see how there is some confusion, because you can play a sorcerer in a remastered game, but you can't play a remastered sorcerer yet. SO you can play an eldritch trickster rogue in a remastered game, but you cannot play a remastered eldritch trickster. Some GMs care about these distinctions and others do not, so its value as a statement is subjective, but when talking about the future of rogue class design, it is reasonable to question whether the remastered rogue will ever have an eldritch trickster racket.
It was the only racket that let you get wisdom as a Key attribute, and it did so in a way that gave you a lot of complimentary spells to cast with the magical trickster feat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Remastered Rogue =/= Rogue.
Who made that rule?
Because it certainly wasn't the game devs.
Are my existing Pathfinder Second Edition books now obsolete?
No. With the exception of a few minor variations in terminology and a slightly different mix of monsters, spells, and magic items, the rules remain largely unchanged. A pre-Remaster stat block, spell, monster, or adventure should work with the remastered rules without any problems.
So yes. You absolutely can play a Rogue that is trained in all Martial weapons at level 1 and has the Eldritch Trickster Racket.
The Remaster has not invalidated everything in PF2 that hasn't been reprinted since November 15, 2023. That is why the game devs have repeatedly said that this is not a new edition.
Yes, there are some GMs that are going to ban this for some reason. Some GMs ban a variety of things for some reason or no reason at all. That doesn't mean that we should be promoting such arbitrary bans as being official rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe that means the APG Eldritch Trickster can still be picked when creating a Player Core remaster rogue
I know that it is allowed in PFS. I asked about it after having this same conversation last week. I linked to the response I got from Alex Speidel in post #3 of this thread.
The clarification is that yes, all subclass options that have not been reprinted or directly superseded are still available as they were previously - with the sole exception of Wizard Schools. Eldritch Trickster is probably the only option that falls into this category.
I am glad PFS folks who want to play eldritch tricksters still can. I have known GMs using foundry who have nixed it, just because it is not remastered content. I don’t think it will be all that common an experience moving forward. All around support for spell attack roll casting dependent classes has decreased significantly for players who are not allowed legacy content. As a GM, I am not switching my current campaigns over at all and probably won’t be starting any new ones with it until several more books come out. But it has been pretty hodgepodge with online GMs I sometimes play with what they will allow.
PF2 generally is in a very “talk to your GM carefully about your character ideas before getting your heart set on a build. “Maybe that is a good thing. But just like I’d tell a player getting their heart set on starting a new campaign right now with an alchemist, I’d say the same thing to anyone wanting to play an eldritch trickster, a magus, or any of the player core 2 slated classes, especially if your GM is following the guidance of the decisions of 3rd party software.
As a GM, I am not switching my current campaigns over at all and probably won’t be starting any new ones with it until several more books come out.
I have seen this sentiment around. I don't understand it.
So in the interests of gaining understanding (rather than debating what the rules actually are): can you explain why you feel that way? Why call the spell attack roll spells from Secrets of Magic (for example) 'legacy content'? Why not allow them to be used? Why not allow the new Witch class upgrades? Why not allow one Wizard in the campaign to use the new School options and allow another Wizard in the same campaign to use the old Schools with the school trait designations? I can't imagine that either Wizard would be unhappy with having full simple weapon proficiency.
Obviously, I would allow all of that. But I am also not going to argue with you about what your opinions are or why you have them. I'm just trying to understand at this point.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't be completely shocked if they eventually reprint Eldritch Trickster, but do it in the same book where they remaster the Magus. Because the magus also needs some kind of intervention with regards to spell attack spells. There's just a lot fewer of them - Ray of Frost, Acid Splash, Acid Arrow and Shocking Grasp are all replaced by basic save spells.
Yeah, you could reach for the legacy spells. But I do think the aim is that you don't have to do that. So maybe they put more spell attack cantrips in that book, or maybe they bake Expansive Spellstrike straight into the magus chassis. But that's a good time to also look at how to make these work well for magical rogues.
For a long time I've seen people promote Mastermind as the preferred way to do a Magical Trickster rogue, because it has a way to get enemies flat-footed at range. Compared to flanking/melee, all ranged rogues have it rough. So that might also be something they want to polish a bit.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Archetypes are going to be in PC2 however. So its possible that class archetypes for PC1 classes may be printed there.
Don't do that, don't get our hopes that the Golem saw the light and began working on Class Archetypes again, we are still wounded when they went to the store for cigarettes last time and never came back.
/s
In all seriousness, I'm anticipating we get PC2 with the announced content and then PC3 with the rest of the Classes other than Kinetecist being Remastered about a year later. After that I would be ever so pleased if they pivoted to making a NEW Remaster line of books in the Advanced Player Core (as well as the Advanced GM Core) that has a ton of supplemental options, features, Class Archetypes, Regular Archetypes, equipment, and a whole boatload of new Trained (or better) Skill use Actions/Activities that they can grow to include APC 2 and 3 over the next four years.
I wouldn't be completely shocked if they eventually reprint Eldritch Trickster, but do it in the same book where they remaster the Magus. Because the magus also needs some kind of intervention with regards to spell attack spells. There's just a lot fewer of them - Ray of Frost, Acid Splash, Acid Arrow and Shocking Grasp are all replaced by basic save spells.
Yeah, I think this is the reason to not put the Eldritch Trickster into the Player Core 1, since the number of spells involving attack rolls has decreased dramatically. So questions about "do we roll magical trickster into the racket" and "is it ever worthwhile for a rogue to want to sneak attack with spells" can be put off for later.
|
|
I feel like even in legacy, it was rather doubtful if eldritch trickster was a good idea. Much like a rogue with a bow as a primary weapon really. Unless you have a capital p Plan for how to get enemies flat-footed for your ranged attacks, it's a trap.
Well, you can go "are you sure you didn't want to be a magus" with melee cantrips.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is the same Paizo that gave Witches a feat for a 1d6 strength based unarmed attack.
I'm not convinced that "it isn't very good" is a legitimate reason for them not have not reprinted something.
When I think of Legacy material, I think of something that has been wholly invalidated or otherwise completely replaced by Remaster content.
Not even spells like ray of frost have technically been replaced and so aren't "legacy" in my mind; it is still going to be one of my go-to cantrips. (And no, frostbite did not replace it. They are two entirely separate spells.)
|
|
I was listening to a podcast where someone argued that legacy code in computer systems that was still making lots of money and that was clever in its own way deserved more respect. They proposed the term "vintage code".
Legacy electric arc is pre-remaster electric arc. It's been superseded.
Ray of Frost is a vintage spell. It's not being produced anymore, but it's still nice to have in your wardrobe.
I'm not. Disagreeing. (And also not sure how I was read as that)
Habit mostly. I get disagreed with a lot.
Though that is also why I checked.
OP Here. Thank you all for your input! I found myself wondering about this as I contemplated a Kitsune Eldritch Trickster Rogue for the Seasons of Ghosts AP campaign that would include the free archetype rules from the GmG. While I feel it would be thematically strong to have both the Sorcerer and Psychic archetypes on a high CHA Rogue, I'm trying to figure out how it would function mechanically and deliver Sneak Attack with cantrips. Any advice would be appreciated
I feel like even in legacy, it was rather doubtful if eldritch trickster was a good idea. Much like a rogue with a bow as a primary weapon really. Unless you have a capital p Plan for how to get enemies flat-footed for your ranged attacks, it's a trap.
Well, you can go "are you sure you didn't want to be a magus" with melee cantrips.
The archer rogue Binny and the magical trickster rogue Sam performed fine in my PF2-converted Ironfang Invasion campaign.
Binny's plan to get enemies off-guard was to Hide and use the effect, "If you attempt to Strike a creature [after successfully Hiding], the creature remains off-guard against that attack, and you then become observed." Thus, Binny's three actions were often Strike at an off-guard target, Strike at an on-guard target, and Hide. When she gained the 10th-level Precise Debilitations rogue feat, she could Strike repeatedly against off-guard targets and so could her teammates. Precise Debilitations showed up in the remastered Player Core, too.
Sam was built before the PF2 Advanced Player's Guide was published, so he had Scoundrel racket for the Charisma boost rather than Eldritch Trickster racket. His 1st-level rogue feat was Trap Finder, his 2nd-level archetype feat was Sorcerer Dedication, his 4th-level rogue feat was Magical Trickster, and his 6th-level archetype feat was Basic Bloodline Spell. Watching Sam's attacks evolve was interesting. At 1st-level he used a shortbow like Binny. At 2nd level he cast the Produce Flame and Telekinetic Projectile cantrips. At 4th level, he found ways to add sneak attack to those cantrips. At 6th level he gained the Dragon Claws focus spell and sometimes used flaming claws instead of cantrips. Since the party often attacked from hiding, I houseruled that his attack spells has the same Hiding benefit as Strike, "If you cast a spell attack on a creature [after successfully Hiding], the creature remains off-guard against that attack, and you then become observed." Sam never learned a multiple-target spell like Scorching Ray, so I never had to decide whether multiple sneak attacks with one spell was overpowered. And when Binny started making creatures off-guard to everyone with Precise Debiliations, Sam no longer had to do anything special to catch a target off-guard.
But I thought that Magical Trickster needed a houserule to work properly. Did it need the houserule? What did other people do with their Magical Tricksters? It if is lame was written in the PF2 Core Rulebook, then it needs extra redesign and playtesting before a remastered version can be published.
@Unicore Thank you for the idea of using druid as the archetype.
OP Here. Thank you all for your input! I found myself wondering about this as I contemplated a Kitsune Eldritch Trickster Rogue for the Seasons of Ghosts AP campaign that would include the free archetype rules from the GmG. While I feel it would be thematically strong to have both the Sorcerer and Psychic archetypes on a high CHA Rogue, I'm trying to figure out how it would function mechanically and deliver Sneak Attack with cantrips. Any advice would be appreciated
Scoundrel Racket also lets you get CHA as your key attribute. Mastermind (assuming your GM doesn't penalize using the Racket ability on different creatures of the same type) is good for getting off-guard at range. The difference being if +3 is still high enough CHA for your preferences.
Then grab Magical Trickster at level 4. (Yes, you and the GM will need to change the game term 'flat-footed' in the feat to 'off-guard'.)