This is a very straightforward post; did someone at Paizo said why ET didn't appear in PC1 and seemingly in PC2 either? Not only that, but most of the magical rogue feats seem to be gone too. I know pre-Remaster content is still available and is fine to use it, but I find weird that of all things ET and the magical rogue feats had to be sent to the chopping block.
If I had to make a guess I think its likely that they weren't really happy with the execution of the concept so they decided to push it forward for a future book to give them time to flesh it out better, though with bloodrager being one of the class archetypes for War of Immortals when it seemingly doesn't have much thematic ties with the book it makes me question if there's other reasons on why it was removed. I think most people would think both bloodrager and ET would have a similar chassis (thus meaning if bloodrager is made so should ET) though I could be wrong about this.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know any official answer.
My best guess is that its class design is in a strange place and does not work with Free Archetype, which seems to be a very commonly played rule.
ET is basically "you get free archetype, but only for the dedication".
Sneak attacking with ray spells was really good in PF1 due to "touch AC", it doesn't really work in PF2 due to proficiency and dice scaling.
Playing a caster with the rogue dedication gets you much closer to the original arcane trickster design, if you want to be a rogue with a few magic tricks its rogue with a caster dedication.
Or laughing shadow magus.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I recall correctly, Luis Loza mentioned on the reddit (though I must admit that this is second-hand info, as I don't go there often myself) that some mechanics weren't reprinted in PC1 due to space concerns in response to a question about the lack of inclusion of the Eldritch Trickster. That doesn't technically say that's the reason, but it strongly suggests it.
Pc1 is easy
It doesnt have archetypes
Pc2 - Do we know that for sure?
If not I dare say wait another month
My guess is that it could be because of how casting spells doesn't interact well with being hidden. I wouldn't be surprised if players were frustrated they couldn't hide - cast cantrip and the enemy be flat footed to them. Adding more rules text to fix that issue would take up even more space so it was nixed. Just my theory
My guess is that it could be because of how casting spells doesn't interact well with being hidden. I wouldn't be surprised if players were frustrated they couldn't hide - cast cantrip and the enemy be flat footed to them. Adding more rules text to fix that issue would take up even more space so it was nixed. Just my theory
I mean, Conceal Spell is a thing that could be easily added to ETs. But even then, one of the most common complaints about ET was that the subclass was seemingly built around dealing sneak attack with spells which wasn't worth it because your spell proficiency lagged way behind your martial proficiency, so the most optimal way to play an ET was to use those spells for support or buffs making Magical Trickster kind of a trap option. Paizo could easily switch stuff around to make it work in the other way; using a spell on someone leaves them off-guard against your attacks similar to how most rackets allow to target off-guard more easily. In the long run ETs would have the same problem they currently do because spells would become very unreliable, but it would allow for a playstyle in which rogues would go for an attack + a MAP-less spells as part of their rotation.
I mean, Conceal Spell is a thing that could be easily added to ETs. But even then, one of the most common complaints about ET was that the subclass was seemingly built around dealing sneak attack with spells which wasn't worth it because your spell proficiency lagged way behind your martial proficiency, so the most optimal way to play an ET was to use those spells for support or buffs making Magical Trickster kind of a trap option. Paizo could easily switch stuff around to make it work in the other way; using a spell on someone leaves them off-guard against your attacks similar to how most rackets allow to target off-guard more easily. In the long run ETs would have the same problem they currently do because spells would become very unreliable, but it would allow for a playstyle in which rogues would go for an attack + a MAP-less spells as part of their rotation.My guess is that it could be because of how casting spells doesn't interact well with being hidden. I wouldn't be surprised if players were frustrated they couldn't hide - cast cantrip and the enemy be flat footed to them. Adding more rules text to fix that issue would take up even more space so it was nixed. Just my theory
Even conceal spell, raw, doesn't work well with the hide action. The only things you can do are step, sneak, hide, or make a strike. Some gms may rule have rules otherwise for spells that are concealed but raw, casting spells after hiding doesn't make your foe flat footed to the spell attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I remember reading that gunslinger spellshot dedication lost conjure bullet due to space considerations. So I would agree with Arcaian that ET may have been removed due to space considerations.
The Champion Oath and Litany feats are also confirmed to not be in PC2 because of space limits.
|
Legacy ET didn't really work very well. There's definitely a narrative niche for a character like that, but that particular mechanical implementation wasn't happy. (To be fair, even in PF1 it took pretty specific mechanical trickery to really make it work well.)
I would like to see a magical rogue concept, done well. But it's more complicated than "spellstrike with cantrips at a high action cost and low to hit and basically no off-guard because that's hard at range".
It might need to be a class of its own, because it's going to require specialized rules to get it working right. Maybe they could tweak the laughing shadow magus (in remaster) to fit that niche.
|
Legacy ET didn't really work very well. There's definitely a narrative niche for a character like that, but that particular mechanical implementation wasn't happy. (To be fair, even in PF1 it took pretty specific mechanical trickery to really make it work well.)
I would like to see a magical rogue concept, done well. But it's more complicated than "spellstrike with cantrips at a high action cost and low to hit and basically no off-guard because that's hard at range".
It might need to be a class of its own, because it's going to require specialized rules to get it working right. Maybe they could tweak the laughing shadow magus (in remaster) to fit that niche.
I had built a Thief Rogue with a Spellcasting dedication under Core, and considered rebuilding them as an Eldritch Trickster when the APG came out, and didn't because there was literally no reason to. I'd have given up Dex to Damage for *nothing*.
It's especially bad since you no longer add your casting stat to damage, so there is no reason to use ET to get your casting stat as your key stat. Getting your casting stat as your key stat is really the only reason, IMO, to go ET, and now that really isn't that important.
I think based on how the bloodrager is implemented and if people like it probably Paizo will likely do a second attempt to do ET in a future book.
Eh, not really. I wouldn't have expected bloodrager to show up in War of Immortals since thematically a sorcerer + barbarian doesn't have anything to do with an interdimensional war of the gods, but since we know this is going to happen, ET could literally be released in any book from now on.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I had built a Thief Rogue with a Spellcasting dedication under Core, and considered rebuilding them as an Eldritch Trickster when the APG came out, and didn't because there was literally no reason to. I'd have given up Dex to Damage for *nothing*.
Not for nothing.
You would have gotten a level 2 class feat for it.
Pc1 is easy
It doesnt have archetypes
Player Core 1 has the multiclass archetypes for its eight classes--bard, cleric, druid, fighter, ranger, rogue, witch, and wizard--on pages 215-223. That is enough to enable the Eldritch Trickster racket, which demands a multiclass archetype.. The missing complement to Eldritch Trichster is the Magical Trickster rogue feat 4.
Magical Trickster was a nod to the PF1 Arcane Trickster prestige class. In my Rise of the Runelords campaign, the rogue Tierdh took up the arcane trickster class around 17th level, because I continued the campaign with The Witchwar Legacy module. Mixing magic and sneakiness is amusing.
I had a Magical Trickster in my PF2-converted Ironfang Invasion campaign and will have one in my Strength of Thousands campaign once the characer reaches 4th level.
My guess is that it could be because of how casting spells doesn't interact well with being hidden. I wouldn't be surprised if players were frustrated they couldn't hide - cast cantrip and the enemy be flat footed to them. Adding more rules text to fix that issue would take up even more space so it was nixed. Just my theory
I houseruled Magical Trickster by copying the clause, "If you attempt to Strike a creature, the creature remains off-guard against that attack, and you then become observed," from the Hide action to add, "If you attempt a spell attack against a creature, the creature remains off-guard against that attack, and you then become observed," to Magical Trickster. Thus, possibly Player Core 1 left off Magical Trickster because it needed a house fule for the full fun. Paizo developers might have wanted time to playtest variants.
The halfling rogue/sorcerer Sam in Ironfang Invasion did not have Eldritch Trickster racket, because he was created in 2019 before the Advanced Player's Guide with Eldritch Trickster was released in 2020. Sam took the Scoundrel Racket for the boost to Charisma and took Sorcerer Dedication at 2nd level. He spent 4th and 5th level enhancing two spell-attack cantrips with Magical Trickster. That was a workable tactic thanks to my house rule about hiding. At 6th level he took Basic Bloodline Spell archetype feat 4 for Dragon Claws focus spell, giving him another way to combine magical damage with sneak attack damage that did not require Magical Trickster. Sam delayed Basic Sorcerer Spellcasting archetype feat 4 until 10th level.
Sam's player said that she felt starved for class feats.
My best guess is that its class design is in a strange place and does not work with Free Archetype, which seems to be a very commonly played rule.
The fleshwarp rogue/sorcerer/gellid shard Roshan in my Strength of Thousands campaign did take the Eldritch Trickster racket in order to combine it with the free archetype granted by the Strength of Thousands adventure path. Roshan's player loves off-the-wall builds. I declared that the "You cannot select another dedication feat until you have gained two other feats from the sorcerer archetype," from her Sorcerer Dedication from Eldritch Trickster did not apply to her Gellid Shard free archetype. And the other players voted that she could use her free archetype feats for both Sorcerer multiclass feats and Gellid Shard feats. Once again we bent the rules. The player says that she is going to skip the non-spellcasting feats of both archetypes in order to gain the basic, expert, and master spellcasting benefits of both her primal sorcerer line and arcane gellid-shard line.
Third-level Roshan has Strength +2 and expert Athletics because she plans to grapple or trip enemies in order to make them off-guard for sneak attacks. Since five of the other six PCs would cast spells or shoot arrows (Starlit-Span magus) from a distance, she does not expect a flanking ally.
My opinion is that Eldritch Trickster and Magical Trickster call for house rules to enable the full scope of interesting builds, so they still need additional tinkering and playtesting by the developers before introducing them into the Remastered rules.
I don't know any official answer.
My best guess is that its class design is in a strange place and does not work with Free Archetype, which seems to be a very commonly played rule.
ET is basically "you get free archetype, but only for the dedication".
Sneak attacking with ray spells was really good in PF1 due to "touch AC", it doesn't really work in PF2 due to proficiency and dice scaling.Playing a caster with the rogue dedication gets you much closer to the original arcane trickster design, if you want to be a rogue with a few magic tricks its rogue with a caster dedication.
Or laughing shadow magus.
This is basically my answer.
What isn't there an Eldritch Knight or Eldritch Trickster? Because ignoring specific abilities that existed in both, you can build a multiclass fighter/wizard or rogue/wizard that fulfills most of the fantasy. And consider the significant changes between editions we shouldn't assume that those old abilities in PF1 could be balanced within PF2.
If they end up being published it's probably a matter of needing more time to figure out how they could present it as an option that wasn't broken (either overpowered or underpowered).
I agree that ET isn't really needed when you can flavor most "X class bur with magic" with the archetypes that already exist, though why remove...
* Minor Magic
* Magical Trickster
* Loaner Spell
* Eldritch Debilitations
* Steal Spell
* Trickster's Ace
Minor Magic makes sense since its literally than any caster dedication, Magical Trickstr too since its kind of a trap option as it was already discussed here, and Eldritch Debilitations would require to change its prerequisites, but Loaner Spell, Steal Spell, and Trickster's Ace are very flavorful magical-themed feats for a rogue even if you don't even have a way to cast spells on your own. I feel much like with litanies and other content that was removed from PC1, Paizo took the decision to move that content for when they reprint ET again (likely into a class archetype for rogues).
I agree that ET isn't really needed when you can flavor most "X class bur with magic" with the archetypes that already exist, though why remove...
* Minor Magic
* Magical Trickster
* Loaner Spell
* Eldritch Debilitations
* Steal Spell
* Trickster's AceMinor Magic makes sense since its literally than any caster dedication, Magical Trickstr too since its kind of a trap option as it was already discussed here, and Eldritch Debilitations would require to change its prerequisites, but Loaner Spell, Steal Spell, and Trickster's Ace are very flavorful magical-themed feats for a rogue even if you don't even have a way to cast spells on your own. I feel much like with litanies and other content that was removed from PC1, Paizo took the decision to move that content for when they reprint ET again (likely into a class archetype for rogues).
Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if it's going to be redesigned at some point as one or more class archetypes-- we still don't know mechanically what the new 'Avenger Rogue' does, beyond the fact that it's divine themed and the old iconic slayer is the poster child for it, now actually working for the goddess he thought he was always working for but wasn't. It's not crazy to imagine a handful of new magical rogue options appearing as appropriate for each tradition over time.