| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
We don't know. :)
As mentioned, it wasn't touched in the first round of errata. That doesn't necessarily mean it won't be touched later (the Core Rulebook got 4 rounds of errata including stuff that was left alone for quite a while). It may be that it's unintentional and just not high enough priority to have been addressed yet. This isn't something that hinders the ability of someone to run the game/makes it unclear how something is supposed to work/breaks the game, so its just not that urgent a problem.
It's also possible that it is intentional, even though it's something of an outlier.
If it's not in the second round of Player Core errata, then that will strengthen the case that it was deliberate. Deliberate or not, though... it's how it works right now. Feel free to house rule if your group finds it too strong.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen a few places like reddit and such that have mentioned this and just really looked at it and realized ye it seems off to have that good of saves on an already awesome class with its skills and sneak attacks and stuff.
I know some errata has already come out and was wondering if this is still a mistake or if it's an intentional unneeded buff to rogues saves.
It's probably a typo; most anything that gives one degree of success require either Master at saves, or to focus on a subset of saves, and given that this isn't a specific feature like Bravery is, it's obvious that it was an unintended copy paste.
If you combined this with Canny Acumen, by 17th level, the Rogue would have the best saves in the game, while also having the best Perception, and the best skills as well.
It is worth noting that recent errata, and more frequent errata as well, do not preclude the existence of issues in the rules that have yet to be addressed, including really glaring ones. It took several rounds of errata for several of Starfinder's playtest classes to finally get essential class features in their progression, and even then some are still missing, so it wouldn't surprise me if we were to see the Rogue's unusual saves addressed in a future round as well.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the one hand, it wasn't touched in the first errata, which might indicate they didn't see the need to change it.
On the other, there are things from the original CRB printing that to this day have not been fixed or properly clarified, so who knows what Paizo's errata process is.
On the one hand, there's been no developer commentary to indicate it's not intentional, and given that's written notably different than the CRB text, someone had to have made this change on purpose.
On the other, there's been no developer commentary on almost anything. Paizo devs are notoriously hesitant to communicate outside specific channels (most of which aren't even their own lmao), and have recently been even moreso. People are still waiting for 'day 1' errata to PC2, which has been out for almost two months. There are also a few examples of very intentional language choices turning out to be errors, or at the very least of Paizo changing their mind about how a rule works and simply pretending it was an error (CRB finesse weapons, GMC dying rules).
On the one hand, this is blatantly overpowered, like... even with the text being straight forward, it's kinda too good to be true, there's no logic behind giving Rogues, already an amazing class, even better saves.
On the other, game balance is more a fixation of the community than Paizo itself, they've never minded some classes and options being obviously much stronger than others. So balance-based arguments don't really matter much, at least in terms of figuring out design.
... IMO, in the absence of official commentary, it's best to just treat it as correct and either leave it be or intentionally houserule it, because I think it's better from a discussion and understanding standpoint to simply assume the game works the way it says it works, otherwise there's no real baseline.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the other, game balance is more a fixation of the community than Paizo itself, they've never minded some classes and options being obviously much stronger than others. So balance-based arguments don't really matter much, at least in terms of figuring out design.
I would argue the devs do care about balance, but they're typically more concerned with offensive options than defensive options, or things that could really break "the game/an encounter". Better, even too good to be true, saves don't really do that. I agree it's probably TGTBT, but even if it is intended it wont really create a problem, except that it might cause envy for players who want to play something besides rogue.