| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The feature is currently written as:
Rogue Resilience Level 9
Your physique is incredibly hardy. Your proficiency rank for Fortitude saves increases to expert. When you roll a success on a Fortitude save, you get a critical success instead.
For the sake of clarity, I guess I can say that the whole community would like to know if this is an oversight or if it is working as intended. Extrapolating from every other feature of the type in the game, the feature as it stands breaks some core general rules:
1. It awards a degree of success increase on an EXPERT saving throw.
2. It grants a class the degree success bump on all of its saving throws.
3. The Class' weakest saving throw gets this benefit 8 levels earlier than the class' second strongest saving throw, Will, which only happens at 17th level with Agile Mind.
I understand that Specific Overrides General is a rule we should not forget, but I guess once something is outlined as above, it becomes clear that something is not right here. Anyone familiar with the system will assume it's wrong on a first glance.
Thus, given it's errata day today and that changing this is pretty much a no-brainer in case it's a mistake.
What is it? Bug or Feature?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would genuinely like it if someone on the rules team would weigh in somewhere (on these forums, on social media, on a stream, etc.) as to whether or not this is intentional and like one sentence to explain some of the logic behind it.
Like "this is intentional, rogues are not supposed to be exceptionally hardy but are the person the party sends to deal with a "poison needle trap" so the rogue isn't supposed to accidentally die here regularly." Since it's a mystery to me if this is intentional since nothing any other class gets is like this.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its clearly an oversight because...
1) It would be the only class to have such a benefit at expert level.
2) Out of all classes, why would the rogues have this benefit?
3) As a follow up of the previous point, why would a class that starts being trained in Fort gain the master benefit at expert? I could probably see a future class (guardian?) that could start being expert in a save but receive its master benefit earlier if it makes sense? But for rogues? It doesn't make sense.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I could see the rogue having it. The rogue deals with traps, poisons, and lots of dangerous things as part of their profession.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I could see the rogue having it. The rogue deals with traps, poisons, and lots of dangerous things as part of their profession.
That's every adventurer, brother.
Even though I see what you mean, giving blanket fortitude definitely does not reflect that.
If it were the case, then a targeted benefit would be more inline such as a feat that had trap finder as requirement. Or the feature could call out "Traps and Haunts".
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not only has this always struck me as reasonable, but I figured we would have more examples of the same feature in other classes by now.
Increasing the degree of success on a weak save is helpful, but much less valuable than doing the same on a strong save (since you are less likely to get a success in the first place).
Exactly. As a feat I could probably see it. As a baseline feature for all Fortitude saves when no other class, even tanky classes, have it? Certainly not.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not unprecedented, Michael Sayre tried to do the same thing in the Animist playtest on one of the subclasses. When challenged on whether it was a mistake he said "nope, trying it out, it's not a problem."
We never got a remastered Rogue marketing blog signed by the lead designer for the remaster, but I would guess he did that one based on this single data point.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does the animist not also have an expert with evasion save? I know they did in the playtest.
I think it is fine. It makes that save a high risk/reward save. And it does nothing to help when the save DC is used. I still see more rogues die than any other character class.
I still see more rogues die than any other character class.
Rogues have like a ton of survival options and even without them rogues are easily top 3 classes in the system. If there's a class that doesn't need to have 3 good saves it is the rogue.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its clearly an oversight because...
On the other hand, we're on round two of errata without the developers making the ostensibly easy change to remove it or anyone even implying it's a mistake.
I'm not saying Paizo won't change it in the future, because some things survive multiple errata cycles and opinions can shift at the company (especially with designers leaving and being replaced).
But it's getting harder to say it's 'clearly' a mistake when so far Paizo seems content to leave it as written. Not to mention that the ability itself isn't vague or strangely worded in any way that suggests errors either.
Ultimately I agree that the vibes are off, but right now that's the only argument against the ability... and if we assumed every ability that didn't vibe right with a subset of the community was a writing error I'm not sure the game would be playable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does the animist not also have an expert with evasion save? I know they did in the playtest.
I think it is fine. It makes that save a high risk/reward save. And it does nothing to help when the save DC is used. I still see more rogues die than any other character class.
Come on, now. There's no risk inherent whatsoever.
This is a major upgrade exactly when you most need it. That's yet another major buff for class that really didn't need, while other classes were barely touched on the Remaster, even though they, compared to Rogues, Fighters and Barbarians, needed more improvements, QoL changes and refinement.
Its clearly an oversight because...On the other hand, we're on round two of errata without the developers making the ostensibly easy change to remove it or anyone even implying it's a mistake.
I'm not saying Paizo won't change it in the future, because some things survive multiple errata cycles and opinions can shift at the company (especially with designers leaving and being replaced).
But it's getting harder to say it's 'clearly' a mistake when so far Paizo seems content to leave it as written. Not to mention that the ability itself isn't vague or strangely worded in any way that suggests errors either.
Ultimately I agree that the vibes are off, but right now that's the only argument against the ability... and if we assumed every ability that didn't vibe right with a subset of the community was a writing error I'm not sure the game would be playable.
Maybe you're right...
But we didn't see any mentions of the egregiously bad, borderline criminal, Battle Oracle Focus Spell being changed either.
If that is not a mistake and is considered "intended design", that honestly makes me worry for PF2e as a whole. I'm not even joking.
How so?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I could see the rogue having it. The rogue deals with traps, poisons, and lots of dangerous things as part of their profession.That's every adventurer, brother.
Even though I see what you mean, giving blanket fortitude definitely does not reflect that.
If it were the case, then a targeted benefit would be more inline such as a feat that had trap finder as requirement. Or the feature could call out "Traps and Haunts".
No one looks at the other party members as part of their group role and goes, "Check that door or there may be a trap ahead, you go first. Go scout that room or fort, then come back and tell us what you see."
No one looks at the other party members as part of their group role and goes, "Check that door or there may be a trap ahead, you go first. Go scout that room or fort, then come back and tell us what you see."I could see the rogue having it. The rogue deals with traps, poisons, and lots of dangerous things as part of their profession.That's every adventurer, brother.
Even though I see what you mean, giving blanket fortitude definitely does not reflect that.
If it were the case, then a targeted benefit would be more inline such as a feat that had trap finder as requirement. Or the feature could call out "Traps and Haunts".
I mean, to be totally fair, that doesn't happen in my table either, though likely because my table has a ton of 3.5 / PF1e background so when we think of rogues we think of how rogues used to suck at everything.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the other hand, we're on round two of errata without the developers making the ostensibly easy change to remove it or anyone even implying it's a mistake.
I'm not saying Paizo won't change it in the future, because some things survive multiple errata cycles and opinions can shift at the company (especially with designers leaving and being replaced).
But it's getting harder to say it's 'clearly' a mistake when so far Paizo seems content to leave it as written. Not to mention that the ability itself isn't vague or strangely worded in any way that suggests errors either.
Ultimately I agree that the vibes are off, but right now that's the only argument against the ability... and if we assumed every ability that didn't vibe right with a subset of the community was a writing error I'm not sure the game would be playable.
Yeah, this. It feels off because they get the ability to bump save results in all three saves, which isn't a thing anyone else gets. It got added during the Remaster when it could have conceivably been an error, to a class that frankly did not need the help.
But it's been a year and two major rounds of errata on PC1. There's no reason to believe it's unintentional at this point given they've had ample chances to change it, especially when it's come up multiple times before.
At this point I assume it's intentional unless Paizo says otherwise.
No one looks at the other party members as part of their group role and goes, "Check that door or there may be a trap ahead, you go first. Go scout that room or fort, then come back and tell us what you see."
The Ranger is the one doing that in our Kingmaker group, when we remember to do it at all.
Rogues largely did it in PF1 because as a class Trapfinding being required made most other characters flat out unable to do it. That isn't a problem anymore.
Maybe you're right...
But we didn't see any mentions of the egregiously bad, borderline criminal, Battle Oracle Focus Spell being changed either.
If that is not a mistake and is considered "intended design", that honestly makes me worry for PF2e as a whole. I'm not even joking.
Bones curse and it's bizarre problems didn't get touched either (nor did the Archetype lacking a way to lower Cursebound without a focus spell). PC2 in general did not get much in this errata round as it's a comparatively newer book and only some really obvious things were included.
So I don't take the lack of Oracle errata to mean that it's never coming. I take it to mean "we didn't get to it in this round".
But yeah, Weapon Trance is the poster child in terms of "stuff that went wrong with Remaster Oracle". It definitely needs looking at.
I've fairly regularly seen other classes cover those roles. Including the meme of the Barbarian disabling traps with their face.No one looks at the other party members as part of their group role and goes, "Check that door or there may be a trap ahead, you go first. Go scout that room or fort, then come back and tell us what you see."I could see the rogue having it. The rogue deals with traps, poisons, and lots of dangerous things as part of their profession.That's every adventurer, brother.
Even though I see what you mean, giving blanket fortitude definitely does not reflect that.
If it were the case, then a targeted benefit would be more inline such as a feat that had trap finder as requirement. Or the feature could call out "Traps and Haunts".
The rogue is built for it. Barb can take the pain, but the rogue has the skills and abilities to do it well. If they are there, they are usually the best at it.
Rogue is built for invading tombs, forts, and infiltrating places others can't, sometimes alone.
Literally anyone can do that by just leveling Thievery and/or Stealth.
There's no reason for Rogue to get this benefit.
I can still see it over every other class myself. They are the be ready for anything class. Kept it at expert because they are not that hardy. If anyone is taught to be ready for anything, it's the rogue.
Barbs and fighters are nowhere near as skilled as a rogue. No martial is except the investigator.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does the animist not also have an expert with evasion save? I know they did in the playtest.
I think it is fine. It makes that save a high risk/reward save. And it does nothing to help when the save DC is used. I still see more rogues die than any other character class.
It doesn't really make it a high risk high reward save. You're still going to get hit by random Fort saves, this just makes it "play the game, high reward for nothing".
I don't see anything giving Animist this benefit.
Expert with a boost from success to critical success is a high risk, but high reward value for a saving throw, especially on a gambler-esque of class like a rogue. When they are lucky, nothing can hurt them. But their fort save is also not very good, so having to make fort saves is still a very risky situation for them.
It looks like the Animist boosted save got removed in the process of changing how the different sub classes work from the playtest to the final result. Maybe that means they are walking back on handing out such abilities, but if that is the case, it didn't make this errata.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
High risk implies you're gambling something or taking on an extra danger... but you're not. You're rolling a fort save, like normal, but sometimes you gain extra benefits. There's no assumption of additional risk for additional benefits, they're just better than other classes with expert fortitude.
The rogue isn't particularly 'gambler-esque' either they have no real gambling themed mechanics. Try a magus.
... To clarify, if you think this feature is good on rogues that's fine, but there's no sense misrepresenting it by pretending there's some trade off involved.
|
In variety maybe. In any singular skill the class adds almost nothing.
A party of 4 can do just as well without a Rogue as with one, provided there's any level of coordination in character generation.
And losing this feature doesn't change their supremacy in terms of versatility. There's absolutely no reason for them to have good damage, the most skills and feats, legendary perception, AND be the only class that gets the bump in all three saves.
DEX as Key Attribute is what makes a PC the one who goes after traps.
This plus tropes means Rogue.
In variety maybe. In any singular skill the class adds almost nothing.
A party of 4 can do just as well without a Rogue as with one, provided there's any level of coordination in character generation.
And losing this feature doesn't change their supremacy in terms of versatility. There's absolutely no reason for them to have good damage, the most skills and feats, legendary perception, AND be the only class that gets the bump in all three saves.
I still like it. Rogue was Mr. Low Tier in PF1. Now Rogue is god tier in PF2. Someone had to be great this edition, it's the rogue's turn.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
That’s not how game balance works.
If it’s confirmed this is WAI then it’ll change from me calling it an obvious error in need of errata to calling it a really awful design decision that should be looked at for errata. Its just a weird and massive buff on a class that was already outperforming several others.
If we do not get an official answer for this even with this dedicated thread, will people accept that it means it is not an error and will not get an errata ?
At this, point? I am.
It's too obvious and easy to fix, and has been mentioned before here and other forums, if it's a mistake. If there's no word, then it's probably intended, as weird as it is.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really have a horse in this race, but after this much errata, with the Rogue's saves getting looked at and renamed but left untouched, I definitely think it's time the framing of this discussion evolved a little. It's not that the Rogue was accidentally given some of the best saves in the game, those saves are intended. Thus, the discussion at this point probably ought to be less: "the Rogue's saves should be errata'd because they were misprinted," and more: "the Rogue's saves should be errata'd because that kind of power is excessive and inappropriate for the class."
I don't really have a horse in this race, but after this much errata, with the Rogue's saves getting looked at and renamed but left untouched, I definitely think it's time the framing of this discussion evolved a little. It's not that the Rogue was accidentally given some of the best saves in the game, those saves are intended. Thus, the discussion at this point probably ought to be less: "the Rogue's saves should be errata'd because they were misprinted," and more: "the Rogue's saves should be errata'd because that kind of power is excessive and inappropriate for the class."
Most of us think it was a misprint because that kind of power is excessive and inappropriate to the Rogue class. Which is what peaked everyone's interest.
Most of us think it was a misprint because that kind of power is excessive and inappropriate to the Rogue class. Which is what peaked everyone's interest.
Right, but that's my point: we've had so much errata now, including errata that targeted the Rogue's saves but left that mechanical bit unchanged, that it's quite unlikely they're a misprint at this stage. The point is that we should no longer be framing these saves as a misprint, we should simply be pointing out that they're out of line relative to other characters, as well as inappropriate + too strong on the Rogue, and go from there. We don't need to rely on conjecture when the real issue has nothing to do with designer intent, and everything to do with balance.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That’s not how game balance works.
If it’s confirmed this is WAI then it’ll change from me calling it an obvious error in need of errata to calling it a really awful design decision that should be looked at for errata. Its just a weird and massive buff on a class that was already outperforming several others.
Even if they leave the save as is, the rogue won't be anywhere near as broken or imbalanced as anything in PF1.
Rogue AC is low for a lot of levels and D8 hit points.
I think the game is fine with the rogue having all good saves.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Literally anyone can do that by just leveling Thievery and/or Stealth.
There's no reason for Rogue to get this benefit.
I can still see it over every other class myself. They are the be ready for anything class. Kept it at expert because they are not that hardy. If anyone is taught to be ready for anything, it's the rogue.
Barbs and fighters are nowhere near as skilled as a rogue. No martial is except the investigator.
So by this definition, Investigator should also get it. Or an Inventor who takes Reverse Engineer, since they can use Crafting to disarm traps and their entire class is built to make them REALLY good at that.
Not that it makes any sense to say "this class has better skill progression than everyone else therefore should also have better saves than everyone else."
Unless a Rogue takes the Trapfinder feat, they're no better at this than anyone else who invests in the relevant skills.
At the end of the day, Rogues having effectively no weak save is out of line with every other class in the game, and the class is already so good that it doesn't need the help. The fact that it wasn't good in PF1 is not a justification to overtune it in PF2.
And not to mention this makes Monks seem odd. Who should be the masters of saves and defense. Cunny Acumen also makes their Fort saves Master level with their Will, so now there is nothiong Rogues can not be good at other then maybe their light armor but like just grab a shield, nothign is stoping you from simply raising it and sneak attacking only 1-2 in a turn or even Sneak attack once, after striding and raising +2 AC Shield. I mean that is also why Nimble Dodge is a thing with it's entire feat chain to allow you to add it to both AC & Reflex saves and to get a free NO-MAP Added strike to till maximized Sneak Attack...What do they honestly trade, 40 hit points at level 20 and with some pof the new Archetypes in Divine Mysteries you can argue they can easily get those 40 hit poitns via temporary hit points from 2 different archetypes now. One of which they don't need directly, just have it in the general party.
That’s not how game balance works.
If it’s confirmed this is WAI then it’ll change from me calling it an obvious error in need of errata to calling it a really awful design decision that should be looked at for errata. Its just a weird and massive buff on a class that was already outperforming several others.
Even if they leave the save as is, the rogue won't be anywhere near as broken or imbalanced as anything in PF1.
Rogue AC is low for a lot of levels and D8 hit points.
I think the game is fine with the rogue having all good saves.
Their AC is normal though? They're behind on a couple of levels (depending on which class you compare them to) but otherwise they have the same AC as every other Light/Medium armor user, which are the vast majority of classes in the game. And if you're Ruffian or Avenger you can very easily get Heavy Armor proficiency.
I mean if Rogues have low AC, so do...Alchemist, Barbarians, Druids, Gunslingers, Investigators, Kineticists, Magus, Ranger, Swashbuckler and Thaumaturges.
Most of us think it was a misprint because that kind of power is excessive and inappropriate to the Rogue class. Which is what peaked everyone's interest.Right, but that's my point: we've had so much errata now, including errata that targeted the Rogue's saves but left that mechanical bit unchanged, that it's quite unlikely they're a misprint at this stage. The point is that we should no longer be framing these saves as a misprint, we should simply be pointing out that they're out of line relative to other characters, as well as inappropriate + too strong on the Rogue, and go from there. We don't need to rely on conjecture when the real issue has nothing to do with designer intent, and everything to do with balance.
To reverse Talleyrand, it was worse than a game design mistake - it was a game design crime.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If we do not get an official answer for this even with this dedicated thread, will people accept that it means it is not an error and will not get an errata ?
We just don't get "official answers" other than in the form of errata often enough for the lack of an "official answer" to be a clue. I'm not even sure that the devs pay enough attention to these forums for the existence of a dedicated thread to signal that there's an outcry.
As for the class feature itself, it seems out of whack to me, but not so out of whack that it falls into "too good to be true," so unless there an errata, I think it's safe to conclude it was an intentional change.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just wish FAQ had more of the FAQ answered... clarifications if they are sticking points within the community are important too.
D&D may have an awful system too, but having a place to ask questions and also a dedicated location for the most common answers is better than what we currently have. Although maybe it will improve over time... we are many years into pf2e now though
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We could be in the year 2030 and PF3e could be about to release that, if it wasn't errata'd by then, I would still believe rogues shouldn't have auto-crit succeed with Fortitude saves. In both PF2e and PF1e there were other similar mistakes that were never errata'd either because Paizo forgets or because they think other stuff has more priority. In this very post people have mentioned stuff like inner radiance torrent which was explicitly mentioned as something that needed an errata and yet here we are. Even the people that agree this change is intended think the rogue isn't a tanky class, so why would they have this benefit in the first place?
Community & Social Media Specialist
|
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
Swearing at people aside (I have removed the comment), thank you guys for making this thread here! Making threads like this is part of our new system where the dev team will see them over time and potentially address issues, if able, in future errata. Since it's been less than 24 hours since we started this method concretely, and since the errata was already posted yesterday, please give this some time to actually go into effect. But again, thank you! I asked you to do the thing, and you totally didn't have to do the thing if you didn't want to, but you DID do the thing, and for that, I thank you!
I could have sworn a developer already confirmed that Rogue Resilience wasn't supposed to bump the degree of success; so I will grant it's strange it hasn't been addressed in this latest round of errata. Not that it changes a thing for me, I already have it set at my tables that it won't bump the degree of success.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This isn't something that I think Rogues particularly *need*. I just like the design decision to sever save=>crit save from Master proficiency. It allows a little more nuance in power scaling.
I'd like to see more classes get this feature at Expert, and for some classes to get Master saves w/out getting save=>crit save.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This isn't something that I think Rogues particularly *need*. I just like the design decision to sever save=>crit save from Master proficiency. It allows a little more nuance in power scaling.
I'd like to see more classes get this feature at Expert, and for some classes to get Master saves w/out getting save=>crit save.
To me it seems at once overpowering and intruding into the niches of other classes' good saves. If everyone bumps a save, why design enemy abilities with a save DC at all? That's just my first thought though; why do you hope for more expert saves bumping the degree of success?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I could have sworn a developer already confirmed that Rogue Resilience wasn't supposed to bump the degree of success; so I will grant it's strange it hasn't been addressed in this latest round of errata. Not that it changes a thing for me, I already have it set at my tables that it won't bump the degree of success.
I too have heard this from second hand sources and I been trying ot find the link or where it was staed but no one can ever find that link or me in a thread. So until that link ever surfaces then I can say that it is a rumor a Dev said that.