Community & Social Media Specialist
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Very cool to get an answer, no matter how we get it imo. Thank you, Maya.
Man I'm so worried about you already haha, people are going to be hounding you non stop I think. But I love your vibe so far!
Don't worry too much! I do this because I enjoy it. ٩(ˊᗜˋ*)و It's great to meet you and everyone!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean it's not a narrative, it's a reality. Like we're in a thread about Paizo's preferential treatment of a class right now.
We're in a thread about misattributing intent, or lack thereof, to Paizo's design, a lesson that has clearly not been learned by all. When Lightning Raven wrote this thread, they at least came from a position of justified skepticism, because the changes to the Rogue's saves weren't really advertized by the developers and could easily look accidental in absence of contrary evidence (I certainly thought it was a misprint too). However, now that the evidence has been laid out, one cannot continue arguing to the contrary. Similarly, given how Paizo's explicitly stated intent for the entire game is balance, not favoritism, and the facts show that presence in one rulebook or another does not correlate to more favorable treatment, I don't think it is particularly helpful to continue holding onto a different notion, particularly one that unfairly assumes some degree of bias or malice on the part of the developers.
I think it's also worth pointing out just how silly it is to label a unique feature "preferential treatment": if it is preferential treatment to have something other classes don't, then we should just remove the Fighter's legendary weapon proficiency, the Barbarian's 12 Hit Points per level, and the Summoner's eidolon. Notice how pointlessly destructive that mentality is, and how ignorant it is of how Pathfinder designs its classes. You can certainly argue that this feature is excessive and inappropriate for the Rogue, but to impute bias and accuse Paizo of favoritism in absence of evidence will do nothing to move conversation forward, and will only lead to pointless arguments. Were I to accuse you of deliberately trying to foster that kind of flame war, perhaps that might better illustrate the problem I'm pointing out here.
Who limited it to feats:
You did. You specifically moved the goalposts from class features to feats to now spells, because your argument clearly doesn't have a leg to stand on.
the wizard has gotten more spells than Investigator and Swashbuckler have gotten feats combined.
Gee, why is it that the spellcasting class has more spells than the martial classes with no spellcasting feature? Hmm, what a brain-twister!
But also... what? It's not just that feats and spells have little to do with one another, that classes don't have class-specific spell lists and instead draw from tradition spell lists with hundreds of spells to choose from, or even that the Wizard has fewer feats than the Witch, another APG class, literally none of this has to do with the balancing of class features. You're throwing enough red herrings here to feed a small country.
More feats at start... How do those figures pan out for additional feats after the class was made?
Still really favorably, actually! Divine Mysteries gave us a new Investigator class archetype, complete with new feats, and the Tian Xia Character Guide gave us two new Magus subclasses, so post-core classes do in fact get additions just like core classes. It's not just that you're constantly moving the goalposts here, even when you do so, the facts still don't play in your favor.
It's completely relative.
No, it's not. Going from dozens of spells to just over a dozen spells, period, is an objective reduction.
a more limited 4th slot isn't much of a loss of power just versatility
Versatility is power. It is in fact quite a significant portion of the power of casters. It's a bit silly to pretend otherwise, let alone use this as an excuse to dismiss the significant reduction in versatility (and power) to the Wizard's fourth slot, to say nothing of the other nerfs this change induced.
And once again, in my last post I explained i was thinking Core vs Advanced Player's Guide classes: even though they got shuffled in the remaster, the original core get more love.
You are saying this in the same paragraph where you also try to explain away the Wizard getting nerfed, and after having outright stated yourself that post-core classes get equal or more love than some core classes, in a discussion that has brought to your attention the love post-core classes have received that holds up to core classes by every arbitrary metric you have thrown out so far. You are, once again, very clearly trying to shift the goalposts to suit your narrative, to the point where what you're arguing has not even the faintest relation to the subject of the Rogue's saves, i.e. the main topic of discussion.
there 100% is though. other classes got errata, just before the remaster: look at Alchemist and how many times it's sees errata. My point is that those original classes are the ones that see the most additions to them and therefor they get looked at more.
Other classes also got errata before, during, and after the remaster, and the Alchemist of all classes certainly wasn't, and still isn't, in any state to be deemed as having received "preferential treatment" by Paizo. You are clearly grasping at straws.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That might be why. PF2 is a system fundamentally designed with the idea that certain classes are better than others as a rule. Providing unnecessary buffs to the rogue while ignoring the Ranger is arguably more consistent with their overall design choices up until now than otherwise.
Classes being better than others within the role they're designed for seems more fundamental to the game's design philosophy doesn't it?
You are correct that imbalances occur, not to extent I've experienced in several other systems thankfully but they do occur. Whether such imbalances are intentional or not is probably not as straight-forward as we might be initially inclined to believe. Multiple people write the rules after all.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
if it is preferential treatment to have something other classes don't, then we should just remove the Fighter's legendary weapon proficiency, the Barbarian's 12 Hit Points per level, and the Summoner's eidolon.
Do you really believe a rogue's fort save improvements are on the same level of essential class identity as a summoner's eidolon?
Do you really believe a rogue's fort save improvements are on the same level of essential class identity as a summoner's eidolon?
I mean, I can see the reasoning behind it, specifically the Rogue being extremely crafty and slippery. To be clear, I'm on the camp of wanting the supercharged saves removed, but I think this is more a case of the developers trying something and genuinely wanting to improve the class within the bounds of the game, rather than Paizo deciding that the Rogue is their special little baby in need of favored treatment over others.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
if it is preferential treatment to have something other classes don't, then we should just remove the Fighter's legendary weapon proficiency, the Barbarian's 12 Hit Points per level, and the Summoner's eidolon.Do you really believe a rogue's fort save improvements are on the same level of essential class identity as a summoner's eidolon?
This is me not chiming in on this discussion at all, but I would like to point out that the story here is not Rogues getting good Fortitude Saves (Ruffians should totally get it).
The Story here is a Skill Monkey Class that gets really solid combat prowess, now they're the only class that get improved saves on everything and they were always considered to be on a great spot pre-remaster, and were substantially buffed on the transition.
Straw. Camel's back. Something, something, something. Look at all those other classeschildren in need, good sir Paizo!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, if we are going to consider arcane spells as a wizard class feature, then we have to consider weapons an investigator or swashbuckler class feature too. There's likely more arcane spells than weapons in the system, but what I'm trying to say is that its weird to take something that wasn't designed to be used for that class in specific as something that belongs to that class, even if the class in question can use it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Probably not a popular opinion here but im fine with rogue combat ability and even this fort buff but what dont like is that they get a skill feat and a skill increase every level.
I wouldnt mind if they had some extra levels than normal but every level feels unwarranted and gets in the way of party skill diversity with groups larger than 4.
Probably not a popular opinion here but im fine with rogue combat ability and even this fort buff but what dont like is that they get a skill feat and a skill increase every level.
I wouldnt mind if they had some extra levels than normal but every level feels unwarranted and gets in the way of party skill diversity with groups larger than 4.
Isn't it the opposite? Ensures that the party has every skill covered while not forcing people to give up on skills aligning with their character's flavor in order to ensure that diversity?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, wow. I certainly wasn't expecting this.
Now I would want to know the rationale behind this change. As I said earlier, if there's a class that didn't need this is the rogue, more so when there's other classes that are more in need in small buffs than them. Rogues are one of the top tier classes of the system after all.
I'm mostly saying this because of the investigator, which yeah its better now but I still think a rogue w/ investigator dedication is better, monk which is in a good spot but since literally most martials were buffed in the Remaster I feel that in comparison monk was pretty much ignored, and ranger (or more precisely outwit) who needs a buff desperately. Even the swashbuckler that it got all the buffs I ever would have wanted for it I still think its worse than a rogue in most scenarios, though at least now the swashbuckler works on its own. In a sense this reminds me of the barbarian which in PC2, much like the rogue in PC1, received a ton of buffs it certainly didn't need. Why are the classes that are already top tier receiving priority over something like the inventor? Which I doubt is going to get a proper rework like it should have in the G&G reprint.
As for as design reasons behind this change, I'm going to postulate again that it is about stat spreads. Having all good saves means that you can spread the stats of the main skill monkey class into 5 or 6 stats with less pain.
Investigator doesn't need that -- they are always an INT focused class.
Monk saves are still better because they are modular -- you get to pick where your best saves go.
I see so many people get laser focused on stat arrays being inviolable with KAS at the top, save stats right behind them, and INT/CHA at the bottom, that they see this as making saves ridiculously strong, when what they are really doing is allowing you to prioritize them down. Be a STR/CHA/INT Ruffian with low DEX/CON/WIS -- you'll be fine defensively, and you'll be able to fill your skill role better.
At level 20, a Rogue could easily have a +5 +4 +4 +4 +4 +3 spread. And still be effective. (And a lot of fun to play.) No other class can do that. And it means that you can actually *use* that skill bump/skill feat every level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't it the opposite? Ensures that the party has every skill covered while not forcing people to give up on flavor souls in order to ensure that diversity?Probably not a popular opinion here but im fine with rogue combat ability and even this fort buff but what dont like is that they get a skill feat and a skill increase every level.
I wouldnt mind if they had some extra levels than normal but every level feels unwarranted and gets in the way of party skill diversity with groups larger than 4.
The party is made up of individuals that in my experience each want to be counted on for the skills they chose and the rogue gets to have great combat ability and is the equivalent skilwise of multiple non rogue/investigator pcs at once.
The party is made up of individuals that in my experience each want to be counted on for the skills they chose and the rogue gets to have great combat ability and is the equivalent skilwise of multiple non rogue/investigator pcs at once.
All that means is that the group has a psuedo fortune effect on the skill or an easy Aid bonus without abusing one for all. Though I've never been in a group that complained about skill overlap except where it left some skills not covered at all, at which point the people more amenable to the idea just abandon the overlap to instead cover what's needed. Most often seen with medicine and thievery, as far as pf2e goes.
|
|
...And really I'd argue that being able to do that on exactly one class isn't good game design.
Because you think it is a niche that shouldn't exist? Or because you want multiple classes to fill it?
Another class or two being able to do that would be fine. (Especially if one were a caster -- though a caster Rogue is already easy to pull off.) More than 3 would be a problem.
Guess I'll just play the rogue from more on.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...And really I'd argue that being able to do that on exactly one class isn't good game design.Because you think it is a niche that shouldn't exist? Or because you want multiple classes to fill it?
Another class or two being able to do that would be fine. (Especially if one were a caster -- though a caster Rogue is already easy to pull off.) More than 3 would be a problem.
Mostly just that they basically don't end up with any weaknesses and that's not good game design.
Like what actually is Rogue bad at? With that stat spread basically nothing. They're not actually weak at any particular save, especially given hero points exist. They can get literally every skill. They get the most skill feats and can theoretically hit 7-9 legendary skills, I forget what it is. They have legendary perception.
What, exactly, is Rogue bad at? Given every other class is actually bad at stuff. If they want to make every class not bad at stuff go for it, but I don't think that's what they're aiming for.
They don't need this. There's absolutely no mechanical reason for them to have this. There's no thematic reason for them to have this. Maybe against poisons specifically. But really this just looks like someone at Paizo loves Rogues and wants to play Riddick or something and decided to buff it so that they're basically perfect.
So no, I don't think uber-class is a niche that should exist.
Their weakness (with this build) is that they aren't excellent at anything in combat.
Jack of all trades is a viable niche that can be a lot of fun, but it is not an uber-class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...And really I'd argue that being able to do that on exactly one class isn't good game design.Because you think it is a niche that shouldn't exist? Or because you want multiple classes to fill it?
Another class or two being able to do that would be fine. (Especially if one were a caster -- though a caster Rogue is already easy to pull off.) More than 3 would be a problem.
Mostly just that they basically don't end up with any weaknesses and that's not good game design.
Like what actually is Rogue bad at? With that stat spread basically nothing. They're not actually weak at any particular save, especially given hero points exist. They can get literally every skill. They get the most skill feats and can theoretically hit 7-9 legendary skills, I forget what it is. They have legendary perception.
What, exactly, is Rogue bad at? Given every other class is actually bad at stuff. If they want to make every class not bad at stuff go for it, but I don't think that's what they're aiming for.
They don't need this. There's absolutely no mechanical reason for them to have this. There's no thematic reason for them to have this. Maybe against poisons specifically. But really this just looks like someone at Paizo loves Rogues and wants to play Riddick or something and decided to buff it so that they're basically perfect.
So no, I don't think uber-class is a niche that should exist.
Their weakness (with this build) is that they aren't excellent at anything in combat.
Jack of all trades is a viable niche that can be a lot of fun, but it is not an uber-class.
I mean, thief/ruffian do good base damage and outside of precision immune enemies they have one of the higher end damage in the game. Along with having more skills than anyone but maybe investigator.
They are one of if not best skill monkey
One of the best damage dealers
I don't see no Jack here.
All that means is that the group has a psuedo fortune effect on the skill or an easy Aid bonus without abusing one for all. Though I've never been in a group that complained about skill overlap except where it left some skills not covered at all, at which point the people more amenable to the idea just abandon the overlap to instead cover what's needed. Most often seen with medicine and thievery, as far as pf2e goes.The party is made up of individuals that in my experience each want to be counted on for the skills they chose and the rogue gets to have great combat ability and is the equivalent skilwise of multiple non rogue/investigator pcs at once.
Im not saying this as if everyone has to think this way but I see it like this. Failing is just as good narratively as succeeding. It means as the GM I get to present different sets of outcomes. From my perspective succeeding on a skill check isnt the best outcome its just one outcome. (Not for life or death checks of course)
What matters is the players have their moments where they affected the narrative succeed or fail. I try not to pin progression of narrative with success alone. When one player has their moment and fails but the rogue steps in afterwards and takes over the moment and they do this more often with all the skills they gain it creates disengagement or sometimes too much focus on success.| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rogues want to be in melee all the time to make the best use of their opportune strike, but don’t carry shields, and don’t have great AC. Like barbarians, their big swings of damage tend to lead to them getting focused on, only they don’t really have the HP and they literally get eaten alive by very many grab monsters (I have seen it!). It is definitely the class I see getting beaten up the most.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rogues want to be in melee all the time to make the best use of their opportune strike, but don’t carry shields, and don’t have great AC. Like barbarians, their big swings of damage tend to lead to them getting focused on, only they don’t really have the HP and they literally get eaten alive by very many grab monsters (I have seen it!). It is definitely the class I see getting beaten up the most.
I see this as well. Then again as a DM, I'm a jerk in that the rogue gets focused on because to most monsters he looks like a nice soft target to crush. Who wants to hit big metal armored dudes with shields or Mr. Raging Psychopath when they can take shots at agile, slender rogue. Unless they can get to the casters, then they go after light armor, wiggly fingers caster using nasty, nasty magic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Don't have great AC"
They have literally the average AC and absolutely nothing prevents them from carrying a shield. Nothing stops you from taking a feat or two to get heavy either.
The average AC with 8 hit points isn't great. You don't get armor mastery until level 19 like most classes with master armor. That's a pretty painful journey to the average armor class with 8 hit points for a class that does best up close and personal in melee. No heavy armor either.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rogues want to be in melee all the time to make the best use of their opportune strike, but don’t carry shields, and don’t have great AC. Like barbarians, their big swings of damage tend to lead to them getting focused on, only they don’t really have the HP and they literally get eaten alive by very many grab monsters (I have seen it!). It is definitely the class I see getting beaten up the most.I see this as well. Then again as a DM, I'm a jerk in that the rogue gets focused on because to most monsters he looks like a nice soft target to crush. Who wants to hit big metal armored dudes with shields or Mr. Raging Psychopath when they can take shots at agile, slender rogue. Unless they can get to the casters, then they go after light armor, wiggly fingers caster using nasty, nasty magic.
Yeah, monsters instinctively know that Rogues are more nutritious than other Martials. They eat a more balanced diet, and so have more tender and leaner meat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The average AC with 8 hit points isn't great. You don't get armor mastery until level 19 like most classes with master armor. That's a pretty painful journey to the average armor class with 8 hit points for a class that does best up close and personal in melee. No heavy armor either."Don't have great AC"
They have literally the average AC and absolutely nothing prevents them from carrying a shield. Nothing stops you from taking a feat or two to get heavy either.
Good thing they can grab a reaction to gain +2 AC (or use a shield) and grab the ability to move 10-25 feet without provoking reactions themselves. Plus with a thief they can pretty easily get better constitution if they are truly scared.
"Don't have great AC"
They have literally the average AC and absolutely nothing prevents them from carrying a shield. Nothing stops you from taking a feat or two to get heavy either.
Yeah... Rogues pay dearly for everything they have for a grand total of... 4 levels of lower AC? Even then, compared to some martial classes, those that get Expert 11 and Master 17, with rogues gaining 2 levels later.
That sure compensates!
The average AC with 8 hit points isn't great. You don't get armor mastery until level 19 like most classes with master armor. That's a pretty painful journey to the average armor class with 8 hit points for a class that does best up close and personal in melee. No heavy armor either."Don't have great AC"
They have literally the average AC and absolutely nothing prevents them from carrying a shield. Nothing stops you from taking a feat or two to get heavy either.
Good thing they can grab a reaction to gain +2 AC (or use a shield) and grab the ability to move 10-25 feet without provoking reactions themselves. Plus with a thief they can pretty easily get better constitution if they are truly scared.
My Champion's front-line partner is a Gnome Thief Rogue. Not only the character shreds a lot of enemies, with sometimes ballistic turns of Critical Sneak Attacks, but their HP is almost the same as my Champion's (Human Nephilim with decent CON). And their AC has only been left behind now that I got Expert on Armor, which is one of the Champion's main feature.
My Champion's front-line partner is a Gnome Thief Rogue. Not only the character shreds a lot of enemies, with sometimes ballistic turns of Critical Sneak Attacks, but their HP is almost the same as my Champion's (Human Nephilim with decent CON). And their AC has only been left behind now that I got Expert on Armor, which is one of the Champion's main feature.The average AC with 8 hit points isn't great. You don't get armor mastery until level 19 like most classes with master armor. That's a pretty painful journey to the average armor class with 8 hit points for a class that does best up close and personal in melee. No heavy armor either."Don't have great AC"
They have literally the average AC and absolutely nothing prevents them from carrying a shield. Nothing stops you from taking a feat or two to get heavy either.
Good thing they can grab a reaction to gain +2 AC (or use a shield) and grab the ability to move 10-25 feet without provoking reactions themselves. Plus with a thief they can pretty easily get better constitution if they are truly scared.
If you're only at Expert armor, boy, are you in for a treat.
I've run four champions to level 17 plus. Their AC reaches nutbar levels and their shields get insanely strong along with three reactions a round to manage. Champions are one of the biggest pain characters for a DM unless they use a lot of ranged hammering.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The average AC with 8 hit points isn't great. You don't get armor mastery until level 19 like most classes with master armor. That's a pretty painful journey to the average armor class with 8 hit points for a class that does best up close and personal in melee. No heavy armor either."Don't have great AC"
They have literally the average AC and absolutely nothing prevents them from carrying a shield. Nothing stops you from taking a feat or two to get heavy either.
Of all classes, only Monks, Champions, Fighters and Magus have a straight out better AC progression than Rogue. The Ranger, Thaumaturge and Inventor are in a weird spot because while they get Expertise at 11th, Master is still at 19th, just like the Rogue.
Setting aside Monk and Champion, the Rogue is behind Fighter and Magus for 4 levels: 11, 12, 17, 18. For the others, they're behind in 2: 11, 12.
This is essentially nothing. Sure, 3/6 Rogue Rackets can't easily get Heavy Armor, but 2/6 (Ruffian and Avenger) can do it with a single General Feat, or Sentinel/Champion Dedication. And Rogues can use a Shield for AC about as well as anybody else.
And I should point out, for 2/6 rackets (Scoundrel and Mastermind), ranged builds are a lot more viable thanks to their mechanics (though Scoundrel does need Pistol Twirl to work effectively).
Now, sure, not every rogue will want a shield, whether because of aesthetics or because they have low strength and they need the bulk. But on the other hand, they have in-class defensive options like Nimble Dodge/Nimble Roll, Mobility, Predictable!, Skirmish Strike (especially with Reach), plus Deny Advantage.
All of this to say the Rogue is in a pretty average spot defensively, except for their Fort saves, which are just terrible for a frontliner. This S->CS ability helps a little, but I've been playing a Rogue and I've failed most of my Fortitude saves, so it wouldn't have made much difference.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've run four champions to level 17 plus. Their AC reaches nutbar levels and their shields get insanely strong along with three reactions a round to manage. Champions are one of the biggest pain characters for a DM unless they use a lot of ranged hammering.
They also combine REALLY well with a melee rogue. Rogue kills things and the Champion protects the Rogue.
At a quick glance it looks like the rogue is doing all the heavy lifting in a rogue/champion team but in fact they're both contributing about equally.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, I can see the reasoning behind it, specifically the Rogue being extremely crafty and slippery. To be clear, I'm on the camp of wanting the supercharged saves removed, but I think this is more a case of the developers trying something and genuinely wanting to improve the class within the bounds of the game, rather than Paizo deciding that the Rogue is their special little baby in need of favored treatment over others.
It's less about being a special little baby and more just observing that the Rogue came into PF2 kind of on the strong side, received more attention than a lot of classes did in the Remaster, and got buffs that weren't particularly necessary along the way. It's been consistent enough that I have trouble calling it just a series of coincidences, happenstances, or mistakes. The idea that Paizo internally has decided that it's okay for the Rogue, as a basic core lynchpin class, to be slightly stronger than some of its direct competitors doesn't seem that unreasonable. Especially considering that's the reality of the game as it is.
Because you think it is a niche that shouldn't exist? Or because you want multiple classes to fill it?Another class or two being able to do that would be fine. (Especially if one were a caster -- though a caster Rogue is already easy to pull off.) More than 3 would be a problem.
"Has more stat flexibility than its competitors" isn't really a niche in the first place, it's just called being strong.
It's weird to me to say that no more than three classes should deserve to be able to invest in tertiary stats. Or that classes like Investigators shouldn't because... they have Int? I don't really get that line of logic at all.
To be fair Paizo has been compensating for the years...17? years of rogue slander since the release of SF1e with the operative, which I think is considered the strongest class by far in that system AFAIK. The rogue trope is certainly my favorite and I gravitate to rogue-ish characters most of the time when I try a new system, and while I certainly think this change to Fortitude is certainly unnecesary, the me from a couple of years ago that was into D&D 3.5 and PF1e would shed a tear seeing how rogues are being discussed as being one of the better classes in the system. Even the me that briefly tried 5e would shed a tear too.
To be fair Paizo has been compensating for the years...17? years of rogue slander since the release of SF1e with the operative, which I think is considered the strongest class by far in that system AFAIK. The rogue trope is certainly my favorite and I gravitate to rogue-ish characters most of the time when I try a new system, and while I certainly think this change to Fortitude is certainly unnecesary, the me from a couple of years ago that was into D&D 3.5 and PF1e would shed a tear seeing how rogues are being discussed as being one of the better classes in the system. Even the me that briefly tried 5e would shed a tear too.
The Operative gotta be the favorite of the favorite children. They're even more bonkers now in SF2e, since they're Fighters with Rogue skills.
Paizo's love for Rogue-likes has been pretty apparent ever since SF1e dropped.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why is everyone assuming malice when "the devs just though it was a cool idea and didn't think to hard about it" is way more likely scenario? There is enough people supporting it even here that clearly this idea is out there. I don't think it was a good idea, but I don't think they just wanted to make the rouge the best class. If they did, they could have gone a lot further.
Some folks here definitely are ascribing far more intent than exists. I really doubt someone is twirling their moustache in Paizo HQ thinking "we really need to make this class super good while making this other class awful because putting out content people hate is fun".
I mean, I get why people might feel that way when you compare Rogues getting buffed in the remaster to be literally good at everything with no particular weakness except "I'm so powerful that I become a priority target"... while Battle Oracle got Weapon Trance (insultingly bad) and were effectively nerfed into needing multiple general feats/archetypes just to be functional.
But its exceedingly unlikely that someone actually aimed for that outcome deliberately. Seems far more likely that someone wanted to give Rogue something they felt would be thematic (and Oracle was rushed).
It's less about being a special little baby and more just observing that the Rogue came into PF2 kind of on the strong side, received more attention than a lot of classes did in the Remaster, and got buffs that weren't particularly necessary along the way. It's been consistent enough that I have trouble calling it just a series of coincidences, happenstances, or mistakes. The idea that Paizo internally has decided that it's okay for the Rogue, as a basic core lynchpin class, to be slightly stronger than some of its direct competitors doesn't seem that unreasonable. Especially considering that's the reality of the game as it is.
But again, this is a narrative, not reality. Pre-remaster, the Rogue was certainly not weak, but was never considered this exceptionally strong class either, whereas the Fighter got a lot more attention due to their amazing Strikes. Similarly, even now and with these abnormally good saves, the Rogue isn't this game-warping pick, and is still not generally considered the strongest martial. Perhaps this might change over time if more people start running the class's saves RAW, and I certainly wouldn't say no to removing that feature, but it takes a pretty serious amount of rewriting of history, and a complete disregard for Paizo's balance philosophy for Pathfinder (not to mention an assumption of bias that you have yet to justify or explain), in order to believe that the Rogue was somehow Pathfinder's darling class all along, and the best class in the game the whole time.
I also feel a lot of this comes from a fairly uncharitable interpretation of events, and I think Hanlon's razor definitely comes into effect here: by "direct competitors", I imagine you mean the Investigator and Swashbuckler, both classes released in the Advanced Player's Guide, the first expansion to Pathfinder 2e and a sourcebook infamous for heavily undertuning its classes. Up until the remaster, both the Investigator and the Swashbuckler sucked. With the remaster, both received significant changes, to a far more significant extent than the Rogue, and while they didn't get busted saves and aren't necessarily the strongest class options still, they certainly went several steps up from where they were before. A similar thing happened to the Alchemist, a core class that got held back by antiquated design and got an overhaul in the remaster: that class to me is the prime example of why this core/non-core favoritism argument makes no sense, because the class still isn't amazing, even though it received major improvements. By contrast, the Oracle, another APG class, got way overbuffed, such that it is now one of the strongest casters in the game, perhaps even one of the strongest classes overall.
There is no real connecting line here, other than Paizo sometimes gets over-cautious and sometimes goes overboard, because Paizo is a collective of individual designers often working independently of one another, rather than a hive mind. To accuse Paizo of conspiracy in this way, let alone over something so petty, requires suspending quite a bit of critical thinking, and if your only supporting argument is "the Rogue was a good class and got buffed," then I fail to see how your argument is going to appeal to anyone who isn't already looking for excuses to make wild accusations at Paizo for whichever reason.
I'm sorely tempted to homebrew this change back to them not having 3 save it crit save effect.
Class will still be fine.
Would you rather I use Hanlon's Razor here and just assume they're incompetent? Because I was planning to avoid that in this thread, but it's definitely on the table given what they've been putting out otherwise recently.
I can't speak for Paizo, but assuming incompetence is certainly better than assuming malice in my opinion. I would also caution that Hanlon's razor does not mean that everyone is either incompetent or malicious just because they made even a single error in their life, it is simply a pithy way of saying you shouldn't automatically assume ill intent from what is, in most cases, an honest mistake. If you genuinely believe a person becomes incompetent the moment they make even a single mistake, ever, then I truly do feel bad for you, and for your sake hope you don't hold yourself to that same standard.
In general, I don't think there's any real reason to mark anyone at Paizo as incompetent, and I don't think it helps conversation to do so. Criticizing this change to the Rogue's saves is absolutely fine, but using this one (and ultimately fairly minor) perceived error as an excuse to insult people crosses a line that we shouldn't be crossing in respectful conversation. Let's please not with the accusations and the conspiracy theories, and focus instead on the actual topic of conversation, in this case the Rogue's saves and why they're too strong and/or inappropriate for the class.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Would you rather I use Hanlon's Razor here and just assume they're incompetent? Because I was planning to avoid that in this thread, but it's definitely on the table given what they've been putting out otherwise recently.
Or you could just accept that people can have different ideas about how classes should work and that's not a sign of anything except creative differences.
Like: I hate most of Necromancer. A lot. But that doesn't mean it was created due to either incompetence or malice. It means the people creating it went in a direction that I don't like. They're allowed to do that, just like I'm allowed to dislike it. It doesn't imply anything beyond that.
This change is the same thing. I don't get why they decided Rogue should have this, but that doesn't mean they're incompetent and it certainly doesn't mean they're actively trying to screw other classes. It means they think Rogues should be better than baseline at every save for some reason. There's nothing incompetent or malicious about having that opinion.
Or, every d8 martial gets all 3 saves treatment. After all they need the help. Many do less damage with less ooc support.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or you could just accept that people can have different ideas about how classes should work and that's not a sign of anything except creative differences.
Like: I hate most of Necromancer. A lot. But that doesn't mean it was created due to either incompetence or malice. It means the people creating it went in a direction that I don't like. They're allowed to do that, just like I'm allowed to dislike it. It doesn't imply anything beyond that.
Thank. you! This! Exactly this!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But again, this is a narrative, not reality. Pre-remaster, the Rogue was certainly not weak, but was never considered this exceptionally strong class either...
Not sure where you've been, but rogue was considered the best martial class in the system next to the fighter until it was joined by bow magus. Rogue getting buffed saves and buffed gang up only further locked that in.
Generally speaking, I wouldnt say rogue is so much the favored child as martials are favored as a whole. Only nerfs they got were killing flickmace and crit specs. But buffs? Rogue fort saves and gang up, barbarian lost rage penalties and the action tax, assorted buffs to other classes. Casters? Witch made out like a bandit while everyone else has been almost static since launch or nerfed in some way. The focus point buff buffed everyone equally seeing as many martials either get focus spells naturally or dipped into champion, psychic or blessed one for easy points.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But again, this is a narrative, not reality. Pre-remaster, the Rogue was certainly not weak, but was never considered this exceptionally strong class either...Not sure where you've been, but rogue was considered the best martial class in the system next to the fighter until it was joined by bow magus. Rogue getting buffed saves and buffed gang up only further locked that in.
Generally speaking, I wouldnt say rogue is so much the favored child as martials are favored as a whole. Only nerfs they got were killing flickmace and crit specs. But buffs? Rogue fort saves and gang up, barbarian lost rage penalties and the action tax, assorted buffs to other classes. Casters? Witch made out like a bandit while everyone else has been almost static since launch or nerfed in some way. The focus point buff buffed everyone equally seeing as many martials either get focus spells naturally or dipped into champion, psychic or blessed one for easy points.
Don't forget Thief Rogues getting to add their DEX to Damage on Unarmed Attacks. That was also a huge buff they got in the Remaster just because.
Honestly I can't think of a single targeted nerf that hit Rogues specifically the way Sure Strike hit the magus or changes to Schools hit the Wizard.
Even Fighters, for example, lost the ability to have more than 1 weapon group at their highest proficiency with the changes to Archer and Mauler. Rogue's been living large since the Remaster. And they weren't really struggling before.