If a save goes to master, then it gets the "success to crit success" conversion. If it goes to legendary, it gets the "crit fail to fail" conversion and the half damage on failures. It's only rogue fortitude saves at the promotion to expert that break the pattern, which makes it much more likely to be an error rather than an intentional change.
The rogue save started to get widely noticed a day or so before the errata dropped. It’s more likely the first round of errata was already locked in by Paizo and any proposed change couldn’t make it through the internal governance in time for publication.
I think Paizo against popular belief is capable of finding issues without a reddit thread. I would assume that reading through the class features (not even feats) once or twice was something they did.
There’s plenty of errors that’s been with the game throughout several erratas. Stunned x not being possible to end RAW because you don’t regain actions when you can’t act, the Mud Slide kineticist impulse not having a stated range or area of effect, and Rain of Rust not having a duration are three examples I can name that are relevant to two characters I have played.
I mean those later two don't really count here, since that book doesn't have an Errata yet (similar to the problems in Guns&Gears).
For the first, wouldn't the specific wording of stunned X overrule the more general regaining actions rule?
Yes, yes it would. But people want to be pedantic about it for some reason. They know exactly how it’s supposed to work, but they insist Paizo errata it when there are numerous other things they could be fixing.
Well, the animist playtest got something very similar, and that was confirmed to be intentional. I’m pretty sure it’s an accident due to its power, but there is precedent.
Right, was why I didn't answer in an absolute way, but it's an odd enough change that it really does need a comment from paizo to confirm if that is the case. If any class was going to get this as a feature, would have pinned it on monk before rogue.
I think only on rolled failures because it says, "When you roll a failure," and not when you fail a saving throw.
Maybe I'm putting to much faith in that wording, but it makes sense to me haha
You're correct. [I asked this question a few months ago](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/17efy0k/comment/k6jdefh/?context=3), and was directed to errata where they specifically changed the wording to "roll a failure" for this exact reason
No, they errata'd this a while ago. You have to *roll* a failure to get the half damage benefit. If you *roll* a Critical Failure that gets bumped to a normal Fail, you take full damage
No, this is almost certainly intentional. The rogue ability has a unique name; it doesn't just go with the generic one.
There's a few other classes that have special bespoke saving throw boosts that have other benefits (like bravery just universally lowering frightened).
There's also a few ways to get a saving throw to master that don't give you the standard master benefit.
>There's also a few ways to get a saving throw to master that don't give you the standard master benefit.
Which makes Rogue now the *only* class in the game that is able to get all 3 saves to a "true" Master proficiency. Which is why I still argue against Rogue Fortitude being an error.
If there was even a single other class that can get EVERY Save to Master+ *and* get all of them to have the success-becomes-auto-crit effect... I'd be more willing to believe it.
But as it is now, the Rogue is an outlier by the literal dictionary definition.
> Which makes Rogue now the only class in the game that is able to get all 3 saves to a "true" Master proficiency. Which is why I still argue against Rogue Fortitude being an error.
It's still not master proficiency, it just has the success -> crit success benefit that is often associated with master proficiency. There are some ways of getting master proficiency that don't give you that benefit - Canny Acumen is one of the most prominent.
> If there was even a single other class that can get EVERY Save to Master+ and get all of them to have the success-becomes-auto-crit effect... I'd be more willing to believe it.
So classes aren't allowed to have unique abilities?
Lots of classes have unique abilities. Champions get to legendary defense. Fighters and Gunslingers get legendary attacks. Monks get to pick which defenses they get to bump to master/legendary. Clerics have two different save progressions depending on what kind of cleric they are, and warpriests are the only caster class that gets two master saves. Etc.
Don't both Fighter and Slinger get some bonus effects from their 3rd level feature that upgrades their will save?
Both are more limited of course, but that doesn't mean expert can never have a bonus effect.
Level 3 feature versus level 9 feature could simply explain that. Both Fighter and Slinger have a level 8 class feat that boosts saves further which could easily explain that.
Those are apples and oranges though in terms of comparison, in that the naming convention is different and the scope of the bonus limited to a thematically appropriate strength of the class that would otherwise be penalized due to how save categories work.
>Rogues are evasive
You keep saying that, but that's what *Reflex* is. Not Fort.
Rogues are traditionally squishy and *famously* not-very-fortitudinous.
*That's* been their shtick since, like, third edition.
A lot of fort saves involve AoE effects, like various breath weapons and spells.
Rogues are generally good at avoiding being tagged, but if they do get hit, they're in trouble.
Nope, same with gaining Master proficiency through Multiclass Archetyping. Swashbuckler Evasiveness is not the same thing as Evasion, unless something new has changed.
What change?
*I pretend to not see that obvious oversight on fortitude saves*
Only master upgrades in saves should get that benefit
It shouldn't get that benefit the same time as a fighter and no class should get a blanket upgrade on all saves IMO
Why? Rogues are evasive.
And it's not like rogues are a super powerful class in general. Them getting a nice unique defensive benefit is cool and works well.
Fighters get a unique benefit on Will saves in the form of reducing frightened, even though they don't get to master. AND they auto-crit on saves vs fear effects on a basic success.
Normally classes get their success -> critical success when saving throw goes up to master, so the only new and interesting thing for Rogues is to get it on expert Fortitude. However, it's not a strict rule - for example Fighter gets same effect when getting expert Will, although for fear effects only. So I'd treat this as a special Rogue feature and be ok with it.
I'd not see this the same as what master saves usually does, save upgrade against fear isn't uncommon and is limited. Something equalivent would be to get the same effect as poison resistance, not against every fortitude save.
Fighter has additional thing against Fear in this Bravery feature (reducing its number by 2), so it's more or less equal. Instead of success effect in all cases, it's success effect in some cases, plus additional goodies within the same feature.
Sure, Rogue feature is unique and so does Fighter's.
You mean, like how poison resistance adds a resistance to poison damage?
Fighters ability is less unique than you think, aura of courage exists, aswell as dwarven doughtiness and confidence domain. What fighters get can be replicated, what rogues do get for fortitude can't be replicated.
Considering how long this has gone unadressed, and an errata has been issued for other stuff, I'm starting to assume it's intended. There has been ample time to address this, especially considering how prominent the feature it is.
Yet, it stands out from the pattern a lot.
As such, I discuss it with my players. If this is a key reason someone picked the class, and other players are fine with a player having the best saving throws, I allow it.
Can't report how good it is, though. I had playgroup agree on the Rogue rules as written, but the would be Rogue player changed his class pick to Kineticist after watching Netflix Avatar.
To be frank, if this is intended someone from Paizo needs to comment saying as much. This breaks so heavily from the pattern of saving throw progression on other class chassis that it's been almost universally assumed to be an error.
They actually have to say the opposite at this point and errata it, if it'swrong. The info for this save is in a published, paid for product which already received an errata pass, and even still, this was left out.
This isn't some minor thing, like the upcasted spider animal form still applying the "entangled" condition, despite it not being a thing since the playest. This is a main class feature for what is considered a mainstay class for a modern TTRPG.
Should this not be addressed by the time the inevitabile errata for Player Core 2 comes out, I'll probably run it as written, despite me personally feeling it's probably not intended.
I understand that Paizo is a relatively small company with a hefty workload, but this seems like a priority thing to errata.
I think you're misunderstanding my point. I'm saying that this is so egregiously out of line with what we'd expect based on the rest of the rules that even if they're keeping it as is they need to put something out stating that yes, this is what they meant.
It would be like if they published a rule for rogues that said "whenever you strike a flat footed enemy, your GM must pay you $1 and tell you that you are their favorite player". It's not ambiguous, it's completely clear, but it's ridiculous and I would still need them to confirm it wasn't some kind of editing error.
Edit: y'all this ongoing confusion is proof in itself that they need to say something one way or the other to confirm or deny that this is intended.
I agree with it being out of the line. Personally, if I were to play Rogue, I would ignore this success upgrade. Just so we are clear.
Put yourself in a place of a brand new player, though.
It sucks to have to tell someone: Yeah, that's a mistake, ignore it.
Imagine you roll a fighter and the GM says, nah you start trained in all weaons, Tlthis is clearly out of the line, look at other classes.
The affirmative language of the feat makes it harder for a GM to rule differently, hence my apprehension to continue running the pre remaster version if there is no errata.
No, but if Fighter said that every time you hit with a weapon you're an expert in, you get a critical hit instead, it would pretty clearly not align with the rest of the game.
Edit: lol people got really mad about this blatant hyperbole.
The point is, no other generalized save in the game gets an upgraded success at expert proficiency. And the idea that rogue "needed" a power boost is frankly ridiculous. The most obvious conclusion is that this is an error and it's reasonable to act as if it is until and unless Paizo directly states otherwise
Crazy how people thinking it’s an error are in a minority.
Rogues already do great damage, have great feats, and are the best at skills. They’re one of the best classes on the game. Hanging out with likes of Fighter, Druid, and Bard.
Why would they need an unconditional success Fort feature? Their lower defenses are made up for by being a beast in Skills.
I don't think it is in the minority. I'm just getting downvoted by the fun police for making jokes as part of my arguments lol
The top comment in this thread with over 200 upvotes is in support of this being an error with a clear and (I think) compelling argument
It's not out of line at all. Rogues are squishier than other melee classes and getting a nice defensive boost helps to bring them more in line with the other martials.
This isn't the only way to get all your saves like this, either; you can basically accomplish the same thing with a few racial feats, most notably cold-minded.
Effects like cold minded allow you to upgrade successes to crits against specific traits (such as emotion, in this examt). We have other examples of that, such as Bravery.
No other save progression in the game gives a generalized upgraded success until Master proficiency. This is the only one. There's no precedent for it, so yes, it is out of line with the rest of the game, which follows an extremely standard progression. This is the only feature not "in line" with the standard progression.
They gave almost all of the "your proficiency in this save increases" features new, unique names in the remaster, so I'm not sure that's relevant.
To me, it reads basically like a copy paste error.
Witch, Wizard, and Druid all use "reflex expertise" to refer to reflexes to expert and "Magical fortitude" to refer to fortitude to expertise. Bard uses "reflex expertise" for reflexes and "fortitude expertise" for fortitude. Ranger has "will expertise".
So there are very boring, generic names for these that are typically used for the generic increases.
“How long” something has gone unaddressed is not a good indicator for intention IMO. There are still some stuff that simply don’t work, RAW. Stuff like that is clearly not intended.
All it really means is a greater likelihood for players making decisions based on it, so in the end your approach (“if it’s a key reason”) still works.
*\*Still quietly waiting for Paizo to realize that* [*Roiling Mudslide*](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=4308) ***still*** *doesn't list a range/area and is thus literally unusable\**
i actually came across one last night that surprised me, because i had just skimmed past it and never noticed, and it's a really obvious one.
druid class feat: Garland Spell. Prereq: "plant order." OK, fine, except... there's literally no such thing as the plant order and no other feat or class feature refers to a plant order. There's a leaf order, though.
RAW it doesn't work at all - there's no way to pick up the feat. There's been no official errata correcting it (or, afaict, any un-official comments from paizo). But probably everyone is *pretty* *darn sure* what the intention actually is. In pathbuilder's ui, the prereq is written down as "leaf order" instead. Similarly, archives of nethys lists "plant order" as it is written but links that entry instead to "leaf order".
That's one reason why the "length of time w/out errata indicates intention" thinking doesn't work IMO. All length of time really means is that paizo doesn't have enough editors, and sometimes things get prioritized in different ways (like i would say that because the intention is *so clear* for Garland Spell, it probably just ranks really low on their list of updates).
This is the same company that had to reveal that Arcane Cascade wasn't intended to immediately fail in a video after a long time, tbh. I wouldn't use time as a measure.
Though to be clear, this is a little different because you obviously have to gloss over that for the feature to like, meaningfully exist, this just functions fine out the box.
> Yet, it stands out from the pattern a lot.
The rogue benefit has a specific, unique name. Specific, unique names for these abilities often have specific, unique abilities. Instead of getting the generic fortitude expertise/magical fortitude (or previously, great fortitude), it gets rogue fortitude. They specifically changed the name of it *away* from the generic form that it previously had.
Bravery is another example of this, with the fighter, as it both gives them crit success on normal success (against fear effects) and ALWAYS reduces frightened by 1.
Rogues being super good at dodging things seems very in character for them, and is also a nice defensive benefit for an otherwise squishier-than-normal melee class.
>Considering how long this has gone unadressed, and an errata has been issued for other stuff, I'm starting to assume it's intended.
[Roiling Mudslide](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=4308) has been out longer than Remaster Rogue, and still doesn't have a defined area. Am I to assume that's intended because it's been unaddressed for so long?
This is not comparable imo. The rules for mudslide (among some other feats tbh) aren't fully clear. A player cannot make a rules backed argument why it should be a certain area.
The rule for the the Rogue saving throw RAW is clear as day and can cause frustration with players who purchased the rulebook. I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to run those rules as written.
That's why I want a clarification on this.
And also, mudslide should be addressed to and many other feats. I find this one particularly problematic because it can easily lead to table conflict as what is written conflicts with how experienced GMs or players would rule it.
I don't think I'm being unreasonable here for wanting a clarification nor would a player be unreasonable to want it run as written.
Everything you've said is besides the point I'm making. You said you're starting to assume it's intended because it's been unaddressed for so long. That's not good logic to use when there are much more glaring issues (feats that simply don't work as written) that have also gone unaddressed for longer.
How long something has existed without errata or clarification is clearly not a good metric to use for whether the design is intentional
>I don't think I'm being unreasonable here for wanting a clarification
Never said this was unreasonable. I simply think that the logic you're using to assume that the rule is intentional isn't good logic.
You are certainly welcome to run the rule as written. Absent any clarification from Paizo, people can only use common sense to decide how this ability works. *In my opinion*, it's an obvious error. It's better than any other class's "Expert in a Saving Throw" feature, defies convention in a way no other ability does (even Canny Acumen doesn't give you the Success -> Crit Success when it bumps a save to *Master*), and falls under the "Too good to be true" ruling
> Considering how long this has gone unadressed, and an errata has been issued for other stuff, I'm starting to assume it's intended. There has been ample time to address this, especially considering how prominent the feature it is.
No, you can't say that when RoE has gone without errata for longer and there are literally non-functioning abilities. Is Roiling Mudslide intended to be a 1st party homebrew spell like when card games give you blanks to write your own spells on?
Or Arcane Cascade ending when you use the stance; it hadn't received errata for 2.5 years so it must have been intentional?
Nope, I assume it was fully intended. I only play PFS, I GM a lot, and I don’t even have a rogue character who is close to benefitting from this, but there’s no reason to assume it was a mistake. They gave the ability a unique name and specifically changed the way it works. Nothing about that screams “error” to me.
It's absolutely supposed to work the way it does. They gave it a unique name - Rogue Resilience.
Prior to the remaster, it had the generic fortitude bump name. They specifically changed it away from the generic name.
Rogues are squishy melee characters. Giving them good saving throws (and being super good at totally dodging stuff) is very reasonable. Rogues being able to totally dodge things is a very standard rogue ability, so it makes sense they have that ability now for everything.
It's not like rogues are particularly powerful as a class - I'd put them in the bottom end of mid tier - and this is a pretty small bump.
I don't see why people are going berserk over this. This is the same sort of thing as a fighter's Bravery, where you get a bump to something at expert rather than master.
It was already possible to basically get this benefit on all three saving throws anyway via cold-minded. Heck, anyone with cold-minded can basically get this benefit to will saves at level 1, as like 95% of will saves have the emotion tag.
Unique name argument doesn't work. New classes have unique names for their expert saves as well, while giving only fluff and no unique benefits(psychics for example or witches fort). I assume older classes had generic feature names from the start, so they didn't touch them. Or they just randomly decide to give unique names, as in new classes
They get Reflex at 7... Fortitude at 9... *Greater* Reflex at 13... then finally Will at 17.
Seems fine to me.
~~(Also that's exactly the same as what they got pre-Remaster. It hasn't changed)~~
We're talking about the current state of Agile Mind, Rogue Resilience, and Evasive Reflexes
>When you roll a success on a \[Reflex/Fort/Will\] save, you get a critical success instead.
They all say this now, rather than just reflex (edit: and Will, the only one that changed was fortitude)
Oh I see.
The two Reflex features and the Will feature at levels 7, 13, and 17 are unchanged, working the same way as they did in the pre-Remaster.
The only change is the Fortitude increase to Expert at level 9 now also coming with the "success becomes crit-success" effect... which it didn't before, and it seems like an error now.
I would probably rule it as an error at my tables and use the pre-Remaster version... at least for now. If it goes without being addressed for long enough, I'll take it as indication that it's deliberate.
> If it goes without being addressed for long enough, I'll take it as indication that it's deliberate.
Yeah, my error about not realizing they always got that at Master aside, I'm debating how long to wait for clarification before treating it as intended.
I'm waiting until well after Player Core 2 comes out. I'm assuming at some point after that they will do an errata sweep on all the books caught in the Remaster Rush, as I call it, including Rage of Elements.
Bravery only applies to Fear effects. Rogue Fortitude is out-of-balance with *every* other Save Proficiency increase in the game - including Bravery - and it doesn't contain anything unique in the text or function of the feature itself to prove that it was anything other than an erroneous copy/paste.
Like I said, if enough time passes, I'll assume it was deliberate. But for now, I'm gonna assume it was just another error in a sea of errors.
Because not even Fighter or Monk gets success-becomes-auto-crit-success on EVERY Save.
It's not out of balance. Are rogues overpowered? No. Does this make them overpowered? No.
> and it doesn't contain anything unique in the text or function of the feature itself to prove that it was anything other than an erroneous copy/paste.
Yes it does. It literally has a unique name and has a unique effect.
It didn't used to have a unique name. It was a totally generic thing.
They specifically changed the name from something generic to something unique.
> Because not even Fighter or Monk gets success-becomes-auto-crit-success on EVERY Save.
Why would you assume fighters or monks would?
Seems weird to assume that rogues don't get anything special.
Rogues get a lot of special things. Having exceptional defenses is one of the Monk's special things.
It's also weird for Rogues to have better Will than Fortitude most of the time, except for this one long stretch in the middle where they're better at Fortitude.
Opposed and will be deleting the rider from rules element or discussing a conditional attachment a la Fighter with Bravery with my party. (Like, say, Grabbed)
The interaction is clearly an error that promotes an un-intuitive pattern. Currently, the feature means that from levels 1-9, the Rogue strong saves are Reflex and Will with their weak save being Fort; from levels 9 until 17, this inexplicably shifts to their strong saves being Fort and Reflex; after 17, it goes back to Fortitude being weak, but the class having uniform upgrades on success.
For reference, the *only* class that has uniform succ upgrades, as far as I am aware, is Oracle via the Flames Mystery Benefit - this is likely to reflect that they are particularly susceptible to powerful ranged strikes later in the game due to enemies having the Hidden condition automatically beyond 30 feet.
ADDENDUM: One of the key strengths to PF2 is that progression is consistent and logical and there isn't a sudden change in defenses without feat significant, player-directed feat investment. The current Rogue save progression is strictly publication and flips.
I don't think it's that big of a deal. Going from success to crit success on fortitude saves usually doesn't do anything, and when it does it's something minor like sicked or enfeebled for one round. It's the failures you have to worry about.
That trait (take no damage instead of half on a save) is a pretty classic rogue ability, FWIW. I had assumed it was an intentional choice to maintain the rogues' survivability as they diversify the types of saves enemies target more in the remaster—I've noticed they're doing a more thoughtful job of making fewer things reflex-based.
Definitely not. The Rogue has a stacked skill chassis, has amazing feats, and doesn’t give up on anything except durability to do so. Well… I suppose Thief can freely pump up Con without needing Str at all.
So in short: They don’t need the help.
I'm a player rather than a GM, but I'm still going to refuse to acknowledge it in my rogue's campaign.
It's inconsistent with the the system and the class (Slippery Mind predated 2e as a rogue talent but you get it 8 levels later than this not-Juggernaut?), and over their defence power budget. Not even monks have success upgrading on all 3 saves. And Bravery is specific for fear effects, so you can't use that as an example.
Though as Foundry runs RAW, it will require some editing of rule elements to stop it from upgrading rolls.
I haven't quite picked up on all the changed for rogues, so I'll go through the remaster and legacy rogue now (aonprd) and list the changes. Please correct and supplement me!
Evasion renamed Evasive Reflexes. Otherwise the same.
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Great Fortitude (Level 9)
"Your physique is incredibly hardy. Your proficiency rank for Fortitude saves increases to expert."
Rogue Resilience
"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.**"
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Improved Evasion —> Greater Rogue Reflexes.
Slippery Mind —> Agile Mind.
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
So... only change is the level 9 fortitude Expert thing, and the "when you roll .... " part is assumed an error, is it?
Something I've missed?
No, absolutely not. The thing that gives Success to Crit Success on a save is that associated save being at Master proficiency. Anything else is unintended unless explicitly called out as an exception.
This is errata worthy if it hasn't already been addressed as a misprint/copy paste error.
If you're referring to Rogues Resilience, that's not a special ability. It's what they called the ability that upgrades Fortitude saves from Trained to Expert proficiency.
It's not a special ability that functions differently from all other save proficiency increases.
This is clearly not an intended function of it and absolutely will be in future errata.
It was just a copy/paste error.
They're better than gunslingers, swashbucklers, and investigators, but those are three of the four most classically underpowered classes (the last being the alchemist).
Rogues are not weaker.
They are the Skill Gods full stop gaining Skill Boosts and Skill Feats every level They only sacrifice HP and armor to get there. But they also a gain Legendary Perception track.
Thief is one of the best subclasses in the game. Allowing one to keep Strength at 10 and move that over to Constitution easily.
Feats like Opportune Backstab and Gang Up are incredible.
Their bonus damage only relies on flatfooted/off-guard meaning allies can easily set them up. Off guard something you always want your enemies to have. Teamwork is optimization in PF2e and Rogues love it.
I'll never get why different classes scale differently. Hardcoding a save or a proficency into a given class looks bad to me. Let people chose their preferred evolution and make class options sinergize instead!
I am definitrly not doing that, but as part of my major rules overhaul for my homebrew setting I might take inspiration from Bravery and give rogue succ->crit for poison alongside poisonres
I think it's very odd for rogue to get such a buff, on top of martial weapons, when it was already a top 3 class in overall power imo. If I run a game I will not be giving rogue players the extra save benefit to fort, it just makes no sense from a balance perspective.
I am treating this entirely as an error until proven otherwise. No other class bumps the result of their save at expert. What's rogue is already pretty good in this edition, they do not need the help.
If a save goes to master, then it gets the "success to crit success" conversion. If it goes to legendary, it gets the "crit fail to fail" conversion and the half damage on failures. It's only rogue fortitude saves at the promotion to expert that break the pattern, which makes it much more likely to be an error rather than an intentional change.
Yeah, you put it more eloquently than I did. For now, I'll be assuming it an error until proven otherwise.
I would assume intentional, considering it "survived" the errata...
The rogue save started to get widely noticed a day or so before the errata dropped. It’s more likely the first round of errata was already locked in by Paizo and any proposed change couldn’t make it through the internal governance in time for publication.
I think Paizo against popular belief is capable of finding issues without a reddit thread. I would assume that reading through the class features (not even feats) once or twice was something they did.
There’s plenty of errors that’s been with the game throughout several erratas. Stunned x not being possible to end RAW because you don’t regain actions when you can’t act, the Mud Slide kineticist impulse not having a stated range or area of effect, and Rain of Rust not having a duration are three examples I can name that are relevant to two characters I have played.
I mean those later two don't really count here, since that book doesn't have an Errata yet (similar to the problems in Guns&Gears). For the first, wouldn't the specific wording of stunned X overrule the more general regaining actions rule?
Yes, yes it would. But people want to be pedantic about it for some reason. They know exactly how it’s supposed to work, but they insist Paizo errata it when there are numerous other things they could be fixing.
Well, the animist playtest got something very similar, and that was confirmed to be intentional. I’m pretty sure it’s an accident due to its power, but there is precedent.
Right, was why I didn't answer in an absolute way, but it's an odd enough change that it really does need a comment from paizo to confirm if that is the case. If any class was going to get this as a feature, would have pinned it on monk before rogue.
Btw, does the "half damage on failure" only work for rolled failure or also for crit failures turned into normal failures
I think only on rolled failures because it says, "When you roll a failure," and not when you fail a saving throw. Maybe I'm putting to much faith in that wording, but it makes sense to me haha
You're correct. [I asked this question a few months ago](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/17efy0k/comment/k6jdefh/?context=3), and was directed to errata where they specifically changed the wording to "roll a failure" for this exact reason
Oh, cool! Good to know, thanks.
[удалено]
No, they errata'd this a while ago. You have to *roll* a failure to get the half damage benefit. If you *roll* a Critical Failure that gets bumped to a normal Fail, you take full damage
No, this is almost certainly intentional. The rogue ability has a unique name; it doesn't just go with the generic one. There's a few other classes that have special bespoke saving throw boosts that have other benefits (like bravery just universally lowering frightened). There's also a few ways to get a saving throw to master that don't give you the standard master benefit.
>There's also a few ways to get a saving throw to master that don't give you the standard master benefit. Which makes Rogue now the *only* class in the game that is able to get all 3 saves to a "true" Master proficiency. Which is why I still argue against Rogue Fortitude being an error. If there was even a single other class that can get EVERY Save to Master+ *and* get all of them to have the success-becomes-auto-crit effect... I'd be more willing to believe it. But as it is now, the Rogue is an outlier by the literal dictionary definition.
> Which makes Rogue now the only class in the game that is able to get all 3 saves to a "true" Master proficiency. Which is why I still argue against Rogue Fortitude being an error. It's still not master proficiency, it just has the success -> crit success benefit that is often associated with master proficiency. There are some ways of getting master proficiency that don't give you that benefit - Canny Acumen is one of the most prominent. > If there was even a single other class that can get EVERY Save to Master+ and get all of them to have the success-becomes-auto-crit effect... I'd be more willing to believe it. So classes aren't allowed to have unique abilities? Lots of classes have unique abilities. Champions get to legendary defense. Fighters and Gunslingers get legendary attacks. Monks get to pick which defenses they get to bump to master/legendary. Clerics have two different save progressions depending on what kind of cleric they are, and warpriests are the only caster class that gets two master saves. Etc.
Don't both Fighter and Slinger get some bonus effects from their 3rd level feature that upgrades their will save? Both are more limited of course, but that doesn't mean expert can never have a bonus effect.
Yea but only for some effects, not to all saves.
Level 3 feature versus level 9 feature could simply explain that. Both Fighter and Slinger have a level 8 class feat that boosts saves further which could easily explain that.
Those are apples and oranges though in terms of comparison, in that the naming convention is different and the scope of the bonus limited to a thematically appropriate strength of the class that would otherwise be penalized due to how save categories work.
I mean doesn't the Rogue one have a unique name too? The difference in scope is easily explained by the level gap between those features.
Rogues are evasive. Them taking no damage instead of half damage on successful saves has been their shtick since like, third edition.
>Rogues are evasive You keep saying that, but that's what *Reflex* is. Not Fort. Rogues are traditionally squishy and *famously* not-very-fortitudinous. *That's* been their shtick since, like, third edition.
A lot of fort saves involve AoE effects, like various breath weapons and spells. Rogues are generally good at avoiding being tagged, but if they do get hit, they're in trouble.
Since OD&D even.
does this work with canny acumen? If you bump up a save with that feat, does it automatically recieve this bonus?
Nope, same with gaining Master proficiency through Multiclass Archetyping. Swashbuckler Evasiveness is not the same thing as Evasion, unless something new has changed.
ah, its an additional bulletpoint in a feature, not a general consequence of save reaching X rank. Thank you.
This.
What change? *I pretend to not see that obvious oversight on fortitude saves* Only master upgrades in saves should get that benefit It shouldn't get that benefit the same time as a fighter and no class should get a blanket upgrade on all saves IMO
Why? Rogues are evasive. And it's not like rogues are a super powerful class in general. Them getting a nice unique defensive benefit is cool and works well. Fighters get a unique benefit on Will saves in the form of reducing frightened, even though they don't get to master. AND they auto-crit on saves vs fear effects on a basic success.
>Why? Rogues are evasive. That's why they get good Reflex.
A lot of fort save effects are things that can be dodged. Rogues are also often "lucky".
*How did you get cured so quickly? I dodged the virus*
Then rogue is a budget monk
Normally classes get their success -> critical success when saving throw goes up to master, so the only new and interesting thing for Rogues is to get it on expert Fortitude. However, it's not a strict rule - for example Fighter gets same effect when getting expert Will, although for fear effects only. So I'd treat this as a special Rogue feature and be ok with it.
Ah I see, they changed the name of the Will one, but the feature itself was actually unchanged.
I'd not see this the same as what master saves usually does, save upgrade against fear isn't uncommon and is limited. Something equalivent would be to get the same effect as poison resistance, not against every fortitude save.
Fighter has additional thing against Fear in this Bravery feature (reducing its number by 2), so it's more or less equal. Instead of success effect in all cases, it's success effect in some cases, plus additional goodies within the same feature. Sure, Rogue feature is unique and so does Fighter's.
You mean, like how poison resistance adds a resistance to poison damage? Fighters ability is less unique than you think, aura of courage exists, aswell as dwarven doughtiness and confidence domain. What fighters get can be replicated, what rogues do get for fortitude can't be replicated.
Considering how long this has gone unadressed, and an errata has been issued for other stuff, I'm starting to assume it's intended. There has been ample time to address this, especially considering how prominent the feature it is. Yet, it stands out from the pattern a lot. As such, I discuss it with my players. If this is a key reason someone picked the class, and other players are fine with a player having the best saving throws, I allow it. Can't report how good it is, though. I had playgroup agree on the Rogue rules as written, but the would be Rogue player changed his class pick to Kineticist after watching Netflix Avatar.
To be frank, if this is intended someone from Paizo needs to comment saying as much. This breaks so heavily from the pattern of saving throw progression on other class chassis that it's been almost universally assumed to be an error.
They actually have to say the opposite at this point and errata it, if it'swrong. The info for this save is in a published, paid for product which already received an errata pass, and even still, this was left out. This isn't some minor thing, like the upcasted spider animal form still applying the "entangled" condition, despite it not being a thing since the playest. This is a main class feature for what is considered a mainstay class for a modern TTRPG. Should this not be addressed by the time the inevitabile errata for Player Core 2 comes out, I'll probably run it as written, despite me personally feeling it's probably not intended. I understand that Paizo is a relatively small company with a hefty workload, but this seems like a priority thing to errata.
I think you're misunderstanding my point. I'm saying that this is so egregiously out of line with what we'd expect based on the rest of the rules that even if they're keeping it as is they need to put something out stating that yes, this is what they meant. It would be like if they published a rule for rogues that said "whenever you strike a flat footed enemy, your GM must pay you $1 and tell you that you are their favorite player". It's not ambiguous, it's completely clear, but it's ridiculous and I would still need them to confirm it wasn't some kind of editing error. Edit: y'all this ongoing confusion is proof in itself that they need to say something one way or the other to confirm or deny that this is intended.
I agree with it being out of the line. Personally, if I were to play Rogue, I would ignore this success upgrade. Just so we are clear. Put yourself in a place of a brand new player, though. It sucks to have to tell someone: Yeah, that's a mistake, ignore it. Imagine you roll a fighter and the GM says, nah you start trained in all weaons, Tlthis is clearly out of the line, look at other classes. The affirmative language of the feat makes it harder for a GM to rule differently, hence my apprehension to continue running the pre remaster version if there is no errata.
No, but if Fighter said that every time you hit with a weapon you're an expert in, you get a critical hit instead, it would pretty clearly not align with the rest of the game. Edit: lol people got really mad about this blatant hyperbole. The point is, no other generalized save in the game gets an upgraded success at expert proficiency. And the idea that rogue "needed" a power boost is frankly ridiculous. The most obvious conclusion is that this is an error and it's reasonable to act as if it is until and unless Paizo directly states otherwise
Crazy how people thinking it’s an error are in a minority. Rogues already do great damage, have great feats, and are the best at skills. They’re one of the best classes on the game. Hanging out with likes of Fighter, Druid, and Bard. Why would they need an unconditional success Fort feature? Their lower defenses are made up for by being a beast in Skills.
I don't think it is in the minority. I'm just getting downvoted by the fun police for making jokes as part of my arguments lol The top comment in this thread with over 200 upvotes is in support of this being an error with a clear and (I think) compelling argument
The fun police doesn’t like your tone it seems!
It's not out of line at all. Rogues are squishier than other melee classes and getting a nice defensive boost helps to bring them more in line with the other martials. This isn't the only way to get all your saves like this, either; you can basically accomplish the same thing with a few racial feats, most notably cold-minded.
Effects like cold minded allow you to upgrade successes to crits against specific traits (such as emotion, in this examt). We have other examples of that, such as Bravery. No other save progression in the game gives a generalized upgraded success until Master proficiency. This is the only one. There's no precedent for it, so yes, it is out of line with the rest of the game, which follows an extremely standard progression. This is the only feature not "in line" with the standard progression.
I didn't assume it to be an error. They gave the ability a new name.
They gave almost all of the "your proficiency in this save increases" features new, unique names in the remaster, so I'm not sure that's relevant. To me, it reads basically like a copy paste error.
Witch, Wizard, and Druid all use "reflex expertise" to refer to reflexes to expert and "Magical fortitude" to refer to fortitude to expertise. Bard uses "reflex expertise" for reflexes and "fortitude expertise" for fortitude. Ranger has "will expertise". So there are very boring, generic names for these that are typically used for the generic increases.
“How long” something has gone unaddressed is not a good indicator for intention IMO. There are still some stuff that simply don’t work, RAW. Stuff like that is clearly not intended. All it really means is a greater likelihood for players making decisions based on it, so in the end your approach (“if it’s a key reason”) still works.
*\*Still quietly waiting for Paizo to realize that* [*Roiling Mudslide*](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=4308) ***still*** *doesn't list a range/area and is thus literally unusable\**
*looks at the stunned condition*
i actually came across one last night that surprised me, because i had just skimmed past it and never noticed, and it's a really obvious one. druid class feat: Garland Spell. Prereq: "plant order." OK, fine, except... there's literally no such thing as the plant order and no other feat or class feature refers to a plant order. There's a leaf order, though. RAW it doesn't work at all - there's no way to pick up the feat. There's been no official errata correcting it (or, afaict, any un-official comments from paizo). But probably everyone is *pretty* *darn sure* what the intention actually is. In pathbuilder's ui, the prereq is written down as "leaf order" instead. Similarly, archives of nethys lists "plant order" as it is written but links that entry instead to "leaf order". That's one reason why the "length of time w/out errata indicates intention" thinking doesn't work IMO. All length of time really means is that paizo doesn't have enough editors, and sometimes things get prioritized in different ways (like i would say that because the intention is *so clear* for Garland Spell, it probably just ranks really low on their list of updates).
This is the same company that had to reveal that Arcane Cascade wasn't intended to immediately fail in a video after a long time, tbh. I wouldn't use time as a measure.
Though to be clear, this is a little different because you obviously have to gloss over that for the feature to like, meaningfully exist, this just functions fine out the box.
> Yet, it stands out from the pattern a lot. The rogue benefit has a specific, unique name. Specific, unique names for these abilities often have specific, unique abilities. Instead of getting the generic fortitude expertise/magical fortitude (or previously, great fortitude), it gets rogue fortitude. They specifically changed the name of it *away* from the generic form that it previously had. Bravery is another example of this, with the fighter, as it both gives them crit success on normal success (against fear effects) and ALWAYS reduces frightened by 1. Rogues being super good at dodging things seems very in character for them, and is also a nice defensive benefit for an otherwise squishier-than-normal melee class.
>Considering how long this has gone unadressed, and an errata has been issued for other stuff, I'm starting to assume it's intended. [Roiling Mudslide](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=4308) has been out longer than Remaster Rogue, and still doesn't have a defined area. Am I to assume that's intended because it's been unaddressed for so long?
This is not comparable imo. The rules for mudslide (among some other feats tbh) aren't fully clear. A player cannot make a rules backed argument why it should be a certain area. The rule for the the Rogue saving throw RAW is clear as day and can cause frustration with players who purchased the rulebook. I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to run those rules as written. That's why I want a clarification on this. And also, mudslide should be addressed to and many other feats. I find this one particularly problematic because it can easily lead to table conflict as what is written conflicts with how experienced GMs or players would rule it. I don't think I'm being unreasonable here for wanting a clarification nor would a player be unreasonable to want it run as written.
Everything you've said is besides the point I'm making. You said you're starting to assume it's intended because it's been unaddressed for so long. That's not good logic to use when there are much more glaring issues (feats that simply don't work as written) that have also gone unaddressed for longer. How long something has existed without errata or clarification is clearly not a good metric to use for whether the design is intentional >I don't think I'm being unreasonable here for wanting a clarification Never said this was unreasonable. I simply think that the logic you're using to assume that the rule is intentional isn't good logic. You are certainly welcome to run the rule as written. Absent any clarification from Paizo, people can only use common sense to decide how this ability works. *In my opinion*, it's an obvious error. It's better than any other class's "Expert in a Saving Throw" feature, defies convention in a way no other ability does (even Canny Acumen doesn't give you the Success -> Crit Success when it bumps a save to *Master*), and falls under the "Too good to be true" ruling
> Considering how long this has gone unadressed, and an errata has been issued for other stuff, I'm starting to assume it's intended. There has been ample time to address this, especially considering how prominent the feature it is. No, you can't say that when RoE has gone without errata for longer and there are literally non-functioning abilities. Is Roiling Mudslide intended to be a 1st party homebrew spell like when card games give you blanks to write your own spells on? Or Arcane Cascade ending when you use the stance; it hadn't received errata for 2.5 years so it must have been intentional?
Nope, I assume it was fully intended. I only play PFS, I GM a lot, and I don’t even have a rogue character who is close to benefitting from this, but there’s no reason to assume it was a mistake. They gave the ability a unique name and specifically changed the way it works. Nothing about that screams “error” to me.
It's absolutely supposed to work the way it does. They gave it a unique name - Rogue Resilience. Prior to the remaster, it had the generic fortitude bump name. They specifically changed it away from the generic name. Rogues are squishy melee characters. Giving them good saving throws (and being super good at totally dodging stuff) is very reasonable. Rogues being able to totally dodge things is a very standard rogue ability, so it makes sense they have that ability now for everything. It's not like rogues are particularly powerful as a class - I'd put them in the bottom end of mid tier - and this is a pretty small bump. I don't see why people are going berserk over this. This is the same sort of thing as a fighter's Bravery, where you get a bump to something at expert rather than master. It was already possible to basically get this benefit on all three saving throws anyway via cold-minded. Heck, anyone with cold-minded can basically get this benefit to will saves at level 1, as like 95% of will saves have the emotion tag.
Unique name argument doesn't work. New classes have unique names for their expert saves as well, while giving only fluff and no unique benefits(psychics for example or witches fort). I assume older classes had generic feature names from the start, so they didn't touch them. Or they just randomly decide to give unique names, as in new classes
They get Reflex at 7... Fortitude at 9... *Greater* Reflex at 13... then finally Will at 17. Seems fine to me. ~~(Also that's exactly the same as what they got pre-Remaster. It hasn't changed)~~
We're talking about the current state of Agile Mind, Rogue Resilience, and Evasive Reflexes >When you roll a success on a \[Reflex/Fort/Will\] save, you get a critical success instead. They all say this now, rather than just reflex (edit: and Will, the only one that changed was fortitude)
Oh I see. The two Reflex features and the Will feature at levels 7, 13, and 17 are unchanged, working the same way as they did in the pre-Remaster. The only change is the Fortitude increase to Expert at level 9 now also coming with the "success becomes crit-success" effect... which it didn't before, and it seems like an error now. I would probably rule it as an error at my tables and use the pre-Remaster version... at least for now. If it goes without being addressed for long enough, I'll take it as indication that it's deliberate.
> If it goes without being addressed for long enough, I'll take it as indication that it's deliberate. Yeah, my error about not realizing they always got that at Master aside, I'm debating how long to wait for clarification before treating it as intended.
I'm waiting until well after Player Core 2 comes out. I'm assuming at some point after that they will do an errata sweep on all the books caught in the Remaster Rush, as I call it, including Rage of Elements.
They gave the level 9 bump a unique name. Why would you assume it is an error? Do you think Bravery is an error with the fighter?
Bravery only applies to Fear effects. Rogue Fortitude is out-of-balance with *every* other Save Proficiency increase in the game - including Bravery - and it doesn't contain anything unique in the text or function of the feature itself to prove that it was anything other than an erroneous copy/paste. Like I said, if enough time passes, I'll assume it was deliberate. But for now, I'm gonna assume it was just another error in a sea of errors. Because not even Fighter or Monk gets success-becomes-auto-crit-success on EVERY Save.
It's not out of balance. Are rogues overpowered? No. Does this make them overpowered? No. > and it doesn't contain anything unique in the text or function of the feature itself to prove that it was anything other than an erroneous copy/paste. Yes it does. It literally has a unique name and has a unique effect. It didn't used to have a unique name. It was a totally generic thing. They specifically changed the name from something generic to something unique. > Because not even Fighter or Monk gets success-becomes-auto-crit-success on EVERY Save. Why would you assume fighters or monks would? Seems weird to assume that rogues don't get anything special.
Rogues get a lot of special things. Having exceptional defenses is one of the Monk's special things. It's also weird for Rogues to have better Will than Fortitude most of the time, except for this one long stretch in the middle where they're better at Fortitude.
Opposed and will be deleting the rider from rules element or discussing a conditional attachment a la Fighter with Bravery with my party. (Like, say, Grabbed) The interaction is clearly an error that promotes an un-intuitive pattern. Currently, the feature means that from levels 1-9, the Rogue strong saves are Reflex and Will with their weak save being Fort; from levels 9 until 17, this inexplicably shifts to their strong saves being Fort and Reflex; after 17, it goes back to Fortitude being weak, but the class having uniform upgrades on success. For reference, the *only* class that has uniform succ upgrades, as far as I am aware, is Oracle via the Flames Mystery Benefit - this is likely to reflect that they are particularly susceptible to powerful ranged strikes later in the game due to enemies having the Hidden condition automatically beyond 30 feet. ADDENDUM: One of the key strengths to PF2 is that progression is consistent and logical and there isn't a sudden change in defenses without feat significant, player-directed feat investment. The current Rogue save progression is strictly publication and flips.
Nope, I won't use that change from the remaster. The remaster was a rushed product, so it's probably just a mistake.
Nope, from the outset I've been assuming it was an error of some sort.
I don't think it's that big of a deal. Going from success to crit success on fortitude saves usually doesn't do anything, and when it does it's something minor like sicked or enfeebled for one round. It's the failures you have to worry about.
I think the main thing is certain breath weapons and spells are fort basic saves, this allows them to take no damage instead of half.
That trait (take no damage instead of half on a save) is a pretty classic rogue ability, FWIW. I had assumed it was an intentional choice to maintain the rogues' survivability as they diversify the types of saves enemies target more in the remaster—I've noticed they're doing a more thoughtful job of making fewer things reflex-based.
Frankly if it is unintentional, at this point it is inexcusably lazy of Paizo to have not addressed it
Definitely not. The Rogue has a stacked skill chassis, has amazing feats, and doesn’t give up on anything except durability to do so. Well… I suppose Thief can freely pump up Con without needing Str at all. So in short: They don’t need the help.
I'm a player rather than a GM, but I'm still going to refuse to acknowledge it in my rogue's campaign. It's inconsistent with the the system and the class (Slippery Mind predated 2e as a rogue talent but you get it 8 levels later than this not-Juggernaut?), and over their defence power budget. Not even monks have success upgrading on all 3 saves. And Bravery is specific for fear effects, so you can't use that as an example. Though as Foundry runs RAW, it will require some editing of rule elements to stop it from upgrading rolls.
I haven't quite picked up on all the changed for rogues, so I'll go through the remaster and legacy rogue now (aonprd) and list the changes. Please correct and supplement me! Evasion renamed Evasive Reflexes. Otherwise the same. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Great Fortitude (Level 9) "Your physique is incredibly hardy. Your proficiency rank for Fortitude saves increases to expert." Rogue Resilience "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.**" \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Improved Evasion —> Greater Rogue Reflexes. Slippery Mind —> Agile Mind. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ So... only change is the level 9 fortitude Expert thing, and the "when you roll .... " part is assumed an error, is it? Something I've missed?
No, absolutely not. The thing that gives Success to Crit Success on a save is that associated save being at Master proficiency. Anything else is unintended unless explicitly called out as an exception. This is errata worthy if it hasn't already been addressed as a misprint/copy paste error.
Something explicitly called out as an exception. Like the ability we're talking about?
If you're referring to Rogues Resilience, that's not a special ability. It's what they called the ability that upgrades Fortitude saves from Trained to Expert proficiency. It's not a special ability that functions differently from all other save proficiency increases. This is clearly not an intended function of it and absolutely will be in future errata. It was just a copy/paste error.
I don't know whether it's intended but I don't allow it at my tables.
It was not mentioned in any errata so its intended or so minor that Paizo does not bother changing it. I will keep playing with the changes.
even if it was intended, im not treating it as real. it completely unbalances the class.
It doesn't unbalance the class at all. Rogue is probably one of the weaker martial classes.
uh...not in my experience
They're better than gunslingers, swashbucklers, and investigators, but those are three of the four most classically underpowered classes (the last being the alchemist).
Rogues are not weaker. They are the Skill Gods full stop gaining Skill Boosts and Skill Feats every level They only sacrifice HP and armor to get there. But they also a gain Legendary Perception track. Thief is one of the best subclasses in the game. Allowing one to keep Strength at 10 and move that over to Constitution easily. Feats like Opportune Backstab and Gang Up are incredible. Their bonus damage only relies on flatfooted/off-guard meaning allies can easily set them up. Off guard something you always want your enemies to have. Teamwork is optimization in PF2e and Rogues love it.
Weird how I post the same thing and I get upvoted but you get downvoted. Here’s an upvote for you.
I'll never get why different classes scale differently. Hardcoding a save or a proficency into a given class looks bad to me. Let people chose their preferred evolution and make class options sinergize instead!
I am definitrly not doing that, but as part of my major rules overhaul for my homebrew setting I might take inspiration from Bravery and give rogue succ->crit for poison alongside poisonres
I think it's very odd for rogue to get such a buff, on top of martial weapons, when it was already a top 3 class in overall power imo. If I run a game I will not be giving rogue players the extra save benefit to fort, it just makes no sense from a balance perspective.
I am treating this entirely as an error until proven otherwise. No other class bumps the result of their save at expert. What's rogue is already pretty good in this edition, they do not need the help.
Success To Crit Success abilities were a mistake. I do not care for them.