I use Trailblazer's fix and, since the rogue is loaded with other goodies, it seems fair.
Whenever the rogue makes an attack that would deal sneak attack damage, he gains +X to the attack. X = whatever it takes to make his BAB = his level (like a fighter)
Could be worded better above, but you get the idea.
So far this has made the rogue very viable in combat, and really emphasizes the importance of the rogue seeking out the most advantageous position to fight from.
The rogue really needs to gain skill dominance again. The change from 1/2 rank class skills really demolished the rogue in this regard. A 1/2 rogue level bonus on all rogue class skills, except knowledge skills, would go a long way. With that skill benefit, it would be acceptable for them to be worse at combat, as they are now.Or instead of nerfing everyone else, we could just make the rogue class better. I suggest additional benefits for the rogue with those skills, basically every 5 ranks in a skill that you can take 10 on, takes less time to take 10 on it, or if you can't take 10, you get a reroll.
Plus each skill can have an additional benefit later on down the road, but it would take me several hours to define those.
Or, give rogues a skill trick every several ranks, equivalent to a free feat but only affects skills, one option would be taking 10 under stressful conditions or going faster, etc. Skill specialties/focuses.
They already get skill mastery meatrace.
They already get skill mastery meatrace.
Yeah, too bad it's an advanced talent you have to take to get that benefit.
And for discussion's sake, anyone think a full base attack rogue would work, or would that be too much of a power boost?
It spits in the face of the Rogue concept.
However, I agree with full BAB in calculating CMB for the following maneuvers:
In the past the rogue(thief in older editions) have especial qualities that a few else could mimic. Now it seems that every class have an archetype that replace the rogue, ranger,bards, alchemist all have roguish stuff but why the rogue have not an archetype with bardic performance, bombs and/or favored enemy and animal companions?
Rogues needs unique abilities again, and they should be good enough.
Because rogue is a personality.
How is "fighter of the forest" a personality?
How is "raging about the battlefield" a personality?
How is rogue a personality? I'll tell you. By being a dishonest or unprincipled person. By sneaking about and being able to pick locks. By swindling people.
What about that requires a class? Why can't *anyone* be a rogue?
And for discussion's sake, anyone think a full base attack rogue would work, or would that be too much of a power boost?
I was GM for a 3 person group, where I boosted each character a little to make up for the lack of 4th player (in effort to cover the bases missed).
The player playing the rogue was given Weapon Finesse as an automatic (although that was a gamewide houserule), was given all iteratives with TWF with a single feat (instead of needing to spend multiple feats), and finally had full BAB (full, as in, faster iteratives too).
We played up to about 9th or 10th level (I can't remember).
Quite frankly, the Ranger who focused on archery was still considered the group's "killer". Ranged combat vs Melee is quite nasty. The Rogue was about on par with the Eidolon (when he was built more for combat, he was later changed to more utility).
In my own experience, it didn't make the character outclass anyone at all. It might be a problem if you had another character that was otherwise filling a similar role and the Rogue started stepping on toes in combat while outclassing in out-of-combat.
Well then! If the descriptor of the class is nothing like what the class itself does, perhaps something needs to change.
Wizards need spellbooks. Not very Barbaric.
I think the rogue really doesn´t need the full BAB.
Instead there are some more graceful ways to change stuff.
Like said before, weapon finesse is a great deal. Abolish that at all and key it to the weapons. Let finesseable weapons be used with STR or DEX, just as the caracter wishes. I wouldn´t let DEX add damage though. You already have the sneak attack damage. Letting sneak attack damage multiply on a crit is a bit heavy too. Just imagine 6d6 x3 on a 15 threat range.
The other things are agile maneuvers and defensive combat training.
This stuff really hurts, just as dodge and combat expertise do.
All the maneuversand especially feint too are important to rogues, but all are too feat heavy and the rogue despite of getting a feat or a rogue trick just to feat starved.
So finding a way to incorporate at least some of that stuff better would be a nice buff, making the rogue more viable in a fun way that fits into the concept. The rogue should have some more maneuver mastery and more options and it shouldn´t be an archetype.
The rogue should not have Full BAB. A Full BAB equivalent of the rogue can be done with a Fighter Alternate class by swapping out the fighter abilities straight across for Rogue abilities while leaving the Full BAB and 1D10 Hit Dice.
Skills for Armor and Weapon Proficiencies
Evasion, uncanny dodge for Armor training
Feats for Rogue talents
Weapon training/Fight feats for Sneak attack
Capstone for Capstone.
Bravery and Combat Feats Training for Trap Finding
This to me shows just how lacking the rogue class is when you can swap class feature for class features like this and the rogue get 3/4 BAB and 1D8 HD even though they are on par equally with the fighter as and Alternate Class.
So either get rid of the rogue or give the rogue something. To me the rogue is supposed to be a skill monkey, they aren't anymore. I think the rogue should get their choice of skill focus or the feat that give +2 to two skills every other level. This would make the rogue a skill monkey class.
And if someone wants the original rogue it's now Fighter Alternate class called the Combat Rogue which is actually a fighter so they aren't taking away from the fighter and can't multiclass with a fighter.
Depends on what your spellbook looks like.That would be a divergence from RAW. Not not that that's bad, it just needs to be recognized for what it is.
Space in the Spellbook: A spell takes up one page of the spellbook per spell level. Even a 0-level spell (cantrip) takes one page. A spellbook has 100 pages.
Spellbooks, by RAW, have pages. That means books, like with binding and the like. If you read up on epigraphical history, every civilization with books was a rather sophisticated one, and thus not very suitable to creating "barbarians". Since I only brought this up in response to having a barbaric wizard being a shaman... well we have Druids, Clerics, Oracles, Witches, Adepts and Sorcerers which fit just fine into barbaric (read: technologically primal) societies under the role of shamen, medicine men, and what have you. But the RAW wizard is a caster class which doesn't fit such a society, due to the technological requirements for the class itself.
Now, allowing spellbooks to be in the form of scrolls, or engravings on a staff, are really cool, and something I advocate immensely (creativity is awesome), but they would be houseruled variants, and not really applicable to a discussion of taking cut & dry RAW classes as "personality" archetypes.
Depends on which definition of barbaric you mean. Barbaric can, as you say, just mean savagely cruel, or crude.
I refer to low-tech tribal societies... ones with shamen... ones that don't use books with pages.
They may use big painted animal hides which they roll up, but that's not a book with pages.
They may use wooden or even stone tablets with etchings, but those aren't books with pages.
Cave drawings are not books with pages.
It takes some nontrivial mental gymnastics to justify "barbarian shaman" with "books that have pages". Wizards and Magus, who both use spellbooks, are the only caster classes whose origins don't fit into a primal, tribal society.
Shamans are closer to druids or clerics than wizards. I don't think a barbarian (as in uncivilized not the class) could be a wizard (who is a learned scholar) You could have sorcerers on the tribe though.
Barbarian might not be the best word for the class but it's better than the contenders. Berserker, for instance, refers to a specific type of viking warrior.
Likewise Rogue might be a "personality" (I really don't get that, sorry Cheapy) but it's still the best name for the class. What are the other choices anyway? Thief is too much pigeonholing. Same with assassin, spy and even ninja. Swashbucler is a totally different thing. What is left?