| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Right, so on a whim while bored at work I was thinking about the resurrection about a certain thread I created and decided to just, well, screw it, rewrite the rogue for fun.
I'm having a couple of people I know look over it who know what they're doing but I'm going ahead and putting it out now while I'm still in the mood to work on it.
Opportunistic Strike: This is more or less stolen from cheapy's archetype he did for a teamwork book. It adds a bit of an attack bonus, triggers more readily while requirign a bit of thought to actually trigger, isn't turned off by quite as easily and does extra damage with a crit. So the average damage is less, but the overall benefit is better and I think considerably more interesting.
Debilitating blow: Again lifted this off the anti-paladin and scrubbed it to fit my needs. It's a fun ability that I'm torn what ability score it needs to base its DC off of) I think of it as either a nice complement to my opportunistic strike, or an alternate strategy that lets me support my buddies by savagely debuffing enemies. This ability will likely see revision as reading over it I see a couple of exploits I want to address.
Scoundrel's Grace: I already know I'm going to hear crying from this. Hear me out. By the time this comes online most everyone is going to be flat out immune to things. Those who aren't can become flat out immune to things. This does not provide immunity. It does provide survivability at a level where instant death effects are a very real concern.
Talents: HAven't sat down to work on these yet but the gist of it is that I dislike the design of the old ones. They mostly exist to add small tricks to the rogue or to moderately boost one feature or another. However. My thinking is that, more like that alchemist or the barbarian, these should be used to help define the character, to specialize them. Hence many of these talents are going to be in trees and generally stronger.
So for now I guess call this an unofficial playtest for an unofficial rewrite a published freelancer did for funsies.
I would love for this guy to become a staple at a number of tables like my MAchinesmith. A guy can dream.
Comments are enabled on the page. Feel free to put your thoughts here. Bear in mind I fight like a mad dog for my babies.
Opportunistic Strike is a huge improvement over Sneak Attack and I like how Debilitating Blow makes the Rogue a debuffer (which happens to be the exact route I tried to make her go).
Scoundrel's Grace is... bad. It comes way too late and it doesn't help when you're having a hard time making those saving throws to begin with. The Rogue needs something that improves those saves, somewhere between levels 3-5.
Put my thoughts up on the doc. Looks good mostly. Have you seen Lemmy's Revised Rogue? He did a solid job on that.
I like it. And I dont like many rogue rewrites. Great work.
|
I do like Opportunistic Strike, but I have a few questions about it;
Stunned/Paralyzed: why don't you need Dazed before taking these?
Since OS isn't dice anymore, does that mean it can Crit now? When a talent measures the number of SA dice, does it multiply the "dice count" when OS crits?
Merciless Stroke combined with Dastardly Finish and the Stunning Debilitating Blow is pretty mean.
Does OS have a maximum range?
If you perform OS with a nonlethal weapon, is the bonus damage also nonlethal?
I do like Opportunistic Strike, but I have a few questions about it;
Stunned/Paralyzed: why don't you need Dazed before taking these?
PArtly because I don't see much need. The original touch fo corruption didn't require it. So I didn't bother.
Since OS isn't dice anymore, does that mean it can Crit now?
Absolutely.
When a talent measures the number of SA dice, does it multiply the "dice count" when OS crits?
It crits like normal so if your weapon deals double it is doubled, tripled to tripled, etc.
Merciless Stroke combined with Dastardly Finish and the Stunning Debilitating Blow is pretty mean.
It's equally mean just with the paralyzed or unconscious debilitating blow. IT makes the rogue dangerous since he can work with another character to flat out kill enemies with extreme alacrity.
Does OS have a maximum range?
No.
If you perform OS with a nonlethal weapon, is the bonus damage also nonlethal?
Yes. This is unspecified mainly because it doesn't need to. Smite, for example, works the same way.
I like this a lot. Just thought I'd mention that there's a reference to inquisitors in the scoundrel's grace ability.
I like this a lot. Just thought I'd mention that there's a reference to inquisitors in the scoundrel's grace ability.
Derp. Fixed.
-I see that you have sped up Fort and Will saving throw progression. Is this intentional?
-I like the status effects idea, but... What if they were not always Fort saves? What if the Rogue could choose a condition based on the opponent he is fighting, and thus be able to pick a save to capitalize on the opponent's weaknesses? What if each condition specified which save was required?
It just seems silly to cause Entangled or Dazed with a Fort save, as well.
-Matt
That first one's a typo I'll fix later.
I'll consider the second idea. Fort might be the base but some could specify Will or Ref.
Nice work, Tark.
I wonder if you would consider amending the skill list to include Ride. I have always felt this was a serious omission in the class; the mounted highwayman being a staple rogue-type character.
Or even throw the skill list open to all skills. While rogues have a pretty good list, I've always thought there would be no harm in giving them access to more skill abilities. Perhaps limit extra knowledge skills to PCs with Int 12 or higher. Handle animal would be completely in keeping with a scurrilous itinerant animal show handler. Survival would be a boon to rogues who "embrace lives on the road". And can you see any rogue who might be regularly faced with a magic wielding opponent not taking Spellcraft, or Knowledge(Arcana).
Talent exchange is awesome. It will greatly increase the rogue's flexibility. One small type in the last paragraph of talent exchange: "At 10th and gain at 15th level the rogue..."
And please add tracking to the list of rogue talents. If rangers can poach on the rogue's preserve I see no reason why it shouldn't play the other way. (Although a two level dip into ranger is often a very good thing for a rogue.)
One last suggestion and I promise I'll shut up. Arcane trickster has a halfway decent ability that allows them to declare a sneak attack on one attack per round, even in straight up melee. I have often thought that should be an advanced rogue talent.
Nice work, Tark.
I wonder if you would consider amending the skill list to include Ride. I have always felt this was a serious omission in the class; the mounted highwayman being a staple rogue-type character.
Or even throw the skill list open to all skills. While rogues have a pretty good list, I've always thought there would be no harm in giving them access to more skill abilities. Perhaps limit extra knowledge skills to PCs with Int 12 or higher. Handle animal would be completely in keeping with a scurrilous itinerant animal show handler. Survival would be a boon to rogues who "embrace lives on the road".
Actually the "expertise" lines of talents are the ones that will expand the rogues skill list and provide skill bonuses to existing ones. For example MYstic Expertise will give spellcraft as a class skill and provide a bonus to UMD checks. These same talents act as prerequisites to more potent tricks like Disable Spell which allows the rogue to use Disable Device like a dispel magic on adjacent spell effects.
|
|
I do like Opportunistic Strike, but I have a few questions about it;
Stunned/Paralyzed: why don't you need Dazed before taking these?
PArtly because I don't see much need. The original touch fo corruption didn't require it. So I didn't bother.
I mention this because you do use this principle with some of the other conditions;
When a talent measures the number of SA dice, does it multiply the "dice count" when OS crits?It crits like normal so if your weapon deals double it is doubled, tripled to tripled, etc.
This probably deserves some explicit mention in your writeup; previously SA dice didn't do that, so this is new behavior that makes some talents a LOT more powerful. It's good to draw attention to that. It also avoids uncertainty, because if you don't mention it people might believe you didn't intend to do it.
That said, I like it a lot.
Merciless Stroke combined with Dastardly Finish and the Stunning Debilitating Blow is pretty mean.It's equally mean just with the paralyzed or unconscious debilitating blow. IT makes the rogue dangerous since he can work with another character to flat out kill enemies with extreme alacrity.
Nice. I've tried to get Dastardly Finish working before but there were so very few ways to stun people in PF, and almost none available to rogues.
Does OS have a maximum range?No.
I'm uncertain about this. Combined with working on people suffering a condition, this is an enormous swing in effectiveness. Especially considering that it's easier to gain full attacks with ranged weapons.
It might turn the rogue from one of the weakest combat classes into one of the nastiest.
If you perform OS with a nonlethal weapon, is the bonus damage also nonlethal?Yes. This is unspecified mainly because it doesn't need to. Smite, for example, works the same way.
Fair enough.
It's a well done rewrite, but it has one big flaw: The Rogue's ability to inflict all sorts of conditions on a hit.
I had something similar to that in my own homebrew, since it's a flavorful idea, but I decided to remove it when I realized that at mid/high levels, theability would add up to multiple SoL effects every round or, at very least, one SoL every round.
Now, SoL effects certaintly wouldn't be unique to the Rogue, but I dislike the idea of adding more of them to the game. IME, SoL rolls tend to be one of the least fun parts of the game.
That said, I still like your rewrite. I'd remove and/or scale down the SoL abilities, but that's me.
Overall, this looks pretty good, and its something I would play.
1) Starting Wealth: Looks like entire line is in boldface.
2) Class Skills: just curious, did you keep the list the same or alrer it?
3) Opportunistic Strike: looks pretty nice. I had an idea for a homebrew feat which did something very similar to your attack bonus. The only issue I see is that over time the combination of the rogue's BAB plus this bonus will become higher than the BAB of a full-BAB character. Perhaps you could use something like "Under the following conditions, the rogue can make attacks as though his BAB were equal to his rogue level" or something like that. Also, you should specify which conditions trigger the bonus damage. Negative status conditions isn't a defined term.
4) Delibitating Blow: I don't like the idea of choosing one of three ability scores. Of the three you list, Intelligence makes the most sense. I don't have opinions on the rankings of each condition as a whole, but I will say that obviously Unconscious is the most powerful one, as by this point the rogue can perform a merciless stroke as a swift action at the end of the attack. Should the rogue have abilities like this at 18th level? Yes. The problem I see is that Unconscious has no prerequisittes, while less powerful options do have prerequisites.
5) Talent Exchange: I like the concept but not the execution. I would change it so that any single talent can be swapped for a set amount of time, as long as itt is not the prerequisite for another talent. I would then also include something where talents can be swapped out, the way a sorcerer swaps spells out.
6) Greater Uncanny Dodge: I love that there is one more level of Uncanny Dodge. However, I don't like +1 AC per adjacent enemy. Did you have any other ideas?
7) Merciless Stroke: perhaps change this to allow CDG in place of an attack?
I'm uncertain about this. Combined with working on people suffering a condition, this is an enormous swing in effectiveness. Especially considering that it's easier to gain full attacks with ranged weapons.
Remember they have to be suffering a condition. That means you either have to inflict the condition yourself via debilitating blow or some other means.
IF that means having a fighter who runs around using Dazzling Display this is really no different than flanking with said fighter in melee.
It's a well done rewrite, but it has one big flaw: The Rogue's ability to inflict all sorts of conditions on a hit.
Only once per round and only with an opportunistic strike. They can't even inflict more than one per round.
I want to see people try it in actual play though before making real changes to it. The original ability it came off of was much more potent save being a limited number of times per day.
Overall, this looks pretty good, and its something I would play.
1) Starting Wealth: Looks like entire line is in boldface.
2) Class Skills: just curious, did you keep the list the same or alrer it?
Fixed and no I did not alter it. There's little wrong with the number of skill points nor their skill list so I left it alone. I think that any expansions or boosts to the list can easily be made through their talents.
3) Opportunistic Strike: looks pretty nice. I had an idea for a homebrew feat which did something very similar to your attack bonus. The only issue I see is that over time the combination of the rogue's BAB plus this bonus will become higher than the BAB of a full-BAB character. Perhaps you could use something like "Under the following conditions, the rogue can make attacks as though his BAB were equal to his rogue level" or something like that. Also, you should specify which conditions trigger the bonus damage. Negative status conditions isn't a defined term.
A full bab character always has more than a full bab bonus. Paladins have smite, barbarians have rage, fighters ahve weapon training. The rogues contemporaries in the role also have means to get way past there BAB limitations. Add that it's conditional and that it doesn't qualify them for feats any earlier than any other character of a similar BAB I'm not terribly worried about it.
As for conditions, they are defined.
It would actually be easier for me to define which ones don't work as cheapy did with the archetype I lifted this off of.
4) Delibitating Blow: I don't like the idea of choosing one of three ability scores. Of the three you list, Intelligence makes the most sense. I don't have opinions on the rankings of each condition as a whole, but I will say that obviously Unconscious is the most powerful one, as by this point the rogue can perform a merciless stroke as a swift action at the end of the attack. Should the rogue have abilities like this at 18th level? Yes. The problem I see is that Unconscious has no prerequisittes, while less powerful options do have prerequisites.
I'm honestly not sure which score to base it off of. Rogues can be based off of many things.
A prerequisite for unconscious is certainly in order though.
5) Talent Exchange: I like the concept but not the execution. I would change it so that any single talent can be swapped for a set amount of time, as long as itt is not the prerequisite for another talent. I would then also include something where talents can be swapped out, the way a sorcerer swaps spells out.
The first part would be confusing and a GMing nightmare as a rogue could, over time, simply change all his talents to whatever he wanted.
The second part is a consideration but I'm not keen on it. BArbarians can't change out rage powers nor alchemists discoveries.
6) Greater Uncanny Dodge: I love that there is one more level of Uncanny Dodge. However, I don't like +1 AC per adjacent enemy. Did you have any other ideas?
7) Merciless Stroke: perhaps change this to allow CDG in place of an attack?
6. I wanted to do another level but I was at a loss on what to do with it. Unless I'm hit with a better idea that's just going to be kind of a place holder.
7. Yikes. That would actually make it scarier. I think it's pretty brutal as it is. Definitely an endgame ability.
The first part would be confusing and a GMing nightmare as a rogue could, over time, simply change all his talents to whatever he wanted.
I was thinking more along the lines of the swap being temporary. Till the end of the day or something. Your idea of using this to try out a talent for two levels before committing to it has merit though.
And for the record, I think alchemists and barbarians SHOULD be allowed to swap out as they go up in level, even though it is not part of the mechanic.
Great post, really enjoying it. Looking forward to talents.
One piece of feedback I have is that the Opportunistic Strike +1 to hit should come in at 5th and every 4 levels after that, in my opinion. It keeps you from having 'to hit dead levels' and avoids the 'better than full BAB' problem at levels where you gain a BAB and an Opportunistic Strike hit bonus. You do lose the +1 at 20th level, but keeps things a bit more smooth.
I made a mistake on the initial post.
When I put down "published freelancer" I meant to link my pinterest
So I added alternate identity and I'm not comfortable with the wording. Thoughts?
|
|
I don't really understand what Alternate Identity is supposed to do.
Ambush Specialist: how about also allowing Charge actions?
Cripple Construct: consider waiving the Mystic Expertise if the rogue has sufficient K:Engineering?
King's Agent: I don't think it should be a talent, especially since you might be able to switch it on and off with Talent Exchange, that's just silly. I think being an agent or having some sort of government sanction is more like equipment than like a class feature. It's something that can be gained or lost during play.
Natural Venom type feels strained - why can you only have one dose of poison?
I really like the Debilitating Blow and am going to find a way to weave that into my homebrew Rogue.
I am interested to see how your Opportunistic Strike will work out. I am going to have my Rogue player give it a look and see how he would like it. If he is interested we will give it a run and let you know how it goes.
I don't really understand what Alternate Identity is supposed to do.
Which is somethign I was afraid of. What it is supposed to do is give you, basically, an alternate character you can change into that's nigh-impenetrable. Think like Clark Kent or Bruce Wayne. What you do with one identity gets associated with another. IT's soemthign I fee rogues should be able to do easily. The issue, as you can see, is trying to describe how that works mechanically with as few words as possible.
Ambush Specialist: how about also allowing Charge actions?
MAybe as another talent.
Cripple Construct: consider waiving the Mystic Expertise if the rogue has sufficient K:Engineering?
Eh, no. You can do a lot with mystic expertise. A future advanced talent will be the ability to use disable device to ruin ongoing spell effects.
King's Agent: I don't think it should be a talent, especially since you might be able to switch it on and off with Talent Exchange, that's just silly. I think being an agent or having some sort of government sanction is more like equipment than like a class feature. It's something that can be gained or lost during play.
I might go ahead and remove it. I like the idea though but people bring up good points.
BTW the requirement it's taken at 2nd level prevents Talent Exchange of it by design.
Natural Venom type feels strained - why can you only have one dose of poison?
Balance. It costs nothing to make and is fairly potent. I wanted the rogue to have a good poison ability. The biggest obstacle to poisons even on alchemists is cost. All poisons tend to be fairly expensive and often have weak effects. So, for a poisoned focused rogue to always have the ability to get a poison without wrestling the druids serpent companion is a good way to do it. LAter talents can make the venom have a debilitating blow rider and perhaps make another dose. IT's also a good support ability if you're making a combat lite rogue. Make poison and pass it to the fighter.
|
|
I don't really understand what Alternate Identity is supposed to do.Which is somethign I was afraid of. What it is supposed to do is give you, basically, an alternate character you can change into that's nigh-impenetrable. Think like Clark Kent or Bruce Wayne. What you do with one identity gets associated with another. IT's soemthign I fee rogues should be able to do easily. The issue, as you can see, is trying to describe how that works mechanically with as few words as possible.
Okay, that's certainly a worthwhile goal. Fairly tricky to fit into rules though.
Ambush Specialist: how about also allowing Charge actions?MAybe as another talent.
I mentioned charging during ambushes specifically because you often need to cover some distance before making a melee attack.
King's Agent: I don't think it should be a talent, especially since you might be able to switch it on and off with Talent Exchange, that's just silly. I think being an agent or having some sort of government sanction is more like equipment than like a class feature. It's something that can be gained or lost during play.I might go ahead and remove it. I like the idea though but people bring up good points.
BTW the requirement it's taken at 2nd level prevents Talent Exchange of it by design.
I think being associated with factions and getting benefits for that is an interesting idea, but I wouldn't want to tie it to a specific class. A fighter could also be a royal agent. And you could also be an agent for a criminal wizard syndicate or a clerical seminary - regardless of your class. Being commissioned in such a way is something that can also be taken away from you.
I think it's a worth subsystem, but more like it's own chapter (somewhere before/after feats/equipment) than as a class feature. It's also very campaign specific.
Balance. It costs nothing to make and is fairly potent. I wanted the rogue to have a good poison ability. The biggest obstacle to poisons even on alchemists is cost. All poisons tend to be fairly expensive and often have weak effects. So, for a poisoned focused rogue to always have the ability to get a poison without wrestling the druids serpent companion is a good way to do it. LAter talents can make the venom have a debilitating blow rider and perhaps make another dose. IT's also a good support ability if you're making a combat lite rogue. Make poison and pass it to the fighter.
Natural Venom type feels strained - why can you only have one dose of poison?
The annoying part is that rogues are not really magical. What mundane explanation is there why the rogue can't spend another hour to make another dose?
One solution might be that the poison loses efficacy after one day. You CAN spend half the day brewing poisons and the rest of the day in the dungeon, if you want to, but that requires some reconnaisance to know that it's safe/useful to do so. During overland travel you won't want to spend many hours making poison; that would leave no time for travel.
|
I like this a great deal. The design philosophy is spot-on for what I would like to see a rogue actually do: focus on ruining opponents collective day, rather than simply do MOAR DAMAGE.
For Scoundrel's Grace, I agree with previous posters that it does not really help with the core issue rogues have with these saves, eg their inability to reliably succeed on them. Sure, it's nice to have reduced effect when you do make them, but that doesn't help you if you need a 19-20 to succeed on level-appropriate saves. My suggestion would be some sort of luck bonus, either a smaller, flat bonus that applies all the time to all saves, or a larger one that can be applied a certain number of times per day. Either of these I would base on class level, more than any one stat, as that allows you to avoid the earlier problem of not wanting to peg rogues down to needing one particular stat high.
Anyway, great work, cannot wait to see what you do with the rest of the talent writeups.
Okay, that's certainly a worthwhile goal. Fairly tricky to fit into rules though.
It's in need of a rewrite to be more clear.
I mentioned charging during ambushes specifically because you often need to cover some distance before making a melee attack.
Which this talent can let you do. Charging is a separate action altogether that's counted as a full round.
I think being associated with factions and getting benefits for that is an interesting idea, but I wouldn't want to tie it to a specific class. A fighter could also be a royal agent. And you could also be an agent for a criminal wizard syndicate or a clerical seminary - regardless of your class. Being commissioned in such a way is something that can also be taken away from you.I think it's a worth subsystem, but more like it's own chapter (somewhere before/after feats/equipment) than as a class feature. It's also very campaign specific.
The trouble is for eveyr system I've seen written for it I've never seen a table actually use it. Like I said I'll probably just delete it and its subsequent brothers. As for "Why can't x do this". My answer would usually be that X isn't really designed for it. Rogues, in my mind, ought to form the majority, or at least the backbone, of many clandestine agencies. They have the skill set and thought patterns for it that would be lacking in, say, bards or alchemists. This isn't to say that they can't be a part of said agency only that said agency would fit more comfortably at the heart of the dastardly rogue class.
The annoying part is that rogues are not really magical. What mundane explanation is there why the rogue can't spend another hour to make another dose?
One solution might be that the poison loses efficacy after one day. You CAN spend half the day brewing poisons and the rest of the day in the dungeon, if you want to, but that requires some reconnaisance to know that it's safe/useful to do so. During overland travel you won't want to spend many hours making poison; that would leave no time for travel.
Or simply that you exhausted the available local materials.
Really though, only being able to carry one is simply less paperwork then the solution proposed. Because it's far easier for a player to remember whether or not they have a dose available then to spend two hours or so (which rends into the adventuring day for other characters) and then keep up with whether or not those poisons are still viable. Don't get me wrong it's not a bad solution it's just not very practical.
Additionally because poisons do have a monetary value normally it keeps characters from attempting to use a nigh infinite resource to gain nigh infinite gold. IF you can only have one at a time you can sure as hell bet that you will make sure it gets used either on yourself or by poisoning the barbarian's axe (or secretly the paladin's sword just so the GM can start another 1000 post thread in general about paladins).
If this leaves a bad taste in the mouth cut it into the category of "why can't a barbarian simply rage all day?" or "Why on earth does it make sense for a fighter to carve through an 8 foot thick stone wall with an adamantine pickaxe and never get tired?"
You might think it sucks but it's a simple solution for an abilit not meant to be complicated. It just gives the rogue another little edge while simultaneously gives them a potentially minor support ability.
I like this a great deal. The design philosophy is spot-on for what I would like to see a rogue actually do: focus on ruining opponents collective day, rather than simply do MOAR DAMAGE.
For Scoundrel's Grace, I agree with previous posters that it does not really help with the core issue rogues have with these saves, eg their inability to reliably succeed on them. Sure, it's nice to have reduced effect when you do make them, but that doesn't help you if you need a 19-20 to succeed on level-appropriate saves. My suggestion would be some sort of luck bonus, either a smaller, flat bonus that applies all the time to all saves, or a larger one that can be applied a certain number of times per day. Either of these I would base on class level, more than any one stat, as that allows you to avoid the earlier problem of not wanting to peg rogues down to needing one particular stat high.
Anyway, great work, cannot wait to see what you do with the rest of the talent writeups.
Luck bonuses do seem to fit nicely wiht the flavor. Unfortunately it probably won't be a luck bonus given that half-orcs and halflings won't get too much benefit from it.
Ultimately I think opportunistic strike and debilitating blow came from the acg playtest where I voiced the thought that the investigator should be a more melee oriented debuffer rather than focus on attack/damage numbers. I don't think anyone was enthused but the more I considered it the more the idea matched.
Really what that makes the rogue is someone who fights like a complete and total bastard. If you think of the fighter as the formally trained swordsman, built and trained to attack and defend in equal measure so as to avoid injury but maximize his consistent ability then he would fall into the middle ground between paladin and barbarian. The paladin being more focused on defensive aspects of combat with the barbarian geared particularly towards offense.
Where this puts the rogue as a combatant is in the role of someone who doesn't have the conviction or formal training of a fighter or paladin, nor the raw emotion and willingness to give up control as the barbarian. This puts him somewhere between the fighter and barbarian. He can do more damage than a fighter but defensively he relies no on raw hitpoints or the ideal that he'll smash his target long before it can smash back, but by crippling his opponents ability to attack back. He doesn't attempt to read your forward reaching stance and attempt to bypass it and cleave your heart, he chops off your bloody extended hands so you don't get smart and try to stick him with your 3ft. long sharpened steel bar.
The other thing is I want the idea of facing a high level rogue npc to be absolutely terrifying. Suddenly, getting rid of status effects and ensuring you don't get flanked isn't just fairly decent advice but absolutely vital if you don't want to get mercilessly blown out of the combat by a sudden bad save.
So with that said here's what's happening.
Things done
Got rid of a few talents that just wouldn't work out.
Little nips and tucks here and there like including language into oportunistic strike regarding prestige classes and the like.
Added the rest of the talents. Working on the advanced ones.
Things to be done
Figuring out ways to add mroe circumstantial attack bonuses like favored enemy.
GEtting a better ability to solve the save issue.
Finishing advanced talents and looking for more avenues to spread into general talents.
|
|
True, a luck bonus would be of less use to those who already possess such. In that case, I still propose the mechanics I mentioned, but keep it an untyped bonus, in the manner of a paladin's divine grace ability.
Also, for the DC on Debilitating Blow, I would suggest using Int as a baseline, with certain archetypes changing it to Cha, or even Wis in a select few cases. I think it best that it be a mental stat, regardless, to keep the rogue from being too SAD.
Oh, and very interested to see how you handle sneak attack for other classes. Would you suggest converting all sneak attack to the Opportunistic Strike model, granting that ability to slayers, vivisectionists, etc? At different rates, of course. Or will they keep sneak attack and have Opportunistic Strike be unique to rogues?
I usually am not one to use homebrew rules, but this version of the rogue resonates so well with me that I might just steal it for my upcoming Kingmaker campaign, assuming all the kinks are worked out. Well done, my friend.
By the by, thought you might be interested to know, for old times sake, that the Carrion Crown campaign just ended. A few of us are going to be starting up a new PbP set in Jaye's Rhune setting. If you are interested, I'm sure a place would be made for you. :)
Sooooooo, I completely forgot all about this.
Someone reminded me of its existence and so I went to get it done.
Feedback is as always welcome.
Oh, and very interested to see how you handle sneak attack for other classes. Would you suggest converting all sneak attack to the Opportunistic Strike model, granting that ability to slayers, vivisectionists, etc? At different rates, of course. Or will they keep sneak attack and have Opportunistic Strike be unique to rogues?
Let them keep it. Honestly those classes have it good enough.
It's an improvement over the rogue for sure. However, it feels more like you modified the rogue rather than rebuild him from the ground up. The rogue is supposed to be a skilled fighter that tends to lean more towards versatility and finesse. However, he still only has a 3/4 BAB and he still only has one skill-related class feature. It doesn't really make any of the design decisions I would, though I do like debilitating strike.
Left feedback.
Unless I'm missing something, wouldn't it be easier to say something akin to "when making an opportunistic strike, the rogue treats his BAB as equal to his class levels in rogue." and the math works out the same? It also lets you format the level up chart to say Opportunist Strike +2 to indicate the bonus damage from using this ability.
I still think Debilitating Strike should have an use per day restriction, like Stunning Fist, which it imitates, whether intentionally or not.
I anonymously suggested modifying Opportunistic Strike to be more streamlined; the effective dice is instead equal to the bonus to attack instead of half the bonus to damage (which is effectively the bonus to attack). Thanks for approving it.
I was annoyed at first but a second look made me consider it was just easier that way.
I've (so far) added things like Alchemist Bombs, Assassin's Death Blow, Inquisitor Judgments, the ability to threaten spellcasters at range, and even a feat I called Martial Mana that grants them access to up to 4 spells, with one spell per level to customize their inherit 'shadow-skill' theme. I'll like to add a modified version of your Debilitating Blow to my rewrite, as the idea is that good.All the options are presented as Rogue Talents, so being more liberal with the rogue's choices is a good idea for any rewrite.
I wanted to avoid direct lifting at all costs.
Part of the point behind the rewrite was to make the rogue unique. So much of his crap has been lifted for other classes he literally has no core of his own that synergized to a good degree.
It's an improvement over the rogue for sure. However, it feels more like you modified the rogue rather than rebuild him from the ground up. The rogue is supposed to be a skilled fighter that tends to lean more towards versatility and finesse. However, he still only has a 3/4 BAB and he still only has one skill-related class feature. It doesn't really make any of the design decisions I would, though I do like debilitating strike.
The issue is that your vision doesn't necessarily describe a class but a method of fighting that can be said to be espoused by several other classes.
There's also the issue of compatibility with existing rogue options. I wanted people to be able to dump this in their game with little real change except that their rogue was suddenly a much larger contributor to the group in terms of versatility.
So why did I not throw in more skill based stuff? The bard and investigator. Those two guys are very much in the class of the educated skills master. So being better at skills was not particularly unique.
So instead I went for more ways to actually use skills and I'll look to add more. Talent exchange actually plays into this as it gives you a modicrum of control in what you need at a time.
Unless I'm missing something, wouldn't it be easier to say something akin to "when making an opportunistic strike, the rogue treats his BAB as equal to his class levels in rogue." and the math works out the same? It also lets you format the level up chart to say Opportunist Strike +2 to indicate the bonus damage from using this ability.
No, for a couple of reasons.
First, it's not as easy as it sounds as it would require the player to recalculate his attacks his attacks at every
Second it brings up questions like prerequisites, and iterative attacks and such.
Lastly, you get into annoying rulings like the old monk furry of blows arguments.
I still think Debilitating Strike should have an use per day restriction, like Stunning Fist, which it imitates, whether intentionally or not.
Before I'd put any restrictions like that on it I'd want to hear about how it played out in someone else's game.
Given the restrictions (having to do an opportunistic strike) and the necessity to both hit and for the opponent to fail the save I don't think restricting it further will do the ability any favors.
"Nagative status condition" is not a term defined in the game's rules, so you need to clearly define it or you need to define the conditions under which Opportunistic Strike's bonus damge will apply.
"Nagative status condition" is not a term defined in the game's rules, so you need to clearly define it or you need to define the conditions under which Opportunistic Strike's bonus damge will apply.
The only two conditions that could be considered a positive are invisible and incorporeal.
I would want it to say, "suffering a status condition" but there are conditions that could be considered a net positive.
I could say "suffering a condition (except invisible and incorporeal)".
But, that would mean errata the moment another positive condition came out.
TarkXT, I believe Ciaren Barnes also means that "condition" is way too broad. There's many conditions in the game and new spells and abilities often get adapted into becoming a condition. You need to be specific and individually name the conditions that apply.
It's an improvement over the rogue for sure. However, it feels more like you modified the rogue rather than rebuild him from the ground up. The rogue is supposed to be a skilled fighter that tends to lean more towards versatility and finesse. However, he still only has a 3/4 BAB and he still only has one skill-related class feature. It doesn't really make any of the design decisions I would, though I do like debilitating strike.The issue is that your vision doesn't necessarily describe a class but a method of fighting that can be said to be espoused by several other classes.
You completely missed my point. I deliberately used a very broad description of what the rogue was intended to be--a fighting class with some skill focus. Of course many classes fit that description. The problem lies with rogue not being designed with he same standards as those comparable classes. Even in the CRB, this is true. The ranger also has good skill points and begins play with a situational special attack and a skill-related class feature. However, the ranger also has a full BAB, two good saves, way better proficiencies, awesome access to combat feats, and later gets spells, an animal companion, skill buffs, and other great class features. There's not really any good reason why the rogue lacks this volume of class features other than the designers overvaluing sneak attack.
Instead of fixing this double standard, your rogue rework embraces it. They still do not have a full BAB despite being a combat class with no spells. They don't have many skill class features despite obviously being a class designed with skill focus in mind. Fixing that wouldn't entail too much modification. Just give the rogue a full BAB and change the broken Stealth skill so you don't always need cover or concealment to use Stealth. That alone would make them way better and more fun to play than the class you presented here.
TarkXT, I believe Ciaren Barnes also means that "condition" is way too broad. There's many conditions in the game and new spells and abilities often get adapted into becoming a condition. You need to be specific and individually name the conditions that apply.
All of them do. Well, except stable, incorporeal and invisible. Outside of that the game presents 31 conditions a rogue can take advantage of and make your life worse.
Blinded
Broken
Confused
Cowering
Dazed
Dazzled
Dead
Deafened
Disabled
Dying
Entangled
Exhausted
Fascinated
Fatigued
Flat-Footed
Frightened
Grappled
Helpless
Nauseated
Panicked
Paralyzed
Petrified
Pinned
Prone
Shaken
Sickened
Staggered
Stunned
Unconscious
It's a pretty expansive list on purpose and the wording is meant to be intuitive. The point about their being no "negative" conditions in text stands which is why I bothered to consider possible rewording. I chose not to limit the list because all of the above can easily apply.
They still do not have a full BAB despite being a combat class with no spells. They don't have many skill class features despite obviously being a class designed with skill focus in mind. Fixing that wouldn't entail too much modification. Just give the rogue a full BAB and...
Then do so if you feel that way. I've explained that the vision I'm going for is not the one you have in mind.
I don't feel that this rogue needs to match the ranger, nor the investigator or bard.
What the rogue needs to do is present itself as thematically different from these and present things it can do that aren't simply numbers without just adding a spell list and calling it a day. Synergy between abilities, presenting new ways to use their skills, and fighting not like a seasoned warrior but a dirty bastard, are ways I'm going about this.
All of them do. Well, except stable, incorporeal and invisible. Outside of that the game presents 31 conditions a rogue can take advantage of and make your life worse.
So that means it applies whenever someone is dazzled, bleeding or has a negative level? Or less obvious conditions that would be impossible for the rogue to know his target is impeded? What about conditions that are both good and bad? This is rather nebulous, metagamey, and not good Pathfinder design practice.
What the rogue needs to do is present itself as thematically different from these and present things it can do that aren't simply numbers without just adding a spell list and calling it a day. Synergy between abilities, presenting new ways to use their skills, and fighting not like a seasoned warrior but a dirty bastard, are ways I'm going about this.
It's not merely a matter of vision. You can accomplish all those thematic goals and still make them on par with other classes. Pathfinder class design follows a set of patterns in the framework of each class. Classes with a 3/4 BAB need spells and strong class features, especially at higher levels. Otherwise, the class will suffer heavily, for the same reason you wouldn't give a class a d2 Hit Die or 1+Int skill points. Even the Advanced Class Guide's class design chapter points this out. The rogue and the monk are the only non-spellcasting classes in the game without a full BAB. It's no coincidence that both classes are getting reworked in Pathfinder Unchained to give them full BAB and other tweaks.
If you want your class to break the mold and not follow these standards, that's fine. There's good reasons to do so. Intentionally gimping a class's framework for thematic reasons is not one of them.
EDIT: Actually just never mind. I flat out listed the conditions which is basically the whole list minus a few item specific ones. I'm really tired of arguing about it.
Please bear in mind I'm doing this for fun for a variety of reasons. I already have professional projects I'm working on and have to fight tooth and nail over. This would have remained entirely forgotten if I was not reminded and didn't feel it'd be right to finish it for the people who were already using it.
If you think your version of the rogue is flat out better than mine because it follows your's or another's design principles you are welcome to use whatever version of the rogue you please.
I really like this overall! I definitely feel like rogues could use a significant rewrite, and I like the focus on melee-debuffing.
I anonymously suggested modifying Opportunistic Strike to be more streamlined; the effective dice is instead equal to the bonus to attack instead of half the bonus to damage (which is effectively the bonus to attack). Thanks for approving it.I was annoyed at first but a second look made me consider it was just easier that way.
Incidentally, the attack bonus is increasing at 1/4 the rate of the damage as it stands, so these aren't equivalent. The damage bonus is 2/2 levels i.e. 1/level, and attack bonus is 1/4 level +1.
On the topic of opportunistic blow, I really like the shift away from sneak attack/sneak attack dice, the bonus to attack, and the 'kick 'em while they're down' element of it. Two things stand out as concerns to me however - the progression, the amount of bonus damage.
For the former, "damage increases by 2 every odd level and attack increases by 1 every other even level" just bugs me. I feel like either attack should be pushed back a level (5th + every 4 levels) so that it syncs with the damage, or you should leave the attack as it is and just say in opportunistic strike "when making an opportunistic strike the rogue deals additional damage equal to their rogue level" since that's what it is, instead of this +2 every 2 thing. [Edit: This second solution is obviously better. If you *need* to qualify sneak attack dice conversion, just say "1/2 Rogue Level".]
For the latter, on the topic of additional damage equal to level - that seems like a lot. I realize it's less than sneak attack damage, but, just looking at it seems like as soon as the rogue has a opportunistic strike trigger they're dealing over-the-top damage with status effects left and right. Can you share anything about how has this played out in playtest?
I realize this is part of the design goal - noting what you said about terrifying npc rogues making status conditions and placement management vital. At the same time though, I feel like between debilitating blow and opportunistic strike the rogue becomes an extremely all or nothing sort of combatant. My worry is momentum - starting the fight, the rogue has very little they can accomplish out of the gate - if they fail to get a flank it's very hard to get an initial status effect up. Against a careful opponent the rogue can be totally nullified - and if they aren't, they're totally overwhelming.
Getting to debilitating blow, I think it needs... something reworked. Originally I was thinking the status effects offered and their durations were way too powerful, but now I'm less sure (and would be interested to hear about playtest experiences). I do think the ability to do this round after round is extremely powerful, and think that the stacking effects of things like shaken (and sickened at some tables) makes some of the early effects potentially unbalanced. My worry is a 3rd or 4th level rogue, doing everything they do best anyways (opportunistic strike with +1/2 to hit +6 damage) can throw down a shaken two rounds in a row and the enemies gone. At ninth level, instant frightened or nauseated ends the fight for any one combatant.
Maybe that's ok? A ninth level cleric can throw up an aura of doom, and visions of hell and frighten every enemy in a 30-40ft radius fairly effectively. On the other hand, that consumes a 3rd and 4th level slot. I dunno, visions isn't moving with you, once they pass their save they're fine, etc. I dunno.
I also feel like the progression of debilitating blow is off, even if it is following cruelty. My issue is that I feel like the rogue should be encouraged to pick diverse debuffs, and apply them tactically based off the situation at hand - maybe blinding a giant/bruiser, nauseating a fellow rogue, etc. This is mostly impossible due to the very limited number of conditions they get to select, and the fact that they add new conditions every time they get to add one, disincentivizing horizontal choices (I take shaken at 3rd, and I could take sickened at 6th, but now I might be making a suboptimal choice - I should take a 6th level and just invest in upgrading the conditions I have).
The way I would handle this (though you are free to ignore this as you see fit, obviously) is to add a line at third level: Conditions applied with debilitating blow do not stack with themselves [or, you can say something like "Shaken: [Stuff]... This condition cannot upgrade an already shaken creature to frightened", though this is weaker]. At 9th level, these conditions do stack. Shaken becomes frightened becomes panicked; sickened upgrades to nauseated, fatigued upgrades to exhausted.
[Edit: Even if you ignore this suggestion, drop dazzled. This is such a pointless condition and tax, so that you can get blinded 9 levels later. Bleh. Also, is entangled really equivalent to dazed (even w/ a different duration?)]
I might also remove the 1/round restriction under this version, but I'm not sure. The durations still seem long to me. My personal feeling is also that I would let you apply the opportunistic strike damage OR a status condition, not both, but that may not be what you want.
Still on debilitating blow: have you considered using the maneuver system as a base for applying conditions/shenanigans, instead of cruelty? I know you're aware of the value of dirty trick since you wrote about it. In my own more modest rogue edit, I work dirty trick into sneak attack as a base feature, with the option of tacking on other maneuvers via talents/etc. Rogues can trade SA dice for a bonus to the check on a +2CMB/1d6 SA basis. This is obviously different than your design, but there might be some ideas there.
Like I said at the beginning, overall I think this is a really awesome, deep rewrite! I didn't touch on it here but I think you're totally on track with the improved and 'character defining' talents. Thanks for sharing your work!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Doing my own rewrite, I discovered that the rogue has some really neat CRB abilities tucked away at higher levels (under "Advanced Talents") which if granted to her far earlier make establish a strong identity without all the poaching.
Skill Mastery - why not grant this "for free" at 2nd?
Defensive Roll - why not grant this "for free" at 5th?
Opportunist - why not grant this "for free" at 6th?
Improved Evasion - why not grant this "for free" at 9th?
Also, the idea of the rogue gaining the ability to escalate a condition came to me as a unique idea. What if a rogue who sneak attacked (or opportunistic blow'd) a dazzled foe made that foe blinded for one round?
Anyhow, dig the rewrite here. Carry on.
