Do non-rogue classes who poach rogue abilities benefit from unchained rogue changes?


Rules Questions


9 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

In games where the GM is allowing the unchained rogue, is it safe to assume that other classes who poach rogue talents and other class abilities (such as a ninja who takes minor magic and major magic or an alchemist/vivisectionist with sneak attack, for example) use the unchained versions of such abilities? Why or why not?


I don't know if there's been anything conclusive on this, if not then (queue standard rules answer) it'll be up to the GM. But honestly I cant see anyone having a problem with it unless it creates anything inherently broken. (unless this is for PFS, in which case *shrugs*)

(PS: i've been curious about this as well, so it'd be good to know for sure.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

"If my GM allows house rule 3, will he allow house rule 3.1?"

I don't think anyone but your GM can say.

Sovereign Court

It's not safe to assume. In PFS for example only the unchained rogue takes unchained rogue stuff. Also, the unchained rogue can't take chained rogue stuff (including some nice talents in softcovers like Sacred Sneak Attack).

So if you're playing with a GM who doesn't want to bother with lots of material checking and says "if it's legal in PFS then I'll allow it", you might be out of luck.


I think the idea behind the unchained rogue was to fix the class so it was a playable class on its own. Prior to the unchained rogue there was absolutely no reason to play a rogue. There was nothing a rogue could not do that another class could not do better. The unchained rogue improved the class enough that now there is actually a reason to play a rogue. If other classes gain all the benefits of the unchained rogue then we are right back where we started.

I did not notice any changes to sneak attack so that should not be an issue. Debilitating Injury is a separate ability that works when a 4th level or higher rogue deals sneak attack. So another class with sneak attack should not get it.

The rework of many of the rogue talents was long overdue. I can see allowing other classes to use the newer version of the talent. I would also allow the unchained rogue to take other rogue talents from other sources that were not rewritten.

Sill unlocks I think should be an unchained rogue ability. I would allow other classes to take the feat signature skill to gain a single skill unlock.

I would not give finesse training to other classes. If they want weapon finesse let them spend a feat on it. That also means that only unchained rogues get DEX to damage without some sort of feat.

So other than allowing other classes access to the newer version of rogue talents I don’t think they should get any unchained abilities.


Mysterious Stranger wrote:
...I did not notice any changes to sneak attack...

Unchained sneak attack got a situationally better. You can now sneak attack in a dimly lit alley!

CRB rogue wrote:
A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment.
unchained rogue wrote:
A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with total concealment.

As to the original question, it is not safe to assume, definitely check with your GM. I'd probably allow it, I don't see what difference it makes if you you were poaching before. I think all sneak attacks should be the urogue version too. But I know PFS for example does not allow poaching from the urogue and while that may be logistical it may also be that I'm missing something.


dragonhunterq wrote:
Mysterious Stranger wrote:
...I did not notice any changes to sneak attack...

Unchained sneak attack got a situationally better. You can now sneak attack in a dimly lit alley!

CRB rogue wrote:
A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment.
unchained rogue wrote:
A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with total concealment.
As to the original question, it is not safe to assume, definitely check with your GM. I'd probably allow it, I don't see what difference it makes if you you were poaching before. I think all sneak attacks should be the urogue version too. But I know PFS for example does not allow poaching from the urogue and while that may be logistical it may also be that I'm missing something.

Since that basically does the same thing as the feat shadow strike I would not allow other classes access to it.

If there is a feat that duplicates the unchained rogue ability than I would say other classes do not get it unless they actually spend the feat.


This isn't a rules question so much as a ask your GM question.

If I was your GM the answer would be "Some things will work like unchained, some thing will work like chained."

Most specifically coming to mind is that I would allow the bit about sneak attack working in concelament (but not total concealment) but as to what rogue talents and stuff you can take...I'd have to look at it more closely.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Well, seeing as they allow unchained rogues in PFS, and most everyone I know with access to Unchained has shifted to the unchained rogue, I'm making it into a rules question.

Please FAQ the OP if you'd like a better answer than "ask your GM."


That's a PFS question, not a rules question. The rules of Unchained are "this is an optional system we came up with that some GMs may choose to use." As far as I can tell the PFS rule is "rogues may choose to take the unchained version and play it in PFS." Without any explicit grant to other classes with rogue abilities they don't get to pick Unchained stuff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If a class is advancing as an ninja, and it can take something from the rogue class due to a feat it would make sense to use the unchained version if the unchained rogue is in play.

Why-->The idea is to go unchained or not go unchained, not to mix and match. If you don't go 100% unchained then it becomes a game of "ask the GM for every option", which is not necessarily wrong, but it is needlessly complicated in my opinion.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The ninja takes rogue stuff, not unchained rogue stuff.

Ninjas and unchained rogues were both attempts to have rogues be relevant. If you have an unchained ninja theres no reason to have an unchained rogue.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

the "official" answer is no. Only unchained has access to unchained stuff. "But with the spirit if unchaining your GM is welcome to extended unchained options to all classes that have an archetype that works like a class that was unchained."

So if you're PFS the answer is no. even if you multiclass, your Unchained rogue has unchained talents and your other class still only picks from normal rogue.


Seems to defeat the purpose of unchaining the rogue with a slew of new stuff if the non rogue classes are allowed to.


How about we look at it from another perspective. If other classes must use the old rogue stuff then that'd mean that the same would be true of summoners right? 1 point pounce for my elemental Ally Eidolon, evolved familiar, evolved summoned, Primal Companion Hunter's pet, ect!!!


From a PFS perspective the original summoner is banned, so I'm not sure that helps you.


It's tricky to see what's intended here since the USummoner was indented to replace the original Summoner (which was fairly easily broken) entirely. The UBarb was intended to be a simpler way to make a classic Barbarian, and so coexist with the original Barbarian (the Barb of choice for people for whom math and system intricacies are welcome). The UMonk was intended not only to make it far simpler to make a viable monk, but also to enable that viable monk to fit the classic "punches stuff" variety while coexisting with the original monk allowing people to make all the fun Tetori, Sensei, Sohei, ZAM builds that don't fit the classic "punches stuff" fantasy.

I'm not so clear on what the URogue is supposed to be other than "a fix for the Rogue" since the Rogue, unlike the Monk, didn't actually have a bunch of viable stacked "fixes to this class" builds prior to Unchained.


Plausible Pseudonym wrote:
From a PFS perspective the original summoner is banned, so I'm not sure that helps you.

As I don't play PFS and this isn't a PFS thread, I didn't think about it at all. But if the original class is banned and you HAVE to use the old class abilities instead of unchained, then doesn't that ban all options that use anything from the summoner other than the unchained summoner?


yes, evolution should run from the original list since we haven't been told to change that.
In PFS I'm pretty sure they haven't said anything about using unchained evolutions, and chained summoners material is legal, it's just you can't make a new one, so for everything, including PFS, you gain access to the chained list.


Chess Pwn wrote:

yes, evolution should run from the original list since we haven't been told to change that.

In PFS I'm pretty sure they haven't said anything about using unchained evolutions, and chained summoners material is legal, it's just you can't make a new one, so for everything, including PFS, you gain access to the chained list.

When I saw "the summoner class in this book is no longer legal for play", I figured that meant all the material from the class. You could be right though as I'll admit I'm not overly familiar with PFS. Seems odd though to remove a class and then allow the options that where the reason you removed it.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Do non-rogue classes who poach rogue abilities benefit from unchained rogue changes? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.