Adrian Parker 563's page

Adrian Parker 563 wrote:

Choon wrote:

May I present, The Powder Keg of Justice, the gold standard of what it means to be a Paladin for me. Hope this answers a few of your questions.

Personally I'd treat that threat as a breach of code. Someone who must live and follow a code shouldn't be allowed to threaten others by swearing to breach that code.

In my opinion anyway.

Intimidate checks make Paladins fall now ha.

My issue wasn't the Paladin rolling Intimidate. The Paladin was threatening to break his own vows, to break the very thing that makes him a Paladin and allows him divine privileges.

At best he was lying, and he shouldn't be lying anyway.

At worst he meant it, and his mind had already considered and gone to that place. He had already taken his first steps towards the fall.

It never ceases to amaze me that the only class that people seem obsessed to alignment check is the paladin.

Because not only must a Paladin be Lawful Good, but he has more at stake than the Fighter who is LG. They're held to a higher standard because their God most likely holds them to a higher standard. That's why they are a separate class with special divine privileges.

No, you can't always trust a Paladin. Why? Because Paladins are not infallible.

Someone attaining Paladin status is a big deal. This is obvious. Being a Paladin, however, is not something that's bestowed upon the recipient like Sorcerous blood or Oracular gifts; it's something that takes devotion and work.

What this means, however, is that Paladins can totally lie, steal, and commit all sorts of atrocities. Being a Paladin does not make you trustworthy; being trustworthy makes you a Paladin. You don't trust a Paladin any more than a good fighter with a reputation. A Paladin EARNS it, and proves it time and again.

I think experience is a fairly good judge of who you can trust.

My child is choking, there is a teenager and a doctor standing nearby. Which one is more likely to know CPR? I could be wrong, but I think the doctor would be more likely.

A Paladin and a stranger tell me conflicting stories. Who am I more likely to trust? The Paladin. Why? Because although not every Paladin is perfect, more of them tell the truth than the general unknown public.

Adrian Parker 563 wrote:

What are some examples of rules that Paladins might break without losing their status of Paladin?

Making a deal with an evil entity to become an Anti-paladin.

Wouldn't making that deal be against the Paladin's code in the first place?

In my opinion it is.

May I present, The Powder Keg of Justice, the gold standard of what it means to be a Paladin for me. Hope this answers a few of your questions.

Personally I'd treat that threat as a breach of code. Someone who must live and follow a code shouldn't be allowed to threaten others by swearing to breach that code.

In my opinion anyway.

Also, be careful how you define "Lawful" in relation to what it means when describing a character's alignment.

It can mean pro-community. It can mean things are better when working as a team (as opposed as working on your own). It can mean legalistic. It can mean honorable. It can be a code. It can mean organized. It can mean a respect for authority. It can mean you keep your promises and your keep your word. It can mean you're honest. It can mean you're tactically proficient. It can mean you make--and follow through on--plans.

Ya, standard D&D stuff really.

That paladin may think that speeding is illegal because it increase the risk of incidents, and incidents may kill innocents. But if he's alone, maybe he wouldn't care.

Of course killing himself would also affect others (someone has to scrape him off the pavement). And it also increases everyone else's insurance rates.

But the law is just. Is a Paladin allowed to break a just law?

What are some examples of rules that Paladins might break without losing their status of Paladin?

Most of the shields you could imagine could be considered "light" shields. But if you really want to use a heavy shield then take the Quick Draw feat - you can sheathe your weapon as a move action, cast a spell as a standard action, and then draw your weapon again as a free action. Hopefully you can take a step back before sheathing so you don't get attacked for it.

Is it worth spending a feat to do this? I'm not going to break my build am I?

How do you think PF came to be in the first place?

I assumed somebody wanted to make a gaming company so they did.

You know, like most companies start :)

Nope, no guidelines, the nuances of paladins falling has somehow never come up before.

Messages on forums though don't make for official guidelines.

I think I've a copy of the AD&D 2e Paladin's Handbook still. I may have a read of it for inspiration.

Any adventurer who rescues the farmer's daughter will be treated like a hero, because that action is what makes them a hero. Not their class or alignment.

And that's my issue. I like Paladins only because I pigeon-hole them as being superstars, adored by the masses, sought after by the opposite sex. I like them mostly for those reasons (I think). Well, a decorative set of plate polished to a high shine is an impressive sight too. Otherwise I'd play a Wizard.

And yes how the Wizard or pally can vary from GM to GM, still in my mind the pally is the glorious champion who stands out.

You can't pigeon-hole paladins like that. They run the gamut of personalities and each can interpret the ideals of L and G differently, and which they prioritise. There are a number of ways to handle any given situation that fulfil the LG requirement. And the paladin code is more flexible than most people allow for.

Insufferable players and GMs are the real problem for paladins.

But if they stop being good, or cease being lawful (by the opinion of their deity and not their own choice), they can fall from Paladin-ship right? Maybe they have wiggle room, but I can't imagine it being a lot. I see no guidelines though.

If his friends are also Good then they accept his decision to not drink rather than ridicule him, which is a Neutral act at best.

My friends and I teased each other mercilessly growing up when we did something silly or unusual. I don't consider us anything other than good.

It is, and I stress this, the official rules. The FAQ I linked mentioned a source - James Jacobs, the Creative Director for Pathfinder. It's not some nobody in a shed making things up.

OGL, did this come from Wizards originally?

So d20pfsrd.com rulings are considered official when playing in Pathfinder sanctioned tournaments (if there are any) and Pathfinder Society games?

only if they are played that way

They are bound by alignment to strictly follow rules are they not?

A modern world example. Many youth today like to drink as minors. The young Paladin would want to drink, would choose not to because of the law, and because he's lawful and honest would tell his friends why he won't go drinking. It kind of makes him an outsider and open to ridicule.

For the record, I've never drank, and I'm well into my adult years.

This is why me and RPGs don't always get along.

I can use a light shield and a weapon, and when I cast as a cleric move the weapon to my shield hand.

However, my obsession with aesthetics is so extreme that I'll almost certainly use a heavy shield, because I prefer the look, and incur the inconvenience of having to drop the shield or weapon in order to cast.

Most other players would use the light shield for the more favorable game mechanics.

It is stated here that you can carry things while still using a shield. It is clarified here (second question for Paladin/Cleric) that this indeed means you can use your shield hand for a somatic component of a spell.

Is d20pfsrd.com an official Pathfinder website?

Right off the bat let me say that I know this topic is VERY subjective. If I say anything that makes you think I believe otherwise, re-read the previous sentence.

To me, Neutral Good is the best good alignment. It's the person who just follows their moral compass without worrying about what the law or others expect. For example, if I think a law is-unjust, or overly abstract to protect those without common sense, I'll outright ignore it. I'll speed when driving, but not when I feel it endangers myself or others, etc

When I was a young lad I played D&D and AD&D a LOT (WAY too much). I loved two classes, Wizards, and Paladins. My love for Wizards came from relating very closely to Raistlin Majere. My love for Paladins came from the desire to be a hero, admired by the people, looked up to, sought after, and appreciated.

But how might Paladins really be treated? *All* Paladins are good, and keep their word, are virtuous, etc, so I would think they would be welcomed openly by strangers (provided the stranger knew they were a Paladin). But what would they be like to travel with, to be friends with? In a real world setting I imagine they'd be the type to never speed, not jay-walk, never pirate music or movies, adhere to any lawful curfew, etc. ugh, sickening to me!

But worse, your Paladin knows a man is innocent of committing a murder, but the friend is lawfully found guilty and sentenced to death. As a Neutral Good person in a medieval setting I'd break my friend out. But can the Paladin do this? It would be breaking a fair law.

Would a Neutral Good Fighter (or Wizard, etc) who does his best to protect and support others be just as well received as a Paladin?

Page 151 of the Core Rulebook has the Light Shield entry. I also quoted it above. Here it is again for convenience:

Light Shield, Wooden or Steel wrote:

You strap a shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand. A light shield's weight lets you carry other items in that hand, although you cannot use weapons with it.

Page 152 of the Core Rulebook has a visual example of a Steel Shield, a Buckler, and a Tower Shield (all not to scale, of course). These will vary, as they are just general examples, but it does help paint a picture.

Someone mentioned being able to carry and light shield in one hand, a weapon in the other, and still cast. What rule supports this?

If instead I shift my weapon to my light shield hand, would that use up a move action? It doesn't seem that much easier than drawing a weapon, and drawing a weapon does take a move action.

Page 151 of the Core Rulebook has the Light Shield entry. I also quoted it above. Here it is again for convenience:

Light Shield, Wooden or Steel wrote:

You strap a shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand. A light shield's weight lets you carry other items in that hand, although you cannot use weapons with it.

Page 152 of the Core Rulebook has a visual example of a Steel Shield, a Buckler, and a Tower Shield (all not to scale, of course). These will vary, as they are just general examples, but it does help paint a picture.

Someone mentioned being able to carry and light shield in one hand, a weapon in the other, and still cast. What rule supports this?

If instead I shift my weapon to my light shield hand, would that use up a movement action? It doesn't seem that much easier than drawing a weapon which does take a move action.

Adrian Parker 563 wrote:

The melee weapon? I'm not sure I follow.

You would never need to drop either. A light shield is strapped to your elbow, but it leaves your hand itself free for somatic components.

Where would I find this rule?

Any idea what a light shield looks like visually? Exactly how small is a light shield?

If your GM does not believe that a light shield/buckler leaves the hand open for casting (which is 100% a real rule that really exists), then you can alternatively use a 2-handed weapon, using a free action to take off-hand off the weapon so you can cast while holding the object in one hand, then use another free action to grip it properly again (changing the status from "held" to "wielded" and all that entails).

I will be the GM. For some time I'll only be playing with my children anyway.

Where do I find the rule that says which shields I can hold and cast at the same time?

Don't be afraid to reflavor things. I played a Barbarian once and Rage didn't fit my concept at all. I renamed it "Focus", and played it mechanically the same way. Ignore the flavor bits for each class. Look at a class as a mechanical set of abilities and then just reflavor them as you wish to make them fit your idea.

re-flavoring sometimes bothers me a lot. To some, the game mechanics are strict and the aesthetics and flavor are fluff. To me, the aesthetics and flavor are very strict, they are part of the rules to be a limiting factor just as much as the mechanics themselves.

Sometimes when I re-flavor, it nags and eats away at me until I have to re-roll because I feel I have somehow cheated the rules (even though I know re-flavoring is quite common).

That and some magical abilities when re-flavored as mundane make no sense when suddenly an anti magic shell does away with them.

Edit:
When I've played (it's been some time) I'm often a DM or GM. I'm fairly easy going on the players, but I'm EXTREMELY hard on myself. Granted that just isn't in games, I do that with every aspect of my life.

Not actually necessary with a light shield or buckler: they leave your hand free.

I see a martial weapon named "shield, light", do you instead me the "Shield, light wooden" or "Shield, light steel"?

What do these look like? How tall are they? I'm all about aesthetics. Things have to look a certain way (I'm extremely picky).

Adrian Parker 563 wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Adrian Parker 563 wrote:

Also, we never really took this into consideration when we played as teens, but if I'm in melee and try to cast a spell with a somatic component I'll need to drop my weapon and shield (probably a free action), and next round have to spend a move action picking them up (which likely should incur attacks of opportunity if an enemy faces me).

Actually, no. You only need one hand and a Light Shield explicitly leaves the hand free for spell-casting. A buckler does the same.

A Heavy shield would have the problems you suggest, so don't use one.

I'd still have to drop my weapon anyway would I not? Is there any further disadvantage for dropping a weapon and shield, instead of just weapon?

Edit:
I see, I can cast spells with just one hand free. So I'll just carry a shield till I need to cast, drop it, and not pick it up again. That way I'll have +2ac until I first cast my first spell in each battle.

Or use a light shield and never drop it.

The melee weapon? I'm not sure I follow.

AN OPEN LETTER:

I'd not meant to offend anyone earlier. I think you were trying to say that rogues are mechanically inferior to other classes, but to me it came across sounding like you were saying there were faults with my concept and that was the issue.

My apologies for any hard feelings.

*shrug* Life isn't perfect and neither are the rules, deal with it.

heh, and I'm the one with aspergers ;)

But seriously the vanilla Rogue in Pathfinder was a hold over from 3rd ed with all the loopholes which made it situationally powerful removed from the game.

Ok, thank you.

So on and so forth. There are way too many classes and archetypes that have a Rogue-ish element to them but are just functionally more useful to a party than having a Rogue in them for me to ever suggest that someone should play a vanilla Rogue.

So it's the rogue class itself that is gimpy, not the concept I had proposed I might play earlier.

I guess the others I seemed to have pissed off earlier probably meant that too, but that's not what I understood them to be saying.

Adrian Parker 563 wrote:

Also, we never really took this into consideration when we played as teens, but if I'm in melee and try to cast a spell with a somatic component I'll need to drop my weapon and shield (probably a free action), and next round have to spend a move action picking them up (which likely should incur attacks of opportunity if an enemy faces me).

Actually, no. You only need one hand and a Light Shield explicitly leaves the hand free for spell-casting. A buckler does the same.

A Heavy shield would have the problems you suggest, so don't use one.

I'd still have to drop my weapon anyway would I not? Is there any further disadvantage for dropping a weapon and shield, instead of just weapon?

Edit:
I see, I can cast spells with just one hand free. So I'll just carry a shield till I need to cast, drop it, and not pick it up again. That way I'll have +2ac until I first cast my first spell in each battle.

This is what I currently have then:

Str 12
Dex 14
Con 13
Int 10
Wis 17
Cha 15

Skills
------
Diplomacy +1
Heal +1
Knowledge (religion) +1

Feats
-----
Improved Initiative (?)
Scribe scroll

Orisons
-------
Create Water
Light
Stabilize

1st level
---------
Bless
Protection from Evil

Armour
------
Scale mail
Heavy steel shield

Weaopns
-------

Heavy mace
Heavy Crossbow

Adrian Parker 563 wrote:

The page in question mentions you're not a healer, and marks the domain in orange to indicate it is not a preferable domain.

But you believe it can be OK to use?

Yes. If you play at a table with rather new players and a friendly GM, you don't have to care about 'wrong' domains. Pick any you like and have fun with it. Guides can lead to more fun (if they allow you to achieve something great), but also to less fun (if they talk you out of options you actually like).

As others said already: Just healing becomes dull on the long run. Adding buffs for your mates, debuffs for your enemies and some other stuff will make your character more fun to play.

I think I'll go Paladine, with domains Good and protection. Not 100% sure yet though.

Domain choices are Good, Law, Protection, Sun (and I'm not Lawful Good).

Adrian Parker 563 wrote:

... that is why I said it doesn't fit my concept. This bit about trusting in knowledge above all things. That's not who my character is at all.

The Class Descriptions mean almost nothing. They're a description of the most common way to play the Class, but far from the only one. Even in Paizo books specifically, statted up NPCs often don't follow those descriptions at all.

Play the character however you want, using the best set of mechanics to reflect the capabilities you want them to have.

Hrm, OK. But this is hard for me. It'll nag at me.

Also, we never really took this into consideration when we played as teens, but if I'm in melee and try to cast a spell with a somatic component I'll need to drop my weapon and shield (probably a free action), and next round have to spend a move action picking them up (which likely should incur attacks of opportunity if an enemy faces me).

Well, first, could you link the page again?

It doesn't work when I paste it into Google.

That's odd.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1h6-_4HvPvV-Tt7I67Gi_oPhgHmeDVA5SBl-WrJS gf5s/edit?hl=en

If you're looking to make a dedicated healer (where healing is what you do in combat) then Cleric is a poor choice. You want a Life Oracle.

Doesn't have to be a dedicated in-combat healer.

Mostly just toying with the idea of cleric now.

Makes sense. I'll be playing in Dragonlance. I was going to take on Mishakal as a deity, but perhaps I'll take Paladine instead. Besides, I much prefer white vestments to the sky blue ones favoued by Mishakal's followers anyway.

I was helping you on the rogue thread, and just saw this.

I think the idea is that clerics aren't forced to be healers.
You can make fantastic healer/buffer-clerics, what with channel energy and the Healing domain and being able to spontaneously cast Cure spells (if you're good or chose the option if neutral, of course).
A cleric that focuses on buff spells to help their allies and has the Healing domain can make for a great character that is also useful in combat, especially if you grab an archetype like Evangelist or Herald Caller with Sacred Summons.

But having "cleric" on your character sheet doesn't automatically add the healer role to your character.

The page in question mentions you're not a healer, and marks the domain in orange to indicate it is not a preferable domain.

But you believe it can be OK to use?

@Understanding but not understanding: my apologies, I hadn't realized I wrote it like that. What I was trying to say was that "avoiding most magic" and "not using any form of magic at all" are completely different things. Like I said above, it's completely possible for you to reflavor your extracts as completely mundane effects. And, as long as you aren't in an antimagic field, everything will be fine. Just ask your GM if this is alright beforehand.

That's the thing about re-flavoring, you end up with abilities you've re-flavored as mundane being dispelled by things like anti magic shell. That just feels wrong to me.

@Investigators:

** spoiler omitted **

Perhaps the source book I've borrowed it outdated. This one reads:

"Investigator
Investigators trust in knowledge above all things. Often this is not solely the bookish knowledge and abstract formulae of arcane artists, nor the religious knowledge of clerics, nor even the martial knowledge of the soldier, but rather some small part of all of these. Sometimes this knowledge is esoteric, but often it's practical in nature. Investigators master knowledge that allows them to ferret out the secrets that lie behind the hidden code of evidence and speak the ironclad language of cause and effect.
They use their knowledge to find those things hidden from others, whether by the passage of time, the rituals of occult orders, or guilty creatures seeking to obscure their trails."

... that is why I said it doesn't fit my concept. This bit about trusting in knowledge above all things. That's not who my character is at all.

Adrian Parker 563 wrote:

I remember reading about the ranks can't exceed levels. I thought I read something that allowed for the rank to be +1 higher than usual. Maybe a human trait? I can fix that, not an issue.

So if the concern is with the skills I chose, what skills would a rogue choose instead?

I'm uncertain as to why my concept works better as another class. My concept is based on rogue-skills. What does a rogue do that my concept doesn't?

The concern isn't with the skills you chose it's the fact that skills are the weakest of all abilities.

Let's look at two hypothetical characters one is a Rogue with 8 ranks of stealth and a 20 Dex said Rogue has 8 Ranks +3 because it's a Class skill +5 Dex = +16 Stealth, not bad right?

Now consider another character say a Wizard or Bard with 0 Ranks in stealth 10 Dex and the Invisibility spell tossed onto themselves because they can cast it. Suddenly they have +20 Stealth or +40 if they're just hiding in a room.

Now lets look at that same Bard with a 16 Dex and a 16 Cha and 8 Ranks in the Perform Skill that lines up with Stealth via versatile performance 8 Ranks + 3 Class skill + 3 for Cha = +14 to Stealth and then if he needs to he tacks on Invis. for a +34 or +54. Now neither of these characters really put in any crazy effort in fact they could both be trying much harder to max out these skills but that's not really the point.

And then there's the fact that in combat that bard is being at least 2 times more useful than the Rogue even if the vanilla Rogue is built optimally. If that Rogue is built with the idea of not being a combat character, the Bard is easily pushing 3 maybe even 4 times the effectiveness because he's giving a party wide 10-15% damage buff on attacks just by using Inspire. Tag on the fact that said bard can also cast a buff like Heroism or Haste and can still be a pretty solid archer and you're talking 25%+ increase in combat power party wide.

Most other character options have their own ways of...

It sounds like bad design that allows one class to do the common skills of another class better than that other class?

I was reading this site

They emphasis quite a few times that Clerics are not healers, they recommend against using Healing as one of your domains, etc

Is this true?

I was hoping to make a rogue, that fell through on me, so I thought I might make a cleric who is a healer. From reading this article it seems that is not a wise decision.

Uh...the Rogue doesn't really do anything your concept doesn't. Your concept does things the Rogue doesn't.

In purely mechanical terms, the Rogue isn't actually that good at skills. They get a lot of them, but they're only as good as anyone else at actually using them.

Your concept seems to want to be actually good at the skills you have. Better than other people of the same level.

My thought was most other classes don't take Escape Artist, stealth, climb, etc. But if a fighter took the skills, and had just as much experience in them as I, wouldn't it make sense that he would be just as good as them as I? I suppose you're saying in a class-based game only being equal to someone else makes you dispensible?

So...all of those classes do better at skills than your current build. And since you say skills are your primary priority...

So what does a rogue do well? They have sneak attack, but the time lost getting into position might not be made up for by their extra damage when they finally do attack.

Assuming that combat is one of the major components of group's games, you still need to be able to contribute if you want to be part of the team. Since half of the rogue's class feature have to do with combat, you'll be limiting yourself quite a bit by choosing to put all of your resources elsewhere. The rogue you describe is great in a movie or TV show because the story can cater to her. I like rogues for the reasons as you, but choosing a "rogue-variant" class will give you a lot more flexibility in achieving the character you want to play. Whatever class it is, she can still look and act like a rogue. Choosing the right traits will help her get the missing class skills.

I took weapon finesse. Does taking only 1 combat-related feat instead of 2 (character is human) mean I've gimped myself?

What did I choose that you would not when playing a rogue?

Play the character that you want to. No one here has to approve of it. It serves no purpose to try to convince people offering the advice you solicited that you don't need their advice. You are very combative for someone purporting to seek assistance.

They don't have to approve it, but if they don't I won't play it. That's just who I am.

I don't recall saying I don't need their advice. I did say if my concept doesn't work than I'll just have to play another class because I'm not interested in a variation of my concept. If my concept doesn't work well, then it's just not a playable option for me.

Combative? I'm aggressive in how I speak, I've aspergers (combined with Unrelenting Standards), but I wouldn't call myself combative. If this means I can't have friends I just have to live with that.

I don't think it's the fact that it's non-rogueish, but the fact that the Core Rulebook Rogue is often seen as less than mediocre

It sounded like they were saying MY concept is wrong. I don't recall them mentioning the problem with the Rogue class itself.

I definitely understand not wanting to go magical at all, but I'm not sure I understand it.

You do understand, but you don't understand? Can you explain please.

You seem to have a problem with separating the class name and abilities from the actual flavor you want. With the Investigator specifically, you mentioned how it seems to be focused on gathering knowledge and books and all that stuff, as if that part of the character was hard-coded into the class itself.

Regarding the Investigators, the first line of the class reads, "Investigators trust in knowledge above all things."

I don't want my character to "trust in knowledge above all things," In fact I'd prefer her to be young and naive.

As to why people are suggesting other classes/builds that you play, they're trying to help you (because you did ask for help) in creating the character that does what you want it to do.

And I get that, but they haven't explained why my character doesn't fit a rogue. I thought my build was VERY rogue-ish. Or in other words, if someone were playing a rogue, how would it vary from my build?

for someone who has no experience in playing DnD 3.0 (or 3.5) or Pathfinder (sometimes referred to as DnD 3.75).

I've lots of experience in D&D, AD&D, D&D 3.0 and 3.5.

Couple of pointers.

A Core Rulebook Human Rogue (ie. basic rogue) with an 11 intelligence has 9 (or 10) skill points to spend. Rogue 8, Human 1, Favored Class Bonus either 1 skill point or 1 hit point.

Lets say 10 for arguments sake. You can only put 1 skill point in each skill you want. For a list of skills look HERE at the CRB Rogue.

You then add +3 if it is a class skill (noted in the above link) and then you add your ability score bonus for each skill. For instance if it is a Dexterity Skill you would add +3. If it is a Strength Skill you add +1, etc.

Acrobatics would be: 1 skill rank, +3 class skill, +3 dex for 7 total.

Do this for each skill. For your stealth skill because of the Stealthy feat it would be 9 since the feat adds +2 bonus.

-- david

RE: Quoting you, dumb operator error on my part. I tried to delete the post as soon as it went, since I did not mean to post without adding but stuff happened.

I suggest you read Generating a Character section of the online Paizo Reference Document. In fact that whole section on Getting Started would prove useful for someone who has no experience in playing DnD 3.0 (or 3.5) or Pathfinder (sometimes refered to as DnD 3.75).

I just misread something about skill points. Not a big deal, just means I get more skills with +1.

Otherwise though, how is this build so non-rogueish that others are telling me I'd be better off as other classes instead?

Adrian Parker 563 wrote:

TOZ wrote:

Adrian Parker 563 wrote:

Well, I don't own the book, so I can't read it. Fair enough?

Heyooooo! Hooooooo!

Ok, let's go there.

I said I don't like the Bard because it performs. His reply is no they don't, and commented on 15 years experience.

From the book then:

"Bardic Performance: A bard is trained to use the
Perform skill to create magical effects on those around
him, including himself if desired. He can use this
ability for a number of rounds per day equal to 4 + his
Charisma modifier."

ya, that's exactly what I said I didn't like, and he threw 15 years experience in my face saying this wasn't part of the Bard class.

They don't have to be musicians is what I said. You can use perform: oratory and give rousing speeches or, like I also said, be an Archaeologist Bard who doesn't have performances at all.

You said Bard is a no go without knowing anything about the class. I would expect people who have more than a decade of experience with RPGs to actually read options before they dismiss them.

I knew about Performance. I didn't like it. But they also have other spell-like abilities right? I don't want my character to be magical. Just some girl who had a rough life who grows up to use her thieving skills to help others. You mentioned reflavoring I believe, if I do that I'll only end up feeling like I'm cheating the system and re-roll another character in a few levels anyway.

You quoted me, but I don't see any changes or additions?

Your concept works in theory.

It just happens to work better as several other Classes. I can, for example, make an Investigator or Archaeologist Bard who does literally every single thing your Rogue build does...only better at most of them. They'd fit your stated concept perfectly, for the most part.

If you really want to play Rogue, you certainly can...but you're not getting anything out of it except writing Rogue on your sheet. Is a word on your character sheet really that important to you?

Even if it is, refusing to play Unchained Rogue is just strange. It gets everything rogues do...and a couple more things. Why turn down free stuff?

Also, on a rules note, at 1st level, you are only allowed one rank in any individual skill.

I remember reading about the ranks can't exceed levels. I thought I read something that allowed for the rank to be +1 higher than usual. Maybe a human trait? I can fix that, not an issue.

So if the concern is with the skills I chose, what skills would a rogue choose instead?

I'm uncertain as to why my concept works better as another class. My concept is based on rogue-skills. What does a rogue do that my concept doesn't?

Ok, so I've a question.

Where does my concept fall short? I still have armour, and a short sword. I rolled relatively well, so my stats would make up for some over a rogue who doesn't roll as well.

What are the minimal usable stats, skills, and feats for a rogue to be useful?

Once again here is my first level human rogue:

Human Rogue

Str 13
Dex 17
Con 14
Int 11
Wis 10
Cha 15

Skills
######
Acrobatics +1, Appraise +1, Bluff +1, Climb +1, Escape Artist +1, Perception +1, Sense Motive +1, Stealth +1, Swim +1, Use Magic Device +1

Feats
#####
Stealthy, Weapon Finesse

Armour
######
Leather

Weapons
#######
Heavy Crossbow
3 x Crossbow Bolts (10)
Short sword
2 x dagger