Rogues Who Want Spells Need To Multi-Class


Races & Classes

1 to 50 of 66 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Come on now ... this is getting ridiculous. Pretty soon there will be no distinction between classes any more as every class will have an option to swing a sword, pick a lock, cast a spell and pray to a deity just like every other.

If you want your Rogue to cast spells, then multi-class a level or two of Wizard or Sorcerer.

Rogues Should Not Cast Spells !!! Multi-Class Instead !!!

Classes are distinct and do what they do for a reason, and munchkin power-gamers who want it all-in-one be .. well ... I don't think it will let me post that word !!!

IMHO,

Rez

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

I like it. Maybe Castles & Crusades is your game, not Pathfinder.

Sovereign Court

To me, it fits in with the flavour of the Rogue: A little bit of everything. They already have Use Magic Device, why not let them cast a spell or two? Wouldn't learning a simple spell like Expeditious Retreat be pretty useful for a Rogue? Sure they don't know all the intricacies of magic, but they could probably pick up a first-level spell with a little bit of study.

Plus, it's an option, not every Rogue will be able to cast spells, just the ones who decided to add a little magic to their repertoire.


Of course, with the PFRGP skill rules as they are, you take 1 level of rogue, then progress as a sorcerer. You're now a spellcaster with max ranks in all of your rogue skills. So if you can live without sneak attack, the rogue past 1st or 2nd level is now completely obsolete!


Rezdave wrote:

Come on now ... this is getting ridiculous. Pretty soon there will be no distinction between classes any more as every class will have an option to swing a sword, pick a lock, cast a spell and pray to a deity just like every other.

If you want your Rogue to cast spells, then multi-class a level or two of Wizard or Sorcerer.

Rogues Should Not Cast Spells !!! Multi-Class Instead !!!

Classes are distinct and do what they do for a reason, and munchkin power-gamers who want it all-in-one be .. well ... I don't think it will let me post that word !!!

IMHO,

Rez

I can see where you are coming from, but in this case since it is part of a larger list of ability choices I think it is fine to have the rule for those who want it, and rule it out in your own game.


I like it myself its limited but has the hey I picked this neat trick up feel I like very nice .

Scarab Sages

its also a homage to Lieber's Grey Mouser. I guess you could do the Mouser as a multiclassed character, but he never really understood the magic he used. It was more of following a recipe he learned and hoping for the best.

sort of like use magic device.

Liberty's Edge

underling wrote:

its also a homage to Lieber's Grey Mouser. I guess you could do the Mouser as a multiclassed character, but he never really understood the magic he used. It was more of following a recipe he learned and hoping for the best.

sort of like use magic device.

That's just what I was thinking. I don't see it as any more of a stretch than a ranger casting spells cos he's Johnny flippin' Appleseed.


I thought it was a nice touch, I can see a lazy unscrupulous 'failed wizard' type being interesting to play, this makes it a little easier. Anything that sparks character ideas = a good ting in my book. The Grey mouser resonances, also very welcome.

The Exchange

That's a bit much. The ability is really limited and doesn't seem like a truly great choice IMO. True Strike would be great but severly broken.

Dark Archive

I did not like it at first either. It might grow on me.

I just do not like a class getting abilities from other classes. Kinda defeats the purpose of a class.

It seems like the rogue class just has to be slightly reworked in general. It all does not seem to go together for me, but maybe that is the point. The skill situation could be the biggest problem. The benefit of just take your first level of rogue to get the skills and never go back is just to great.


I also really liked this idea for my thief i always like 1 ace up my sleeve and this stops player from having to cherie pick levels like 1 level of sorcerer

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

I really like the magical aspect added to the class.

Also thinking about this with the larger Pathfinder setting in mind I wouldn't mind seeing divine spells added to this ability for rogues who follow certain deities such as Desna and act as either priest or priestess as detailed in the Desna write up in PF#2.

I don't need to see rogues with divine spells in the main RPG book but it might be cool to see it in some later sourcebook.


I don't see why in a Fantasy world characters of all classes might not pick up some magic. Why even limit it to Rogues? Maybe make it a feat.

Liberty's Edge

Locke1520 wrote:

I really like the magical aspect added to the class.

Also thinking about this with the larger Pathfinder setting in mind I wouldn't mind seeing divine spells added to this ability for rogues who follow certain deities such as Desna and act as either priest or priestess as detailed in the Desna write up in PF#2.

I don't need to see rogues with divine spells in the main RPG book but it might be cool to see it in some later sourcebook.

I could dig that too.


I like it a single cantrip as a spell-like ability followed by a single first level spell as a spell-like ability.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Of course, with the PFRGP skill rules as they are, you take 1 level of rogue, then progress as a sorcerer. You're now a spellcaster with max ranks in all of your rogue skills. So if you can live without sneak attack, the rogue past 1st or 2nd level is now completely obsolete!

This is a problem. Its apparent in the ranger too. The capstone abilities are far away and irrelevant (unless you start the characters at high level), but you'll have the skills for your entire career. Ranger 1 -> fighter/barbarian gets full BAB and the full skill set without giving up anything of importance.

As for the rogue spellcasting, I like it. Its flavorful dabbling. A 2 castings of a 1st level spell at 4th level isn't over powering, especially at half caster level. A few spells are problems, but thats more a problem with the specific spells (like true strike, which is just a ridiculous bonus), than with spells in general.


I like it. I would take it a step further, minor (0-level), intermediate (1-level) and major (2-magic) magic. However, I would also limit it to once a day, not twice.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Of course, with the PFRGP skill rules as they are, you take 1 level of rogue, then progress as a sorcerer. You're now a spellcaster with max ranks in all of your rogue skills. So if you can live without sneak attack, the rogue past 1st or 2nd level is now completely obsolete!

This is a MAJOR problem. Of all the classes in 3.5, I have the hardest time seeing the Rogue needing the rejiggering. Giving Spells on top of all the other nifty to abilities just seems wrong. I'll say more in the Keep Skill Points thread about that.

lordzack wrote:
I don't see why in a Fantasy world characters of all classes might not pick up some magic. Why even limit it to Rogues? Maybe make it a feat.

Now this I could live with. A feat that amounts too "I learned this one trick", and which everyone could use, has promise. Of course Wizards and Sorcerers should also be able to use it, maybe even to greater effect (taking any known spell and using at as a 1/day SLA). It does blur classes quite a bit though.


John Weatherman wrote:
This is a MAJOR problem. Of all the classes in 3.5, I have the hardest time seeing the Rogue needing the rejiggering. Giving Spells on top of all the other nifty to abilities just seems wrong. I'll say more in the Keep Skill Points thread about that.

Thanks. I'd hate to see the rogue become a default 1-level class for every character. If so, why even have it?

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

lordzack wrote:
I don't see why in a Fantasy world characters of all classes might not pick up some magic. Why even limit it to Rogues? Maybe make it a feat.

This is a good point. It makes more sense as a general feat, since there's nothing rogue-specific about studying magic on the side. (Also, aren't there already feats that give you minor spell-like abilities in Complete Arcane?)

Scarab Sages

Nameless wrote:
To me, it fits in with the flavour of the Rogue: A little bit of everything.

I keep seeing this, and I don't get it. A little bit of everything? Rogues are skills, sneak attackers, and very flexible, but a little bit of everything? So good at fighting, spell casting, skills....a little bit of everything...so a jack of all trades, you might say?

Huh. I could have sworn there was a class that already did that.

Oh right. It's called a Bard.


I think the basic thought behind it is not wrong...I think the execution could have been done a bit more in "rogueish" falvour though. Personally, I'd suggest taking a look at the spellthief, and take a page from his class abilities. I once sat down and tried to blow up the rogue to 36 levels, trying to add interesting abilities for the higher levels. At some point, I thought "Hey, in a world filled with magical effects like D&D, why the hell shouldn't a REALLY good rogue be able to steal spells from wizards' heads, active magical effects from those who wear them, or supernatural abilities from those who have them naturally?" So I took a lot of the spellthief's stuff and gave it to the rogue in the form of rogue abilities and master abilities. This included the ability to cast the stolen spell within a certain time frame, or steal some kind of resistance for a certain amount of time.

It might look a bit like overpowering the rogue, but I think it's both in synch with the flavour of the class as well as the flair of the "default" setting behind D&D.


I'm strongly against magical abilites for rogues. Use Magic Device is allreade quite a stretch. MAgic for everyone is 4th Ed., and that's what we don't want.


I'm still thinking about this, so I haven't formulated a formal opinion.

However, my first free association thought was:

"Aren't people always b!tchin' about classes?"

That True 20 was founded on the principal of classless character design? And Earthdawn got away from it too, by just making other class features more expensivem but entirely possible to obtain?

Of course, this is not True 20 or Earthdawn, so those comparisons have limited value.. nevertheless, this does seem to make the Rogue a nice class for those who always feel pigeon-holed.

I'm going to think about it some though...


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

This was actually one of the things I was most excited to read. I really like it. Of course, I've always enjoyed playing "Jack of All Trades" sorts of characters.

And I also think there should be an option to eventually get a second level spell. I think second level is the logical cut-off. That way your Rogue could choose invisibility or web or mirror image, etc., but he wouldn't be lobbing fireballs. I think twice a day is perfect. It is already pretty limited, and there are already a lot of other attractive choices. If it were only once a day, I'm not sure anyone would pick it. In fact, even though I love the idea of the spellcasting Rogue, I'd find it hard to miss out on something else just to take the entry level ability to cast a cantrip. I don't find most cantrips to be very useful (though they do add some very cool flavor).

I also understand concerns about "magic for everyone" sounding like 4th edition, but in my opinion, the problem with 4th edition is the unexplainable magic for everyone. Like how a Paladin can cough and a chicken ten miles away lays an egg. (Okay, maybe I'm exaggerating). I think all it needs is some flavor text saying something like, "Rogues are highly inquisitive and tend to pick up a wide variety of different skills. Some Rogues even learn to cast a spell or two--not because they have a deep understanding of magical theory, but by rote memorization of the specific arcane words and gestures to achieve certain effects they just might need to get them out of a pinch one day."

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Card Game, Rulebook Subscriber

I think the 0 and 1st level spell are fine for some rogues. Not for every rogue - it depends on the character. If you, as a DM, don't think it works for a particular roguish individual, rule 0 it.


Rezdave wrote:

Rogues Should Not Cast Spells !!! Multi-Class Instead !!!

Classes are distinct and do what they do for a reason

I absolutely agree on that. Use magic device is fine for a rogue, but learning an casting spells...I don't think so...

Greetings, Daniel

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Nah, it's fine by me. so he knows maybe a handful of 0 and 1st level spells, is it really that broken? It allows the rogue to have some flavour going into shadowdancer, or to play ninja, or to have a trick up his sleeve. Plus, 3x has the spellthief (C:ad) Ninja (Same) Guttermage (BoRL) Shadowsworn (same) Psychic Rogue (TME) and my spellstalker. so there's lots of precident.


I just don't know what to say. Maybe the fighter should have spells, too.


Sebastian wrote:
I like it. Maybe Castles & Crusades is your game, not Pathfinder.

Now, now, Sebastian, stop inviting people to not play Pathfinder. It's not good business.


I agree with Silvernace. I think that this mechanic can really work witht he right flavor tweaking. Not every rogue will take this ability and limiting it to twice a day, keeps the rogue from being a true spell slinger. this ability works for me, so I say lets keep it as it is.

Liberty's Edge

I don't think the rogue should have spells as a class ability by defeault, but he doesn't.

I like the explanation offered by Kelvar. If spells are 'scientific' and can be repeated by anyone who knows the formula, having them available to non-spellcasters on an extremely limited basis is a good idea.

Making them a feat choice is not bad and opening up to other classes. A typical fighter wouldn't choose the ability since they'll risk spell failure, but some might.

Most classes should not include magic by default. But since the point of the characters is to be able to tell a story, the more 'flexible' the system is, the better. That allows everyone to tell the stories they want.


mooo?

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

I like it. I could see this being left as is but then DMs limiting the choices of spells that the rogue could have lifted along the way.

I'm more worried about the problem of multiclassing skillmonkeys.


Kelvar Silvermace wrote:
I think all it needs is some flavor text saying something like, "Rogues are highly inquisitive and tend to pick up a wide variety of different skills. Some Rogues even learn to cast a spell or two--not because they have a deep understanding of magical theory, but by rote memorization of the specific arcane words and gestures to achieve certain effects they just might need to get them out of a pinch one day."

This is a pretty good rationale.

Rogues are pragmatic by nature. They do and use whatever is necessary to achieve an objective... just like real rogues in real life.

If magic is an obstacle, they're not above using magic to get past it. Just like in real life, if technology becomes an obstacle, the rogues get technical. Not because they're scientists and engineers, but because they're pragmatic about achieving their goals and getting past obstacles (standing in the way of their criminal activities!).


Tarren Dei wrote:
I'm more worried about the problem of multiclassing skillmonkeys.

That does seem to be a constant problem with design work, doesn't it? Some things make sense 'in the spirit of the rules' while running afoul of the 'the literal interpretation of the rules.'

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Nameless wrote:
To me, it fits in with the flavour of the Rogue: A little bit of everything.

Hello, Nameless. I guess I see a D&D 3.5 rogue in a different light. I see a rogue as a skill-monkey. If you want a lot of tumbling / jumping / maneuvering skills, or if you want a lot of thiefly / nimblefingers skills, or if you want lots of social / investigative skills ... whatever: that's the rogue.

Manifestly, the rogue doesn't use magic. I like that a lot about the class. In a world where magic is a commodity, and where powerful mages walk the lands, the rogue is a non-spell-user.

For me, the jack-of-all-trades has always been the bard. Or, in "full bells and whistles" 3.5, the factotem, from Dungeonscape.

Nameless wrote:
[Rogues] already have Use Magic Device, why not let them cast a spell or two?

I've seen UMD in much the same light as Open Locks. Metaphorically speaking, a rogue picking a lock on a steamer trunk is trying to 'trick' the device, is tying to 'convince' the lock that she's the keyholder with the right to open that trunk. A rogue using UMD to trigger the Unutterable Yeast of Asmodeus is trying to 'trick' the magic item into acquiesing that she's a lawful evil cleric with the right to activate its powers.

That strikes me as entirely different from preparing and casting spells.

Nameless wrote:

Wouldn't learning a simple spell like expeditious retreat be pretty useful for a Rogue? Sure they don't know all the intricacies of magic, but they could probably pick up a first-level spell with a little bit of study.

It certainly would be pretty useful, I agree. Being able to cast shield would be handy for many fighters, as well. And characters who want to branch out and actually learn magic have a means to do that: take a level of sorcerer.

Contributor, RPG Superstar 2009, RPG Superstar Judgernaut

CastleMike wrote:
I like it a single cantrip as a spell-like ability followed by a single first level spell as a spell-like ability.

I completely agree with CastleMike on this point. Though I also understand the sentiment expressed by the original poster, too.

In general, a lot of players and DM's don't want to see further blurring of the lines between classes. But I think Jason has done an admirable job of giving you the option to do so...without making it mandatory.

If you take a step back and assess what the new PRPG Rogue abilities provide in this regard, a rogue would have to "waste" one of his options on gaining a single 0-level cantrip first...and then another option to gain a single 1st-level spell. By that point, an entirely different rogue will have selected other options to either make himself more combat-capable or soup-up his primary rogue abilities. So, I don't think this approach goes too far over the top. It hits that nice compromise in the middle.

If DMs (or players) are still worried about the blurring of the classes as a result of these Rogue options, all they have to do is declare the spell-like options off the table. You've still got that right, you know? Meanwhile, DM's (and players) who want their rogues to be able to pick up an occasional spell-like ability without having to multiclass will still have that option, too.

And lastly, I don't see the PRPG Rogue encroaching on the true spellcasters with this ability either. A PRPG Wizard or Cleric (and presumably Sorcerers and Druids) will continue to carry the torch in that regard. So this isn't an earth-shattering change. It's quite limited and opens up one more possibility without creating the full-on power-creep lots of people fear.

Just my two-cents,
--Neil

Dark Archive

As an *option,* I like it a heck of a lot better than the spellcasting Ranger, which has never really fit my concept of 'woodsy tracker.' :)

Contributor, RPG Superstar 2009, RPG Superstar Judgernaut

Tarren Dei wrote:
I like it. I could see this being left as is but then DMs limiting the choices of spells that the rogue could have lifted along the way.

I do think this is a good idea. At the very least, the selection of spells a PRPG Rogue could have "stolen" should be limited...and not open to the entire list of 0-level and 1st-level spells out there.

Basically, some spells should be seen as simple enough that a rogue could master them...as long as he spends one of his options on it. But a host of other spells ought to be beyond the kin of anyone who isn't a fully-trained arcane spellcaster.

So, to repeat, I'm good with giving PRPG Rogues the option to pick up a spell here and there, but it should come from a shorter list. Anything other than those spells would still require the Use Magic Device skill for scrolls, wands, and what-not...

--Neil

Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

Hey there Everybody,

Considering the two sides on this one, I think these minor abilities are going to stay for the time being. If they do not fit in the concept of your game, it is your prerogative as GM to remove them, as it is with any rule element.

That said, the thoughts behind this power was similar to one posted here. Rogues tend to pick up whatever tricks they can to get an edge. If that leads them to dabble in a bit of magic, that is there choice. Others certainly will not.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

(And yes, I was just reading some Fafhrd and Gray Mouser recently... going back to the roots)

Liberty's Edge

What's cool is I can see room for somebody making up "minor abilities" to throw into the mix. Kinda leads to a crazy quilt of rogue possibilities. Gives it a thieve's world feel, IMO. You don't exactly know just what to expect from these guys.


lordzack wrote:
I don't see why in a Fantasy world characters of all classes might not pick up some magic. Why even limit it to Rogues? Maybe make it a feat.

My feeling exactly. I hated the Class-specific Skills in 3.0 and was glad when 3.5 got rid of them (Animal Empathy, or whatever it was).

I don't mind a general Feat that anyone can take to learn a little hedge-magic or be a flunked-out Wizard's Apprentice or a former Priestly Acolyte who left seminary. But if you're going to do it, then it should be available to all.

Rez

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

I saw this thread yesterday before I read the PRPG and I thought I agreed but after reading the information on rogues I think it is brilliant. I have a rogue that I played up to 11th level and I always thought that just a couple of spells would enhance him greatly. To the point where I had decided that the next time I made a rogue he would take one to four levels of sorcerer. With this new idea. I would love to see how he developed.

Great idea.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pawns, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

I didn't like that Talent myself, then I thought about it and realized tht it doesn't hurt much.

1 level 0 arcane spells 2/day? Ghost Sounds.. come on, make the guards look the other way while you sneak by.

1 level 1 spell 2/day? I don't know.

Then I looked at the other talents and realized that I'd rather take free weapon focus at second level, so I wouldn't have level 0 yet. And then I thought.. well yeah.. a free finesse would be cool too.

And then I'm like, well if I'm getting these for free.. what feats am I taking.. and I start thinking to myself, Skill Focus better offer a beefier bonus so I can sneak around.

Finally I realized that these 2 talents would likely be last if not never taken and by the time I do take them, because of the DC limit put on them, there'd never work against monsters I'm facing at those levels. :)

So sure they're neat tricks, but come on, if you're not taking illusions or enchantments with them that become useless in a few levels, you'll take utility spells because combat spells are going to be weak.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
Rezdave wrote:
lordzack wrote:
I don't see why in a Fantasy world characters of all classes might not pick up some magic. Why even limit it to Rogues? Maybe make it a feat.

My feeling exactly. I hated the Class-specific Skills in 3.0 and was glad when 3.5 got rid of them (Animal Empathy, or whatever it was).

I don't mind a general Feat that anyone can take to learn a little hedge-magic or be a flunked-out Wizard's Apprentice or a former Priestly Acolyte who left seminary. But if you're going to do it, then it should be available to all.

Rez

I don't think so. I think that the rogues unique place is the jack of all trades and being able to use a spell or two falls into this place well. There are other options for other characters like magic items, etc.


Jason Bulmahn wrote:
(And yes, I was just reading some Fafhrd and Gray Mouser recently... going back to the roots)

It's stuff like this that makes me love you guys you so much. The idea that you're actually making little tweaks to the game in order to bring it back, at least a little, to its literary roots is something I applaud.

Good show! More please.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:
I'd hate to see the rogue become a default 1-level class for every character. If so, why even have it?

I do not think that would happen - it would most likely be tough for a group of 1st level rogues to survive.


Shem wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
I'd hate to see the rogue become a default 1-level class for every character. If so, why even have it?
I do not think that would happen - it would most likely be tough for a group of 1st level rogues to survive.

I disagree; they've even got d8 hit dice now. And once past 1st level, they're kings of the game--all the skills of a 3.5e rogue and more, plus all the class abilties of some other class (but 1 level behind). Imagine if I proposed a feat in 3.5e that said the following:

SKILLED [GENERAL]
Prerequisite: 1 level of rogue
Benefit: You gain skill points every level as a rogue, regardless of what class you are progressing in.

Now, if that sounds reasonable, remember that skills are what a rogue is all about. Then look at this:

MAGICAL HERO [GENERAL]
Prerequisite: 1 level in any class that uses spells.
Benefit: Choose a class you have at least one level in that allows spellcasting ability. Any time you gain a level in any class, your spellcasting ability improves by 1 level as well, as if you had gained a level in that spellcasting class. This applies to spells known, maximum spell level castable, and the like.

The latter feat would be overwhelming derided as totally broken, for good reason. But the former? Oh, it's fine? I disagree. And it doesn't even require a feat, in the Pathfinder rules. It's a freeby.

1 to 50 of 66 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / Alpha Playtest Feedback / Alpha Release 1 / Races & Classes / Rogues Who Want Spells Need To Multi-Class All Messageboards