|
It may just be me, but I don't like Minor/Major Magic and Dispelling Strike at all, since they are clearly 'proto-magical' class features. Having said that, I wouldn't mind seeing them cut from the game. One of the biggest turn-offs in 4E for me was the "magical" martial powers, and I wouldn't want to see them in PF.
Thoughts?
It could be just me, but they really remind me of the Gray Mouser...
Don't choose them for you're Rogues. I not only see nothing wrong with Rogues (and other mostly mundane classes) having the option to pick magical abilities, I think the Minor Magic and Major Magic ability should be feats available to any class.
I don't mind the magical abilities, it allows for a rogue to get some neat magical effects without multi-classing and might fit with Elf and Gnome rogues with fluff about natural magic.
|
Don't choose them for you're Rogues. I not only see nothing wrong with Rogues (and other mostly mundane classes) having the option to pick magical abilities, I think the Minor Magic and Major Magic ability should be feats available to any class.
I disagree.
It makes a certain kind of sense that Rogues would pick up little scraps of abilities, but Barbarians with minor spell-like abilities? Monks are too focused on their ki abilities; any spellcasting class should stick with the magic they already get. The only other core class I would consider this for would be Fighter, and even then it would be a stretch.
Right, because "Ki abilities" couldn't *possibly* include things like Mage Hand, Jump, or Shield
|
It may just be me, but I don't like Minor/Major Magic and Dispelling Strike at all, since they are clearly 'proto-magical' class features. Having said that, I wouldn't mind seeing them cut from the game. One of the biggest turn-offs in 4E for me was the "magical" martial powers, and I wouldn't want to see them in PF.
Thoughts?
I agree that I'm not a fan of these, but as long as they stay an "optional" class feature instead of a standard class feature, I'm ok with it.
IE - as long as I, the DM, can say "no" without fighting an uphill battle, I'm cool.
I think there fine an add to the skill monkeyness of the rogue
|
I'm not a huge fan of them either, but they are not automatically part of the suite, so I'm OK with that. You have the choice not to take them. I know one or two players who always wanted to take a level or two in sorcerer from their rogue to gain a spell or two that could help with their theivery, so I know it will be popular with some folks. And as a DM I wouldn't nix 'em.
-DM Jeff
I think they are there to discourage a one level dip into a spellcasting class. Lots of Rogues I've seen do this because its just so useful.
That's why I think level dipping should be either restricted or be penalized harder. Reworking the Favored class doesn't count rule or something...
That's why I think level dipping should be either restricted or be penalized harder. Reworking the Favored class doesn't count rule or something...
The most common houserule I've ever seen is the one ignoring Favored classes. Its almost universal, in my experience.
When a rule is mechanically complex and adds nothing to the game, people tend to ignore or "forget" about it.
I enjoy the Rogues Magical choices. If you don't like them, then don't use them. That's why it's a choice and not an automatically acquired class ability. It gives more flexibility to the class and that is what Rogues are all about. Flexibility.
I personally play a Rogue/Wizard and the magic abilities make a perfect compliment to my character.
If I wasn't multiclassing I might not use them. Simple as that.
The most common houserule I've ever seen is the one ignoring Favored classes. Its almost universal, in my experience.
When a rule is mechanically complex and adds nothing to the game, people tend to ignore or "forget" about it.
That's the main reason behind the proliferation of all those crazed characters that read like Rog 1/Sor 4/Ftr 4/Drd 5/Extreme Uber 6
That's the main reason behind the proliferation of all those crazed characters that read like Rog 1/Sor 4/Ftr 4/Drd 5/Extreme Uber 6The most common houserule I've ever seen is the one ignoring Favored classes. Its almost universal, in my experience.
When a rule is mechanically complex and adds nothing to the game, people tend to ignore or "forget" about it.
The funny thing is that your sample build actually works if Rogue is, or can be, a favored class for that character.
That's the main reason behind the proliferation of all those crazed characters that read like Rog 1/Sor 4/Ftr 4/Drd 5/Extreme Uber 6
That's why, as a DM I check everyone's character at creation. If they pull something like that I simply tell them they are min-maxing number crunching cheese monkeys. And unless they can come up with a character that has a concept and RP value and is not just a bunch of numbers, they can leave my table.
|
I'll admit I'm getting tired of people complaining about features that are optional. Especially if they aren't features so overpowering that even though they were an option everyone took them anyways, which isn't the case here. Some gamers feel that in a magic world no-one could get to high level without developing some minor ability to manipulate magic, for those players the options are now there, for those who don't agree, well then guess what, it was optional to begin with so just don't take it. It's not the same as 4e where magic with a different name is being shoved down every characters throat.
I hope the magic stays with the rogue ( elemental Barbarians however...)
|
I'll admit I'm getting tired of people complaining about features that are optional. Especially if they aren't features so overpowering that even though they were an option everyone took them anyways, which isn't the case here. Some gamers feel that in a magic world no-one could get to high level without developing some minor ability to manipulate magic, for those players the options are now there, for those who don't agree, well then guess what, it was optional to begin with so just don't take it. It's not the same as 4e where magic with a different name is being shoved down every characters throat.
I completely agree here.
Furthermore, there are MANY other Rogue Talents in the list, and guess what, a Rogue who chooses Minor and/or Major Magic misses out on one or two of those other very useful Talent choices. There-in lies the trade-off.
Minor/Major Magic may not be your flavour, but undoubtedly it will be EXACTLY what someone else was looking for to match their character concept - someone who dabbles or has a "rouge talent" in magic, without the inconvenience of multi-classing.
There are several cantrip or 1st level spells that would complement the Rogue class nicely - in fact, it's a pity there isn't a further Rogue Talent that grants access to a 2nd level spell.
It's not really taking anything away from the dedicated casters in the group, in fact it more than likely frees them up from having to take one or two utility spells, because the Rogue now has that covered. And since he gets a cantrip at 2nd level, and a 1st-level spell at 4th level, it's not unbalancing either - a dedicated caster will be way ahead.
It also helps a little with groups in which there is no primary spell-caster! I see this occur a lot at Convention games where you don't really know who's bringing what classes to the table. So this is probably the main reason I'd vote to keep it in.
I like the magical talents. They convey that hedge-mage feeling a rogue is so good at without making him a real spellcaster.
I don't really understand those who claim that with those abilities, the rogue is suddenly a "spellcaster". To me, that's like claiming that because the wizard gets a BAB and proficiency in weapons, he's a warrior.
That's the main reason behind the proliferation of all those crazed characters that read like Rog 1/Sor 4/Ftr 4/Drd 5/Extreme Uber 6
Actually, I think more often it's Ftr 4/Rog 1/Uber 7/Leet 2/X-Tream Dipper 1/Hobby World Saver 3 (human or dwarf, obviously). Since PrCs never figured into multiclassing restrictions, this worked even without houseruling, and PrCs tend to be worse dipping offenders to boot.
To me it comes down to this: if you dont like those options (or any class option for that matter) then dont select them for your character or allow your players to select them but dont deprive those of us who do want them there of those same options. Plenty of class options I dont like but i see where many others might, so I say keep them. Can always house rule it. And this game does need a broad appeal if it is going to be anything but an obscure D&D spin off.
I have to agree with Kayoss, the talents dont even come close to threatening the territory of the actual spellcasters in a party and for the most part the rogue still needs them around. Actually, minor and major magic is pretty much just enough for the rogue to get himself into touble form time to time and need an actual caster to bail him out.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
Might I suggest that "Minor Magic" and "Major Magic" require the rogue to have ranks in UMD, representing training or minor skill in magic? Of course, if that is done, some of the other talents might have requirements - "Fast Stealth" requiring ranks in Stealth seems a *duh*, as does "Ledge Walker" requiring ranks in Acrobatics and "Quick Disable" having ranks in Disable Device.
On the barbarian:
Elemental Rage: "The barbarian calls on powerful totem spirits to infuse his weapons, empowering them with magical energy. This causes all of the barbarian's attacks deal an additional 1d6 points of energy damage for one round." continue with rest of power description.
Renewed Vigor: reword to "The barbarian recovers 1d8 points of damage + her Constitution modifier". Same effect, sounds less magical.
The rewording of Elemental Rage, however, opens up a huge avenue of "Totem" quasi-magical abilities. In a way, differentiating the Barbarian as "A fighter whose primal rage and devotion to totem spirits infuse his weapons (and armor)" sounds appealing to me.
Would this change the class too much?
To me it comes down to this: if you dont like those options (or any class option for that matter) then dont select them for your character or allow your players to select them but dont deprive those of us who do want them there of those same options.
I never got that mentality. It makes me sad that people are that selfish: "I don't understand gnomes, get rid of them or I stop playing", "Remove all mentions of drow or elf subraces from the books, they're worse than Hitler"..... Some people cannot be happy unless anyone else is unhappy. I'd say the world would be a better place if those people were found and subjected to unspeakable torture (well, at least I wouldn't be as bored on saturday afternoons when we don't play D&D)
Kayoss
Mind the e :P
To me it comes down to this: if you dont like those options (or any class option for that matter) then dont select them for your character or allow your players to select them but dont deprive those of us who do want them there of those same options.
I never got that mentality. It makes me sad that people are that selfish: "I don't understand gnomes, get rid of them or I stop playing", "Remove all mentions of drow or elf subraces from the books, they're worse than Hitler"..... Some people cannot be happy unless anyone else is unhappy. I'd say the world would be a better place if those people were found and subjected to unspeakable torture (well, at least I wouldn't be as bored on saturday afternoons when we don't play D&D)
KayossMind the e :P
You already have enough vowels in your name. Demanding more is just greedy. ;)
I think many people get wrapped up the egocentric view of "I like/dont like this in games so everyone would/wouldnt." A foreign concept to me. If my group runs into a rule/class/race/etc we dont like in a game then we dont use it. We dont write to the publisher demanding they remove it or we wont buy their game. As if that would work anyway.
I think it is better for a game system to include as many options as possible without getting too wordy or convoluted. This gives the game the greatest chance of broad appeal and allows a very nice flexibility for vairous campaigns. This is why I like sidebars so much such as we currently see for favored class hit point bonus, hit points in general and the suggest optional limitation on number of enchancements to 3. This option-based system is part of what I love about Jason's reworking of the classes. IN general, all of the classes have become much more adaptable...animal companion or nature domains, familiar or bonded item, rogue talents, rage powers, specialist wizards, bloodlines, etc. I think this inherent variable nature is what will make Pathfinder RPG a superior system to 3.5 in my opinion.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
I never got that mentality. It makes me sad that people are that selfish: "I don't understand gnomes, get rid of them or I stop playing"To me it comes down to this: if you dont like those options (or any class option for that matter) then dont select them for your character or allow your players to select them but dont deprive those of us who do want them there of those same options.
Amen, brothers.
|
|
It may just be me, but I don't like Minor/Major Magic and Dispelling Strike at all, since they are clearly 'proto-magical' class features. Having said that, I wouldn't mind seeing them cut from the game. One of the biggest turn-offs in 4E for me was the "magical" martial powers, and I wouldn't want to see them in PF.
Thoughts?
Personally, I like these options. And that's the great thing about them--they're options, so you don't have to take them if you don't want to.
|
|
Might I suggest that "Minor Magic" and "Major Magic" require the rogue to have ranks in UMD, representing training or minor skill in magic? Of course, if that is done, some of the other talents might have requirements - "Fast Stealth" requiring ranks in Stealth seems a *duh*, as does "Ledge Walker" requiring ranks in Acrobatics and "Quick Disable" having ranks in Disable Device.
On the barbarian:
Elemental Rage: "The barbarian calls on powerful totem spirits to infuse his weapons, empowering them with magical energy. This causes all of the barbarian's attacks deal an additional 1d6 points of energy damage for one round." continue with rest of power description.
Renewed Vigor: reword to "The barbarian recovers 1d8 points of damage + her Constitution modifier". Same effect, sounds less magical.
The rewording of Elemental Rage, however, opens up a huge avenue of "Totem" quasi-magical abilities. In a way, differentiating the Barbarian as "A fighter whose primal rage and devotion to totem spirits infuse his weapons (and armor)" sounds appealing to me.
Would this change the class too much?
Not really, and does add a good bit of tasty flavor. I'm in favor of flavor. :)
I tested the new Pathfinder Rules by recreating some of the bad guys from games I've played, and found that it worked really well.
One, for example, is a fallen knight who learned some magic in his youth and then became a traitor, in a sort of Darth Vader style. As stated, he ended up a Ftr5/Rog4/Blackguard 10 and he's SCARY. He's well-trained in deception, disguise, intimdation, infiltration etc, can case Alter Self and Mage Hand to be unpredictable. As a challenge for level 19 characters, he's way off... not even close. But when you're looking at him from the wrong end of 6th level... he can't be stopped, can't be beaten, and is the scariest guy on the planet.
It's gotten to such a point that when he even overshadows something in one of my games (as a recurring villain, he's fantastic), the players clap one hand over their left eye (in honour of Sir Kellen's eyepatch) and go pale. Most of them seriously contemplate running away.
Getting back to the point... I found Minor Magic and Major Magic quite handy... it let him continue progressing in rogue to build up his sneakiness and nastyness, but didn't mean I had to level-dip into wizard in order to give him a couple of small magic abilities.
I like the magic-y rogue abilities. There's no reason you have to choose them; in fact, most rogues won't. However, I feel like there's no real want for spellthief-like classes anymore, which is kind of nice, and a rogue can qualify for Arcane Trickster on his own (if you rule SLA = spell).
In addition, a rogue in our game had so much fun with it we added Greater Magic and Powerful Magic, for 2nd and 3rd level spells, as Advanced Talents (the SLAs from these can be used only 1/day). I'd even go so far to suggest these be added to the Pathfinder RPG, though probably wih better names.
|
|
I like the magic-y rogue abilities. There's no reason you have to choose them; in fact, most rogues won't. However, I feel like there's no real want for spellthief-like classes anymore, which is kind of nice, and a rogue can qualify for Arcane Trickster on his own (if you rule SLA = spell).
Now that's a really interesting application I hadn't considered - Rogue minor/major magic talents qualifying for Prestige Classes that require ability to cast 1st level arcane spells, or ability to cast a specifically named spell etc.
In addition, a rogue in our game had so much fun with it we added Greater Magic and Powerful Magic, for 2nd and 3rd level spells, as Advanced Talents (the SLAs from these can be used only 1/day). I'd even go so far to suggest these be added to the Pathfinder RPG, though probably wih better names.
Definitely. Maybe re-name them Minor/Intermediate/Major Magic ("Major" seems too grandiose a name for the ability to cast a 1st level spell). There are some very appropriate 2nd level spells for a Rogue.
Until they announce a Pathfinder Ninja base class (or even Rogue PRC), I like the magical abilities, because they let a player be a "ninja" sort of character, without the need for a splatbook.
I could see a skill prerequisite for the various abilities: bards have to deal with it for bardic music, so unless the Design Team changes that around, why not let the other skillmonkey class have a taste?
And then there are assassins. Rogues who kill and use magic to boot.
|
I converted a rogue that I have had for years and is 11th level. I took both minor and major magic. All that means is that he can cast 2 spells twice a day. One I took was detect magic doors and the other was something like detect or read magic. (I thought about identify for the major spell - what a nice thing for the rogue to have when the party does not know about it. I do not think this makes him particularly powerful it is almost just flavor and a bit handy from time to time.
Actually, I think more often it's Ftr 4/Rog 1/Uber 7/Leet 2/X-Tream Dipper 1/Hobby World Saver 3 (human or dwarf, obviously). Since PrCs never figured into multiclassing restrictions, this worked even without houseruling, and PrCs tend to be worse dipping offenders to boot.
Right, right LOL...
By the way, I do like the "magic dabbling" rogue talents, as I said before, they remind me of Gray Mouser and some other rogues of classic sword and sorcery, and without the need of multiclassing or level dips.
Options is what the game need: no one is forced to select them if they don't want to, and they enlarge the amount of character concepts you can create within a single class. The Pathfinder RPG is doing really great things in that direction, with the new paladins, wizards, sorcerers, druids, rogues and barbarians, and I'm really pleased with it. Let's hope rangers and monks get a similar treatment (animal companion, I'm looking at you).
Until they announce a Pathfinder Ninja base class (or even Rogue PRC)
They did. Sorta. Inofficially. They said that they want to do an Oriental Adventures style book somewhere down the line for Chronicles, and that it will have new classes (and of course the ninja will be in there) as well as new options/variants for the existing classes. By the way, it will deal with Golarion's oriental regions.
The book is not official yet, and it's not 100% sure that it will be done, but they're definetly thinking about it, and thinking real hard.
|
|
Until they announce a Pathfinder Ninja base class (or even Rogue PRC)They did. Sorta. Inofficially. They said that they want to do an Oriental Adventures style book somewhere down the line for Chronicles, and that it will have new classes (and of course the ninja will be in there) as well as new options/variants for the existing classes. By the way, it will deal with Golarion's oriental regions.
The book is not official yet, and it's not 100% sure that it will be done, but they're definetly thinking about it, and thinking real hard.
I hope they do. I also hope they make a full martial arts system to go along with it. I would love for a monk to be able to be a real martial artist, complete with different style specializations.
I like it.
There have offered a long list of options. There are plenty of appealing choices for completely non-magical rogues. But if a particular rogue is a dabbler concept, that is there as well.
If a DM doesn't want dabbler rogues, then strike those for the specific campaign.
But I do think it is a valid archetype to support. And it is much better to make PF as open as possible and expect DMs to trim to fit their own preference.
"Remove all mentions of drow or elf subraces from the books, they're worse than Hitler"
But elves are worse than Hitler. Just read my newsletter! It's something even dwarves and orcs can agree on!
"Remove all mentions of drow or elf subraces from the books, they're worse than Hitler"But elves are worse than Hitler. Just read my newsletter! It's something even dwarves and orcs can agree on!
Why are you making a newsletter? Neither dwarves and orcs can read. And they're not real humanoids, anyway, so why care what they agree on. Just do them a favour and put them to sleep.
|
|
I'm not a huge fan of them either, but they are not automatically part of the suite, so I'm OK with that. You have the choice not to take them. I know one or two players who always wanted to take a level or two in sorcerer from their rogue to gain a spell or two that could help with their theivery, so I know it will be popular with some folks. And as a DM I wouldn't nix 'em.
-DM Jeff
My issue is that I just don't see this as being "equal". If you want your rogue to have some magical abilities it still looks like it is FAR better to take just one level of sorcerer. You get to know 4 0-level spells (as opposed to one) that you can cast 5 times a day (as opposed to 2) AND you get to know 2 1st-level spells (as opposed to one) that you can cast 3 times (as opposed to 2) and that doesn't take into consideration higher intelligence. The only benefit that I can see is that your caster level gradually increases with your rogue level with the talents. But that doesn't seem to mean much with regard to 0-level spells and perhaps a little more effect with 1st-level.
I'm not saying to get rid of them, but perhaps they need to be looked at a little more closely to make them a little more "special" or unique to the rogue.
