Ok here's the deal:
While I too think that rogues should excel in skill related things, there is no real argument why only a rogue could be a fast crawler or a fast sneaker (rangers?!).
Furthermore, it works for fighters the same way! They get bonus feats chosen from either their bonus feats or the combat maneuvers, BUT those can also be chosen by any other character! The fighter just get's much more of them.
So my proposal: Make most or all those nifty rogue talents, general talents with the (rogue) or (skill) suffix and just give the rogue one of those at every other level.
Personal note: Since the rogue should be no combat focused character things like weapon focus or finesse and combat maneuvers should be taken with general character (and not class) feats. My POV.
The only problem I see with this is where a feat that should have been general in the first place has a list of tags that stretch out longer than the description of the feat itself.
It allows drow to be just elves with the minor and major magic feats, thus unifying them both into one race. (Much as BOTH branches want us to believe they are entirely seperate races.)
It also opens the floor for a method for fighters and rogues to pick up each other's feats without having to actually multiclass.
But mostly, I like this because instead of class-limited features, it opens the playing field. Spellthief has arcane and stealth picks; Paladin has divine and combat picks; ranger has stealth and divine picks, et cetera. No more do we need to worry about whether we want three levels of hexblade just for the curse stuff.
It also means that even though paladins are lawful good, I can make a Hellknight out of a fighter or cleric by taking picks from the other class.
In general, I approve of this. It's given me other ideas that I won't write here, and opens up a HUGE world of flexibility without being overly complicated.
My concern with this: Where does it stop?
Now fighters and rogues are generic classes with bonus feats instead of other things, and we see that the Ranger could be the same, and you just make Favoured Enemy and Animal Companion feats. And the monk with his unarmed fighting. And the Barbarian's rage.
You end up in a game where classes have become obsolete. At best, you need warrior, expert, adept, and govern everything else with feats.
I don't say it's a bad thing, but it's not D&D. It should not be D&D. I like classes, and I want one decent game out there that uses them.
If I want only the most basic of classes, I can already play True 20.
I think well-defined classes are one of D&D's sacred cows, and I'm against the senseless slaughter of animals - sacred or not - and since the freezers are already full of meat, we can let this one live and refresh ourselves with its delicious milk!
Since now, I don't see ANY well-defined classes.
And if you have a problem with making abilities into feats, why is this no concern regarding the fighter?
Than why not making every combat related feat (mainly all combat maneuvers) a fighter specific ability like the rogue talents?
Why is the fighter the ONLY class which has to SHARE his special talents?
And btw, I don't say make all class abilities into feats. But every so called class ability where you can choose between some feats AND some special abilities should be changed that way.
My favored example: Everybody can learn acrobatics. But only the rogue can learn how-to fast tumble? Why?
And what's that resiliency? Hello? For a rogue BUT NOT FOR A FIGHTER?
Right now, the rogue is just to much on the way into what the fighters territory should have been.
Hi KaeYoss. Anything to say?
I have a house rule myself that allows rogues to trade in sneak attack dice for bonus feats from their own list.
I'm just against turning everything (or even everything that can be chosen from a list) into feats, as it waters down classes too much in my eyes. I'd prefer the classes in D&D to really mean something. I want to be able to say: "Rogue's - they're the... 'tactical warriors '(cough*backstabber*cough) and masters of skills" and "Barbarians - they're the berserk warriors" and so on.
I'm not against class-less or near class-less systems in general, I just don't want D&D to turn into one.
Sorry for that. Just saw Iron Man, and he didn't made a big deal about it. ;)
While I don't like the sneak attack thing as is, I think it should stay a class unique feature (ARRGH the pain!).
BUT: I really think, the Rogue Talents (as they are named in 3P) should point to general feats takable by any class meeting the prereqs (like fast crawl or jump up - or what ever the name was).
Furthermore I don't like the rogue being able to take combat feats with their bonus feats (Rogue Talents) since this just put's them too close to the fighter again.
The Rogue is no combat versatility trained class. She is about sneaking around, getting foe where it really hurts when they don't expect it. Let them be powerful when they do it, but don't let them be the second best combat class around (Optimisticlly thought, meaning the fighter as the best class, but I know they are not (yet))
Hey JRM, I really like your ideas.
Just saw Iron Man, and he didn't made a big deal about it. ;)
That's probably because no one liked him. So what would the villains do if they found out his secret identity? Go to the people he knows and trade things they hate about him? Abduct them and send IM a letter "If you don't come to the old factory at midnight, I'll let them go again!"?
BUT: I really think, the Rogue Talents (as they are named in 3P) should point to general feats takable by any class meeting the prereqs (like fast crawl or jump up - or what ever the name was).
At this, I'm not quite sure. Many of those things scream rogue. Rogues the uncanny, agile movers. It's something that doesn't increase damage output, and I agree that rogues should not just be about damage.
Furthermore I don't like the rogue being able to take combat feats with their bonus feats (Rogue Talents) since this just put's them too close to the fighter again.
On that I agree. That one option can be disappeared, since it's a bunch of general combat abilities. If it was a list tailored to the rogue's style (stealth, exploiting inattention, movement, skills), I wouldn't mind.
The Rogue is no combat versatility trained class. She is about sneaking around, getting foe where it really hurts when they don't expect it. Let them be powerful when they do it, but don't let them be the second best combat class around (Optimisticlly thought, meaning the fighter as the best class, but I know they are not (yet))
I'm still convinced that the fighter outfights the rogue. Even with sneak attack, the rogue can't quite match the sustained (and more reliable) damage output a fighter is capable of(he does his damage if he hits, without caring for initiative or flanking. And he's morelikely to hit to boot)
Then again, I don't penalize XP for multi-classing.
Neither do I. Pain in the back, needlessly limiting character concepts.
I don't play with min/maxers, though. The PCs in my games are conceptually/developmentally optimized rather than stat/combat/game-mechanically optimized.
You can do both at once. Well, maybe not true and total optimisation, but it's absolutely possible to create characters that are both quite effective and quite flavourful.
|
I like the rogue talents the way they are, I hope They make Ranger Talents, and Monk Training as well. These are the things that separate the rogue into a separate class...by giving them access to NON-feat abilities...
Later it would be easy to introduce new talents based upon regions, or races.
I don't want to see them as Bonus feat from X list.
I don't think weapon finesse should have to be taken as a general feat, it works perfectly as a "rogue" talent...
Remember it's not a Thief anymore, it's a Rogue...rogue come in many flavors...from the dabbler, to the shady swordsman.
I have to disagree with the opening post. Opening the "fighter feats" up to everyone castrated the Fighter class in the first place. Fighters have no class abilities - beyond Weapon Specialization - that are their own. Doing the same to the rogue would be shameful.
|
|
I don't think weapon finesse should have to be taken as a general feat, it works perfectly as a "rogue" talent...We are talking about the Pathfinder RPG version of the Rogue aren't we? Weapon Finesse is already among its Rogue Talents - see Finesse Rogue on page 24 of Alpha Release 2.
someone else thought that weapon finesse should be taken as a general feat, not as a rogue talent.