Well I wrote a longer post and the forums ate it, which isn't the first time. Very annoying.
Anyway, I'm making a rogue for an upcoming Pathfinder game I'll be playing in a I noticed very quickly that my rogue was shaping up quite differently than past rogues I've played.
Basically, my rogue had almost no need for Int anymore. With the skill consolidation (especially Search into Perception) and some skills changing stats (like Disable Device becoming Dex instead of Int), I really didn't Int at all.
In 3.5, I usually make Int the second highest stat for a rogue. With Pathfinder, there was almost no need.
Search definitely shouldn't be combined with Perception and it should also stay Int. It makes Perception way too powerful. I'm ok with Open Locks into Disable Device but it should be Int. I'd also like to see Jump stay as-is and just combine Tumble and Balance into Acrobatics.
For the record:
Your other post can be found here:
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/feedback/alpha3/skillsFeats/tooMuchSkillConsolidationAlsoRoguesDontNeedI ntAnymore
Not sure if that'll automatically link or not.. am not sure how to make it into one.
Cheers.
-S
You're post sounds like you consider this a bad thing, but you don't explain why.
|
By my count, there's still 14 skills that cover general "Rogue-ish" things, quasi-legal, illegal, and Dex-based talents that most other classes don't cover. Acrobatics, Appraise, Bluff, Climb, Diplomacy (to cover the folded-in Gather Information), Disable Device, Disguise, Escape Artist, Knowledge (local), Linguistics, Perception, Sleight of Hand, Stealth, and Use Magic Device. You might add Sense Motive to that list, as well.
Now even with 8+ Int ranks per level, that'll still leave a lot of general "Rogue-ish" areas uncovered, Int modifier above 0 or not.
It's a lot easier to play a low Int Rogue under Pathfinder, but still sub-optimal. Guess they finally figured out that Merisiel needed some help.
Edit: True, only two of those skills are Int-based now, but still 14/15 skills and 8 + Int mod points per level doesn't lead to full proficiency in those factoring in an Int penalty, even for a human Rogue.
|
Goodbye INT. My thief is dumb and loving it.
We had a similar conversation yesterday during our playtesting game.
The players thought it was beneficial that they could actually have a charismatic rogue now or even a strong one
The best comment was from the one player I consider to be the least min/maxer I've played with in 10+ years when she said, "Well, now you all can actually make a rogue the way you WANT the character to be and not feel you have to min/max a high INT just for some extra Disable Points. Now the character can be as stupid as it should be."
I loved it!
Robert
Goodbye INT. My thief is dumb and loving it.
Bwahahaha!
I love it. I tend agree with the consolidation. Rogues shouldn't have to be geniuses to be good at their core class stuff.
Hmmm, perhaps something like Acrobatics covering balance and tumble and the like and Athletics covering Swim, Jump and Climb? Or would that be too 4e? Just a thought, makes sense logically.
I also wouldn't mind seeing Search return but as it stands I like the present array and think the adjustments I'd like to see aren't too important, if anything: houserule.
Hmmm, perhaps something like Acrobatics covering balance and tumble and the like and Athletics covering Swim, Jump and Climb? Or would that be too 4e? Just a thought, makes sense logically.
I also wouldn't mind seeing Search return but as it stands I like the present array and think the adjustments I'd like to see aren't too important, if anything: houserule.
The first point makes absolute sense; Does every person who can jump have the ability to tumble? I don't think so. It also makes jump attempts modified by strength again.
I have always agreed that search should be a separate skill from perception as well.
Hmmm, perhaps something like Acrobatics covering balance and tumble and the like and Athletics covering Swim, Jump and Climb? Or would that be too 4e? Just a thought, makes sense logically.
I kind of like this, the thing is no one really ever puts ranks in swim. When some of the classes have a whopping 2 skill ranks per level and half your group is wearing armor it sort of seems pointless.
Of course my PC group has to attack a group in some half submerged buildings this week. I'll bet they're missing their swim ranks now :)
I definitely like the idea of merging climb and jump into one skill, I'm not entirely sure about swim though but considering that is the only way ranks would get put into it it might be a good idea.
|
|
Hmmm, perhaps something like Acrobatics covering balance and tumble and the like and Athletics covering Swim, Jump and Climb? Or would that be too 4e? Just a thought, makes sense logically.I kind of like this, the thing is no one really ever puts ranks in swim. When some of the classes have a whopping 2 skill ranks per level and half your group is wearing armor it sort of seems pointless.
Of course my PC group has to attack a group in some half submerged buildings this week. I'll bet they're missing their swim ranks now :)
I definitely like the idea of merging climb and jump into one skill, I'm not entirely sure about swim though but considering that is the only way ranks would get put into it it might be a good idea.
This has been discussed on a number of skill threads - no need to completely rehash it - but needless to say it's a popular opinion to mix climb and jump together.
Swim should stay alone as is. Note that Im not 100% convinced that Jump and Climb need to be combined - but I'm far more in favor of that, then combining jump with tumble - if for no other reason than to keep Jump as Str based and on Fighters list.
Robert
Honestly for the reasons stated above I think swim should definitely be included. If for anything than that it's STR based like climb and Jump. Toss in that it's not taken too often (On the rare occasion I play I try to toss a skill point or two into it just to be on the safe side, and even then that's only if I can afford it). Add that to the fact that fighters and other low skill classes only get 2+int skill points and it makes more sense.
I myself don't see anything wrong with making the minimum skill points be 4+int bonus. It would make room for some of the unused skills to get some use, at such a time I'd have no qualms with a separate swim check.
But that's just me, the way I see it I can voice my opinion and try and push for the rules to get as close to how I'd like them as possible and then simply house rule it the rest of the way so no skin off my nose. :-)
Sorry for the rehashing. :-P
You're rogues don't need to swim? Water is a great barrier. Castles, manor houses and so on use it. Cities have canals and rivers pass through them. Even dungeons have underground lakes and rivers (mine have abandoned canals too). Swimming gets you through it. Of course, slipping into the water with the gods know what can raise the tension just a bit. But that's not a bad thing. For the DM anyway. Besides, just because the fighters can't swim doesn't mean you shouldn't escape that hopeless last stand on the river bank :D And don't forget, carry the gems, leave the gold...
The point I was trying to make with my post is that building a rogue in PF was very different than building one in 3.5, mostly due to the lack of choices I had to make. Because of the greatly consolidated skill list, I could have everything I wanted and still be able to go back and adjust my stats, specifically making Int lower.
Trust me, I'm a huge fan of being able to play Charismatic or low-Int rogues but I think the consolidated skill list goes a bit too far.
Here's what I would do for a skill list:
Acrobatics = Balance, Tumble
Disable Device (but keep it Int) = DD, Open Locks
Stealth = Hide, MS
Perception = Listen, Spot
Keep Climb, Jump, Swim, and Search (stays Int)
|
Jump should be part of acrobaticsI disagree.
In various threads good arguments have been made for keeping Jump in Acrobatics and for moving it to Athletics. Why not include it in both? Thus, both the big strong fighter and the little wiry rogue can jump, and everybody's happy. (Of course, the skills wouldn't stack- a character with both skills would just use the better one for Jump.)
|
|
I agree with the idea of being able to achieve jump using 2 different methods (should apply to other things as well on occasion). The result shouldnt necessarily be identical though. Acrobatic Jump would let you land on your feet or however you wanted. Athletic Jump gives you the power but not the precision so would be less good. The burly fighter would make it across, but he would be prone and rubbing the dust from his face. The athletic rogue would have rolled and come up on his feet, ready to face what was there.
As to the topic in general, I agree with no longer being bound to int as much. I personally prefer to play smart rogues, but I did note than in standard 3.5 you basicly dont have any other choice. You *need* int. I have actually had int higher than dex with rogues before, and sometimes made the best of it by cross mixing them with swashbuckler and duelist to make them a light, smart, fighter/rogue.
But with less focus on int, it becomes easier to make a rogue as a charming con man/woman instead without sacrificing too much by placing int lower on the priority list. Or strength/con and making basicly a thug type rogue.
Now that I've thought more about this, I actually think moving Search into Perception (Wis) and making Disable Device Dex-based instead of Int has more to do with lessening the need of Int for rogues than the consolidation of skills.
Other than Appraise, which one could argue isn't a "core" rogue skill anyway, there are no rogue skills based on Int anymore. I think that's a problem.
Now that I've thought more about this, I actually think moving Search into Perception (Wis) and making Disable Device Dex-based instead of Int has more to do with lessening the need of Int for rogues than the consolidation of skills.
Other than Appraise, which one could argue isn't a "core" rogue skill anyway, there are no rogue skills based on Int anymore. I think that's a problem.
Why? Seriously, why do rogues need INT based skills? Or for that matter why should they need a high INT at all? The great thing about this is that regular rogues are good at skills and INT based rogues are awesome at them which is IMO how it should be.
Why? Seriously, why do rogues need INT based skills? Or for that matter why should they need a high INT at all? The great thing about this is that regular rogues are good at skills and INT based rogues are awesome at them which is IMO how it should be.
Just to inject a note of reality (yes, I know it's fanatsy), there's a word for stupid criminals. P-R-I-S-O-N-E-R. Given that fantasy societies tend to be a bit harder on their criminals than we are C-O-R-P-S-E also comes to mind. Beggar is a posibility too if they whack off hands. Given the skill based nature of the Rogue class they should be smart. If they've reduced / combined the number of skills to a point where they don't have to be, then they've made a mistake. The classic rogue figures in literature have to be Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser. Not exactlly idiots. Gygax's Gord the Rogue was no fool either. And I'm not saying they have to be "book smart" but they should be clever and wilely. Petty thieves might get away with being idiots by preying on the underbelly of society, but the PCs aren't going to be robbing workmen on their way home. They are after more dangerous, and lucrative, prey. My two coppers.
Well first, rogues are not necessarily criminals. In the case of D&D they are doing about 90% of the same things as the rest of the party. Second, D&D is a poor simulation of fictitious works. The problem with forcing the rogue to have a high INT is that it fits poorly into the gaming system. Gord and Mouser both were Intelligent, Agile, AND strong. In D&D you really don't have that option. Generally you can expect a player to be very strong in one of the 3, decent in the other and average in the third and that's assuming you forgo charisma, wisdom, and constitution entirely.
While avoiding and disarming traps is cool and all, and opening locks is nice pretty much everyone wants their character to be effective in combat. For my group in any case what this meant is that the players put their stats in roughly this order for rogues: DEX-STR-CON-INT-CHA-WIS the effect is that in 3.5 their character generally sucked at everything that rogues were supposed to be good at.
I tend to agree with you that rogues should be smart. Unfortunately the game system does a poor job of rewarding intelligent characters who are not wizards.
Don't forget that a 12 Int is fairly "smart" in D&D terms, with a 10 being average.
As long as you don't give rogues an Intelligence below a 10, they're smart enough to stay out of jail most of the time, and to have joined a guild to help out the rest of the times they're caught.
And if you want a "clever, wily" rogue, give him a 12 or higher Wisdom.
Well first, rogues are not necessarily criminals. In the case of D&D they are doing about 90% of the same things as the rest of the party. Second, D&D is a poor simulation of fictitious works. The problem with forcing the rogue to have a high INT is that it fits poorly into the gaming system. Gord and Mouser both were Intelligent, Agile, AND strong. In D&D you really don't have that option. Generally you can expect a player to be very strong in one of the 3, decent in the other and average in the third and that's assuming you forgo charisma, wisdom, and constitution entirely.
While avoiding and disarming traps is cool and all, and opening locks is nice pretty much everyone wants their character to be effective in combat. For my group in any case what this meant is that the players put their stats in roughly this order for rogues: DEX-STR-CON-INT-CHA-WIS the effect is that in 3.5 their character generally sucked at everything that rogues were supposed to be good at.
I tend to agree with you that rogues should be smart. Unfortunately the game system does a poor job of rewarding intelligent characters who are not wizards.
I'd say the bulk of rogues make their living moving someone elses goods. Ah, for the good old days when they called a thief a thief... their skills shout "burglar". The adventuring thie..., er rogue has just found a more socially acceptable way to exercise his talents. I still wouldn't expect them to trust you around the good silver. Or their girl / boy friends, but that's another problem.
I'd say the rogue should put his best foot forward in Dexterity and Intelligence. I'm not sure why you think rogues should fight. That, for the gods sake, is what they keep fighters and clerics around for :) Leather armor and mediocre hit dice don't shout "combatant" to me. Barring sneaking around and planting a knife in someone, I'd think combat is the last refuge for a rogue. If you want to sneak and fight I'd say you should plan on being a ranger. If you don't plan on dying in combat then Strength and Constitution are less important. Charisma and Wisdom should trump them. If your going to be weak you'd better be charming and crafty. Anyway, the whole point of a high intelligence is to max your skills -- which is what makes a rogue a rogue. There is your reward, being skilled. Not just relying on brute force, the gods, or a spellbook. Getting it done through talent, planning, perseverance and a dash of luck.
*edit* This, of course is the thie... rogues view. IMO of course. Oddly enough it double posted me, but just your quote none of my reply... oh well, I deleted it.
|
While avoiding and disarming traps is cool and all, and opening locks is nice pretty much everyone wants their character to be effective in combat. For my group in any case what this meant is that the players put their stats in roughly this order for rogues: DEX-STR-CON-INT-CHA-WIS the effect is that in 3.5 their character generally sucked at everything that rogues were supposed to be good at.
I find this point of view curious. The rogues at my table are usually DEX-INT-CHA-CON-STR-WIS so they can accomplish their many roles. DEX is first, of course, for the many benefits that it brings. INT was thought as a must-have because of the skill points it provided, playing directly into the rogue strengths. CHA was used for UMD, the rogue's forte (yes UMD is one of the most powerful features of the rogue, so much so that I see DEX-CHA rogues more often than DEX-STR or DEX-CON rogues) and a basis for his social skills. After the "top three" the rest were arranged to player taste.
The DEX-STR-CON-INT-CHA-WIS rogue you describe is what I would call a "thug rogue" instead of a "finesse rogue". I agree thug rogues are lacking in thief-like skills (we just had someone try it and their poor skill load-out was glaringly apparent to all) but the rogue's combat strength does not really come from a high STR or CON, it comes from occasional sneak attack damage dice (where an extra +1 or +2 to hit that a high STR would give is offset by the flatfooted-ness of the enemy) and use of powerful magic items through UMD.
I tend to agree with you that rogues should be smart. Unfortunately the game system does a poor job of rewarding intelligent characters who are not wizards.
Well, with a build of DEX-STR-CON-INT-CHA-WIS, you are intentionally not making the rogue smart. By placing INT and CHA much higher in your priority, the rogue will lose little in terms of combat effectiveness. He (still) won't be able to compete with the fighter in terms of staying power or maybe even damage dealt, but if he uses a Wand of Magic Missiles to disrupt an enemy spellcaster every action, he is certainly pulling his weight in combat.
In short, if you envision your character as a nimble, swashbuckling swordsman that wreaks havoc by striking enemies where it hurts the most, then you need to play a fighter. If you want a character that is a master of stealth, the ambush (followed by a mad flight to safety), and trickery, then play a rogue. Of course a Rogue/Fighter is a great combination too if melee fighting round to round is what you are interested in.
Maybe it's a product of the dungeons we've played and the people I've DMed. Players that have characters that are ineffective in combat get frustrated. Sneak attack doesn't seem to be as common in my group as in some peoples, I'm not sure why. When the rogue in my group can't sneak attack she likes to snipe with the bow and that extra 1-2 points of damage per hit adds up at the levels our group tends to play.
Some of it has to do with the group you are in also. If you have a small group then almost evryone needs to help in combat, bigger groups rogues can hang back and wait for their chance to shine.
Personally when I create a rogue I make sure INT is at least 12 but generally not much higher than that.
There are a lot of rogue builds you can do. With the consolidated skills they are all now viable. The DEX/ INT rogue is even more effective than before. The DEX/ STR or the DEX/ CHA rogue are also viable options and potentially effective. Overall... I like, probably a bigger help to rogues than the rogue tricks.
|
Hmmm, perhaps something like Acrobatics covering balance and tumble and the like and Athletics covering Swim, Jump and Climb? Or would that be too 4e? Just a thought, makes sense logically.I kind of like this, the thing is no one really ever puts ranks in swim. When some of the classes have a whopping 2 skill ranks per level and half your group is wearing armor it sort of seems pointless.
Of course my PC group has to attack a group in some half submerged buildings this week. I'll bet they're missing their swim ranks now :)
I definitely like the idea of merging climb and jump into one skill, I'm not entirely sure about swim though but considering that is the only way ranks would get put into it it might be a good idea.
After nearly drowning to death at least three times in the last two campaigns I have Swim maxed out. Darn that 2x armor penalty!
This current campaign started out on the coast. 5 1st lvl PCs being chased by a HORDE or gnolls! We saw a boat just off the coast... our only hope. We swam for it.
I (the cleric of a Fire god) did great. The wizard almost drowns. So I go back to help. I save him but then *I* almost drown.
In another one we were in a fight with a BUNCH of kobold pirates on the high seas. They had about 8 ships I think it was. I decided to jump overboard and swim to the nearest(about 200 feet) intending to flame strike everything on it. Roll my Swim check. Then remembered I was wearing Plate armor. Double the modifer. I sink and sink and sink. And then I sunk some more. The Druid of the Ocean Goddess shows up and saves me.
The cleric of a Fire God was saved by a Druid of the Ocean Goddess! That does NOT look good on the afterlife resume.
The fact that the rogue now has really few Int based skills doesn't mean Int. is useless for him. You still need so much skill points when you play a rogue.
But I must say that I would prefer to have Disable Device based on Int.
|
|
Well first, rogues are not necessarily criminals. In the case of D&D they are doing about 90% of the same things as the rest of the party.
Absolutely! 100% agreement.
Second, D&D is a poor simulation of fictitious works. The problem with forcing the rogue to have a high INT is that it fits poorly into the gaming system. Gord and Mouser both were Intelligent, Agile, AND strong. In D&D you really don't have that option. Generally you can expect a player to be very strong in one of the 3, decent in the other and average in the third and that's assuming you forgo charisma, wisdom, and constitution entirely.
This may be true about fictitious work being poor similuation of the game; however, it's probably just as true that theirs just as much an arguement that the viewers/readers perceptions are skewed, too. Since a standard person is a 10 on a stat, and the average person is smart enough not to get in jail, not clumsy enough to constantly trip over everything, and not so weak that they can't carry boxes and occasional yard-work - to increase those 10s to just 14s is the difference of a of someone who is average to someone who could litterally run laps around someone. You dont need an 18 strength to be considered Strong. Titan on American Gladiators - 18 Strength perhaps. But there are a lot of very strong persons who dont come close to his body-building weight-lifting capabilities.
D&D stat building system is indeed capable of have a 14 in the three stats you mentioned, and such a person would be very strong, smart, and agile in the eyes of the casual observer. Such a person would be able to be a professional athlete. He may not be Kobe Bryant or Michael Jordan agile, or Titan or Shaq strong - but certainly league above the norm/avg and easily and readily identified as such by anyone watching. Thus it's quite plausible that such fictitious characters when being described have 14s and the viewer automatically assumes that by being described as strong and agile to have 18s in all - and of that is impossible by standard stat-creation of D&D.
While avoiding and disarming traps is cool and all, and opening locks is nice pretty much everyone wants their character to be effective in combat. For my group in any case what this meant is that the players put their stats in roughly this order for rogues: DEX-STR-CON-INT-CHA-WIS the effect is that in 3.5 their character generally sucked at everything that rogues were supposed to be good at.I tend to agree with you that rogues should be smart. Unfortunately the game system does a poor job of rewarding intelligent characters who are not wizards.
We have similar experiences here, also. Combat isn't everything - but most people I know want to be effective when it comes time to do it - especially those who love Paizo's work - who seem to create excellent combat encounters.
I dont necessarily agree that the game does a poor job of rewarding intelligent creatures - having an extra maxed out skill comes in mighty handy more often than not. The difference in two similarly built rogues - the lesser INT could have all the needed skills required to make a good rogue build, but the other with a 12 INT has all those same skills, but also has that little extra and now has Linguistics too! And now he can bluff in just about every language known in the area! Its a luxury that is afforded only if you care to put emphasis on ones intelligence.
Robert
|
|
I'd say the bulk of rogues make their living moving someone elses goods. Ah, for the good old days when they called a thief a thief... their skills shout "burglar". The adventuring thie..., er rogue has just found a more socially acceptable way to exercise his talents. I still wouldn't expect them to trust you around the good silver. Or their girl / boy friends, but that's another problem.
I'd say the rogue should put his best foot forward in Dexterity and Intelligence. I'm not sure why you think rogues should fight. That, for the gods sake, is what they keep fighters and clerics around for :) Leather armor and mediocre hit dice don't shout "combatant" to me. Barring sneaking around and planting a knife in someone, I'd think combat is the last refuge for a rogue. If you want to sneak and fight I'd say you should plan on being a ranger....
I have to disagree.
I'd say that bulk of "thieves" make their living moving someone elses goods.
To pigeon hole all rogues to be "thieves" and fences and to simply dismiss 'rogue' as someone you just couldn't trust regardless, is a mistake.
I'll agree that Rogues abilities give them the propensity to becoming thieves; but even Conan was a 'thief;' so it quite logical that anyone can become a thief regardless of predisposition.
I see rogues as filling a vast number of roles, and styles. I consider many of the special mission forces to be modern-day rogues. Take the small crew in the movie Executive Decision with their high stealthy mobility and tinking with eltronics and devices, they are the epitome of a specialized rogue dealing with stealth and disabling. Dingo in Clear and Present Danger (and other Clancy books) would be another example of such a rogue (though an arguement could be made for ranger I suppose). Such roles as these demand so much attention to detail and fellowship that they are about as lawful, regimented, organized, and dutiful as you can get - and i would trust them far more than I would trust most police officers / law enforcement persons I've met.
The role of the rogue has definitely changed in D&D since 1st edition; many still do become thieves and move goods; but just as many serve a number of various roles that don't necessarily revolve around larceny - and are just as if not more important aspect to an adventuring group.
Robert
I have to disagree.
I'd say that bulk of "thieves" make their living moving someone elses goods.
To pigeon hole all rogues to be "thieves" and fences and to simply dismiss 'rogue' as someone you just couldn't trust regardless, is a mistake.
I'll agree that Rogues abilities give them the propensity to becoming thieves; but even Conan was a 'thief;' so it quite logical that anyone can become a thief regardless of predisposition.
I see rogues as filling a vast number of roles, and styles. I consider many of the special mission forces to be modern-day rogues. Take the small crew in the movie Executive Decision with their high stealthy mobility and tinking with eltronics and devices, they are the epitome of a specialized rogue dealing with stealth and disabling. Dingo in Clear and Present Danger (and other Clancy books) would be another example of such a rogue (though an arguement could be made for ranger I suppose). Such roles as these demand so much attention to detail and fellowship that they are about as lawful, regimented, organized, and dutiful as you can get - and i would trust them far more than I would trust...
Most of the roles Rogues fill are just a bit... shady. Thief, con man, fence, spy, the list goes on. The Scout is an exception. Most of the trustworthy / military stealthy roles could be filled by a Ranger better. Especially a commando type. There were two reasons for the shift from "Thief" to "Rogue". One is, as you've mentioned, broadening the role. The other was your basic poltically correct re-christening. Demons and devils got name changes for similar reasons (although you can now call them what they are). At one point the Assassin class was eliminated not so much because it wasn't popular / used, but because it was bad for the image of the game. Along those lines, most parents are much happier with little Johnny explaining his Rogue character to Grandma rather than his Thief... all IMO, of course.
*edit* Not to say that thieves can't be the good guys btw, Robin Hood springs to mind (although again you could, and probably should, think "Ranger" in that case). Ali Baba is another. Although one suspects they are the exception rather than the rule. And this is not saying that a Rogue can't be loyal to his fellow adventurers...