|
Personally, I'd lose Minor/Major Magic and Dispelling Strike, because they don't fit my image of the single-classed rogues as "martial" characters. Of course, you may choose not to pick them and as a DM you can ban them, but I still find them annoying and thematically inappropriate...Fair enough, but rogues always have been adept at "Use Magic Device," even back in the older editions of the game, so dabbling in magic strikes me as flavor-appropriate. I think of a thief who has read enough scrolls that something stuck in his head.
Yes, but using scrolls has not been a low-level ability ever, and it (and why rogues have Use Magic Device) can be explained by his role as "skill monkey" (i.e. curiosity, perceptiveness and the ability and will to learn a bit about everything). IMO it's Bards who actually could be said to "dabble" in magic...
Even if you picked the worst rogue talents every time, you would still be more powerful than a 3.5 rogue. Do you consider the 3.5 rogue to be unplayably weak?
Beside the point. First, Pathfinder boosted the power of all the classes, and the rogue needs to stay competitive. Second, it's bad game design to give players sub-par options if you can help it. Re-writing the spells isn't actually that bad an idea, but there are limitations on how much you can do because of backwards compatibility (and more to the point, we're not there yet). If we can make Minor and Major Arcana worth taking, we should. Otherwise, it's like you're trying to trick the player into wasting abilities.
Second, it's bad game design to give players sub-par options if you can help it.
I've seen people say that a few times. It's ridiculous, though -- all 1st level spells have to be as powerful as Sleep or Colour Spray? All weapons have to be as good as a spiked chain? All classes have to be as powerful as the cleric? If that's really how you feel, you must be extremely, extremely unhappy with all incarnations of D&D.
I've seen people say that a few times. It's ridiculous, though -- all 1st level spells have to be as powerful as Sleep or Colour Spray? All weapons have to be as good as a spiked chain? All classes have to be as powerful as the cleric? If that's really how you feel, you must be extremely, extremely unhappy with all incarnations of D&D.
No. All options should be about as equal as we can make them while maintaining plausibility. It is implausible that a human would be as innately powerful as a half-celestial, so we give the half-celestial template some nice bonuses and toss on a LA in the hopes of letting the two play together without one overshining the other. A club is not going to be as good a weapon as a longsword, but it's also easier to find/make clubs and you're more likely to be proficient in their use. Spiked chains are better than shortswords, but they require a feat to be proficient, and we could always bump the spiked chain down a bit (and probably will, when we get to equipment).
In other words, you just strawmanned me. If two things are unequal, they should be made equal if you can, whether that means bumping up one or bumping down the other. Weapon Finesse isn't especially powerful for a Rogue Talent and would be difficult to bump down, so this means in this case, the others need to be adjusted up.
Spending two talents on this is very cruel, methinks. If they were combined into a single talent, I'm pretty sure that the rogue could better stomach the loss of a talent. While being able to cast true strike is nice, as is dispelling strike, spending a talent to cast cantrips alone is kind of like making the wizard spend a feat for his familiar.
I strongly disagree. I like the way this is setup just fine. YOU'RE A ROGUE, NOT A CASTER. The fact that you can even pull spells out of your backside is quite amazing unto itself.
Not only that, but now that 'APPRAISE' w/ 'DETECT MAGIC' and/or 'IDENTIFY' is how you determine the magical properties of items you could be quite the mystical fence and curb your parties NEED for an actual ARCANE caster. It's not a replacement for the ARCANE caster, and even DIVINE casters can 'APPRAISE' using 'DETECT MAGIC' now, but it's another way to ALLOW a party to go without a class if no one wants to play said class and does so without requiring a multiclass excursion. :)
Wow that's quite the post there.
1. Rogues don't cast spells. They get spell-like abilities if they take the talent. If they don't the don't get spell-like abilities.
2. It's an option. I'm generally of the opinion you should add options not take them away. If it doesn't fit someone's description of their rogue they are not forced to take them.
3. It's not like this option is so powerful you must take it to be effective. It can be an effective choice, but it doesn't break the class either way, so leave the option for those who want it.
The one reason I stress the spell-like ability part is that without it you could qualify for some prestige classes with this talent which currently isn't possible.
Wow that's quite the post there.
1. Rogues don't cast spells. They get spell-like abilities if they take the talent. If they don't the don't get spell-like abilities.
This is true... and this actually makes me not like the whole concept of minor magic. I was thinking of minor magic as a rogue who would pick up on a few spells by sheer rote and mimickery. An SLA to me is an innate ability... I would much rather see the rogue actually gain the ability to cast a few spells than gain an SLA.
I guess that's just a flavor thing but... it bugs me.
Actually flavorwise I agree with you 120% it should be a "rote" casting thing.
Unfortunately if we make it where the rogue actually casts the spell like a caster then you could have this pop up:
Rogue 7/ Arcane Archer x
(Rogue talent Minor/major arcana)
As you could technically "Cast 1st level spells" and thereby meet the prerequisite to the class.
So it really is a mechanical issue.
(Not that this is a great combo but it would open up other such possibilities with other prestige classes too.)
There is, of course, a simple way around this. Describe it as spellcasting, but add "The rogue casts this spell from rote memory, which means it isn't subject to arcane spell failure and doesn't qualify as spellcasting for the purposes of meeting feat, prestige class, or other prerequisites." A *bit* contrived, but call it "rote spellcasting" and I think that that's enough explanation. Assuming, of course, we care whether or not this lets him meet prereqs without multiclassing.
I'm all for whatever fluff makes people sleep well at night, fluff is for characters the mechanic (what we are worried about) is for designers, and I just want to be sure the mechanic is not going to do something it shouldn't.
|
i would like to see the rogue have no access to abjuration, conjuration and evocation (seem to high magic, id prefer a focus on illusion, necromancy and enchantment) do away with the problem of touch/ sneak attack with removal of rays, and make the oth level at will (if you want to limit it, make them succeed on a spellcraft roll to cast it)
Limiting the school is an idea that does make some since but I would point out that ray of enfeeblement and chill touch are both necromancy spells that still would be available and possibly rather powerful(and do in chill touch's case with it's multi round touch attack and possible strength damage effects).
Illusion, transmutation, and Dinivation are probably all ok, enchantment probably wouldn't be too bad either.
Maybe instead a slight 'spell list' of what could be taken?
|
|
Limiting the school is an idea that does make some since but I would point out that ray of enfeeblement and chill touch are both necromancy spells that still would be available and possibly rather powerful(and do in chill touch's case with it's multi round touch attack and possible strength damage effects).
Illusion, transmutation, and Dinivation are probably all ok, enchantment probably wouldn't be too bad either.
Maybe instead a slight 'spell list' of what could be taken?
I meant to oust all rays and touch attacks from the schools. I totally agree with you on a simple fix to the problem. ( now can my gnomes and rogues have at will oth level spells? pleeeeeeease?)
i would like to see the rogue have no access to abjuration, conjuration and evocation (seem to high magic, id prefer a focus on illusion, necromancy and enchantment) do away with the problem of touch/ sneak attack with removal of rays, and make the oth level at will (if you want to limit it, make them succeed on a spellcraft roll to cast it)
A list of spells would make me much more open to the 'at will' bit. Light, prestidigitation, ghost sound...
Actually flavorwise I agree with you 120% it should be a "rote" casting thing.
Unfortunately if we make it where the rogue actually casts the spell like a caster then you could have this pop up:
Yeah... kind of seems silly the way they wrote the prereqs for the PrCs. To be honest... what would be so wrong with a rogue being able to go straight into arcane trickster without spending a lot of levels on wizard or sorcerer? Ugh... whole other topic but yeah having him 'cast spells' would likely cause breakage elsewhere. Which is just silly.
Why not just add "The rogue cannot use this ability as a prerequisite for any feat or PrC" to it.
That tag would be fine by me and yeah arcane archer isn't so bad I'm just pointing out the possibility for brokeness.
A spell list could be kept simple to just a few spells on the end of the discription a few extra words but not that much and it could cover some of the concerns of various people.