I would like to appeal to Jason to please, please, please remove the Minor Magic, Major Magic and Dispelling Attack from the talent list. They are wholly thematically inappropriate for a non-magical class, at least for the core rules impinge on the boundaries between the magical and the non-magical - this is a very important thematic issue for me. Many DMs, myself included, don't like banning basic features of classes - please, please move these magical abilities to an optional sidebar if they absolutely must stay.
But the rogue has always had a little magic. In 2E they could use wizard's scrolls. In 3E, they got Use Magic Device.
I will say this. The first two magic talents are so weak the rogue might as well just take a single level in a spellcasting class. Then the third comes out of nowhere in terms of power level.
|
I like these abilities. They are, if anything a little weak, as posted above you could easily splash a level of sorcerer or wizard and get a better bang for your buck. But imagine this a party with no arcane. This allows a rogue to take care of the identifying of magic items. Besides, as weak as these are in comparison to some of the other talents, don't you think that a player would only take them if he needed to cover a little identify or it fit his theme? I love the idea of my rogue grabbing this talent "dabbling" in a little arcane power to enhance his burgling.
I like them i always like my rogue a little Ace of his sleave, I ussually take a level of Sorcerer now i dont need to level dip
|
But the rogue has always had a little magic. In 2E they could use wizard's scrolls. In 3E, they got Use Magic Device.
I will say this. The first two magic talents are so weak the rogue might as well just take a single level in a spellcasting class. Then the third comes out of nowhere in terms of power level.
I can see them getting these thematically as just little knacks. They aren't overwelming and you might want to limit the types of spells they can get. Make them come up with a story of where these magical knacks came from. One doesn't just develop magical knacks out of nowhere... unless they have dragon blood. =)
|
|
... please, please, please remove the Minor Magic, Major Magic and Dispelling Attack from the talent list. They are wholly thematically inappropriate for a non-magical class, at least for the core rules impinge on the boundaries between the magical and the non-magical - this is a very important thematic issue for me.
While they may be "inappropriate" for a non-magical class, they do help fulfill the fantasy icons such as Grey Mouser, Fafhrd and Elric without level-dipping. I find them weak enough to not overshadow the arcane core classes, yet workable for exactly what they are called - Minor Magic.
They remind me most of Might & Magic VII's rogues, where everyone except the pure combat Knight had some sort of magic, even if it was only the most basic type. I'm not overly keen on them myself, but I could definitely see them in use for a rogue of magical heritage (Elven or Gnomic).
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Dear god, won't someone put a bullet in this f%@+ing topic and bury it in a shallow grave once and for all? What is with magical rogue talents being such a drama/angst magnet? If you don't like it, and you're the DM, just don't use it. Your players will appreciate you and your narrow definition of the campaign world far more than the freedom of making a character that they like without needing to multi-class.
Maybe instead of cutting the talents, Paizo could include a sidebar saying something like: "Although rogues have long had associations with minor magical abilities, including the ability to detect and disarm magic traps and use magic items that are normally limited to other classes, some DMs find the flavor of the rogue magical talents to be psychologically distressful. If your DM is such a fragile person, we recommend that you take a feat, multi-class into a spellcasting class, or elect to choose one of the many additional options in the core and expanded rules to somehow gain a trivial magical ability which you feel fits your character, in lieu of causing your DM a painful migraine."
|
|
My snarkless two cents about Minor Magic and Major Magic is this ... I like 'em, and so do both rogue players in our PF campaigns. We don't find them out-of-theme at all.
And, to give a better idea of where I'm coming from, I'm not a fan at all of magical barbarian rage powers, or even of rangers with spells.
-- Jeff
For the record, I'm kind of ambivalent about rogues getting semi-magical abilities. Considering D&D history, and that they currently have the Use Magic Device skill, the minor and major arcana talents don't seem out-of-place, though perhaps a bit underpowered.
Like the previous poster, this is coming from someone who prefers non-casting Rangers, and finds it ridiculous that raging Barbarians now shoot fireballs from their eyes and lightning from their arse.
|
|
For the record, I'm kind of ambivalent about rogues getting semi-magical abilities. Considering D&D history, and that they currently have the Use Magic Device skill, the minor and major arcana talents don't seem out-of-place, though perhaps a bit underpowered.
Like the previous poster, this is coming from someone who prefers non-casting Rangers, and finds it ridiculous that raging Barbarians now shoot fireballs from their eyes and lightning from their arse.
The Penny Arcade comic was a very humorous and appropriate, Laithoron. Kudos.
On to the original poster's topic, I must respectively disagree. The minor and major magic abilities are relatively harmless in the grand scheme of things, and could easily by used as part of the rogue's background (and a great role playing hook).
For example: "Where did I learn to cast Detect Magic? Well, in my misspent youth, I traveled with a clan of gypsies - wonderful people, by the way, always laughing and singing, so full of life. But I digress. The clan harrow reader, striking lass, by the way, took a bit of a shine to me, and we spent much time together. She taught me a few tricks that I still use to this day... Oh, and how to cast a few apprentice level spells, too."
On the other hand, dispelling sneak attack might have an abuse in there somewhere, but I haven't quite put my finger on it yet. Maybe in the fact that you could be looking at several free dispel magics every round? May have to start a thread on that...
Thanks for reading.
Counterappeal: Keep them in. They don't turn rogues into archmages. They're not compulsory. Don't see them destroying the world as we know it. Options are good.
Options are good.
|
|
As long as they remain options, so that I can create a completely non-magical Rogue (far easier than creating a non-magical Ranger or a martial artist who can't do funky Wuxia stuff!), I'm perfectly fine with a *few* of the Talent options being magical.
It fits the thiefly inspirations (Grey Mouser, for instance) at the very root of D&D, and it's an option I don't *have* to take, while others might want it, so I'm all for that. Every single Rogue doesn't have to be exactly like the one I'm making, and that's a Good Thing, IMO.
I have a problem with Barbarians suddenly getting supernatural abilities, but it kinda makes sense that the rogue might pick up some rudimentary magical skill. Magic is, after all, just a skill more or less like any other, and it wouldn't take the rogue substantially more time to learn a cantrip than pick up Weapon Focus.
I think it has become patently clear that most people disagree with me on this issue. The magic/non-magic is a crucial flavor issue for me and in 3.5E these classes were (thankfully) entirely non-magical so these abilities are actually a departure from the 3.5E status qui..., but with this level of opposition to the removal of these 'features' I guess I will have to resort to banning basic class features in the game for both Barbarians and Rogues, which is something I really dislike doing. :(
Alternatively, I guess maybe I could just default back to to using 3.5E Barbarian and Rogue classes wholesale to avoid the issue and perhaps boost them with some extra Pathfinder abilities, so it would be more akin to adding to classes rather than removing from them. But yeah, with this kind of public support for these magical talents, I think I can forget them being removed from the core. :( Oh well, nothing can be done about this, so I suppose it is time for me to concentrate on looking at other issues in PF and not argue what appears to be a lost cause.
|
|
I have a problem with Barbarians suddenly getting supernatural abilities, but it kinda makes sense that the rogue might pick up some rudimentary magical skill. Magic is, after all, just a skill more or less like any other, and it wouldn't take the rogue substantially more time to learn a cantrip than pick up Weapon Focus.
My thought exactly. I like the idea much more than the Barbarian elemental rage thing, and even then, I can see some tribal shaman tattooing his charge with an ink made of winter wolf's blood to help him channel the fury of the winter storm into his steel or whatever with only minimal creativity.
If magic in the D&D world were something limited to certain bloodlines, I'd be leery of it, but since anyone with an Int of 10 or better can learn arcane spells, regardless of birth, I'm fine with a skillful sort learning a few cantrips.
So long as it remains an option, it's still better than trying to explain why your woodsy archer starts getting druid spells after killing X number of bears and orcs...
I guess I will have to resort to banning basic class features in the game for both Barbarians and Rogues, which is something I really dislike doing. :(
You dislike banning things in your own, private game more than getting it taken out of the game so no one can have it?
Hey, I don't like that one show, but rather than just turning off the tube, I want them to take it off the programme, so no one can watch it. I don't care that it's the #1 series worldwide. ;-P
Just to point out on the dispelling strike:
1. you must be able to sneak attack, if the mage/figher/whatever has any form of concealment you lose your sneak attack (this includes blur and displacement spells or something as simple as a minor cloak of displacement)
2. It says that this is the same as a targeted dispel magic with caster level equal to your rogue level but dispel magic only allows a caster level bonus on the check up to a maximum of 10. SO the rogue with this ability is trying to dispel only the lowest spell on the target (as per the abilities discription) with a caster level check of 10 + d20. Yeah good luck with that at character levels 10+
Yes it sound powerful if you don't completely read the ability but it's only a chance to get rid of the lowest spell on the target with a rather poor caster level check.
Also I've always found that sneak attack is pretty easy to avoid if you really want to. Don't get flanked, and have some form of concealment, which is fairly easy to come by especially if you are a wizard.
I guess I will have to resort to banning basic class features in the game for both Barbarians and Rogues, which is something I really dislike doing. :(You dislike banning things in your own, private game more than getting it taken out of the game so no one can have it?
Hey, I don't like that one show, but rather than just turning off the tube, I want them to take it off the programme, so no one can watch it. I don't care that it's the #1 series worldwide. ;-P
The analogy is inappropriate. This would be a better analogy: I love the Star Wars franchise, but I despise the flavor of silly creatures such as Jar Jar Binks. Upon learning that George Lucas is planning to include Jar Jar Binks in the as yet unreleased Episode 1 of Star Wars, I go on the Star Wars messageboards and appeal to him to remove Jar Jar Binks from the film due to flavor reasons. Lots of other fans of Star Wars, however, enter the thread and post how much they love Jar Jar Binks or that they have no problem with him or that he could be appropriate in the movie in certain situations.
Recognizing that Jar Jar Binks is too popular for me to remove, I make a statement in the thread that I submit to the will of the majority and will merely have to reluctantly blot him out of my memory of the movie and not treat him as canon.
At that point you come in and make your post that I essentially want to deny Jar Jar Binks to those who like him in the Star Wars franchise. Well, I guess I would prefer that they had to introduce him on their own, rather him being there officially and me having to block him from my memory, but as I said I do submit to the will of the majority.
All in all the more mature and mannerly way to go about which is something all of us could stand to do more.
Thank you Roman.
How is the rogue nonmagical? How is virtually anything nonmagical? You have rogues who can turn off magical wards without actually touching them, make a holy avenger think they're awesome paladins. You can have a pillar of flame walk up and have a conversation with you inside an antimagic field. At high level, a barbarian can fall hundreds & hundreds of feet, and practically land running. Any character with a Strength modifier of 4+ and Power Attack (so doable by level 4), can slowly knock down an iron door with their fists (in ~18 minutes if they meet the bare minimum).
The world is inherently fantastical and magical. Having someone pick up the ability to create a ball of light when there are races that can talk to badgers isn't even able to see the horizon of broken verisimilitude.
At that point you come in and make your post that I essentially want to deny Jar Jar Binks to those who like him in the Star Wars franchise. Well, I guess I would prefer that they had to introduce him on their own, rather him being there officially and me having to block him from my memory, but as I said I do submit to the will of the majority.
I wasn't aware that D&D had a screenplay, or that choices were mandatory now.
I agree with jarjar: He was annoying, and ruined the movie for a lot of people because he was on screen. It was a movie, things happened as they did, for everyone. It's passive entertainment, you can't influence what's happening.
I disagree with D&D choices: D&D is an active entertainment, we write our own scripts. Just because a rogue has the possibility to do cantrips, or use magic items without formal training, doesn't mean we have to.
And it's easier to ban choices in your own game when you don't think them appropriate than taking them out of the game and forcing people to come up with their own rules.
I think Roman's maturity is commendable.
Some things are better house-ruled out, but I think minor and major magic (and dare I say a third, familiar talent) are appropriate for the rogue. I can't help but think of the 2e fluff for reading scrolls, whenever someone says a slightly magical rogue is wrong.
"Thematically" appropriate or not, the melee classes -need- effective countermeasures to the full casters.
Dispeling strike is hardly "super powered" but it does help to close that gap at least somewhat.
-S
I can live with 'giving them a bit of magic' but I do think that Dispelling attack is over powered and honestly I don't understand how it would work.
How does a rogue as dabbler in magic learn to dispell a magical effect with a melee attack? To the best of my knowledge the full casters haven't even figure that out.
If minor and major arcana have limits on use why doesn't dispelling attack?
Hrmm I seem to have gotten off topic. So to close on topic...
I don't think these talents fit the core rogue either. They seem to be stuff added during an adventure path or in a supplement to the game. These are neat tricks but aren't part of a core rogue class.
Regardless, as Roman pointed out popular opinion (well the popular opinion of the people that actually post on this topic who represent a tiny minority of the 10,000+ independent downloads of the rules) seems to be to let them stay.
I do agree though that there are WAY too many threads on this topic. Funny how that seems to happen in each forum. I also enjoy watching the ebb and flow of topics in general. How they rise to the top then are pushed off by another.
Hopefully Jason will provide some insight as to which way he is leaning.
Cheers
Lemme add one more voice in favor of keeping these options. Granted, I'd like to see them be better than they are (as written, a dip into sorcerer is a lot more attractive, except for the CL issue).
I'll even go a step further, and state right out that I'd love to see dispelling strike turned into a more powerful feat available to fighters and paladins (melee guys are all-too-often totally unable to penetrate magical defenses).
|
|
I think it has become patently clear that most people disagree with me on this issue. The magic/non-magic is a crucial flavor issue for me and in 3.5E these classes were (thankfully) entirely non-magical so these abilities are actually a departure from the 3.5E status qui..., but with this level of opposition to the removal of these 'features' I guess I will have to resort to banning basic class features in the game for both Barbarians and Rogues, which is something I really dislike doing. :(
Alternatively, I guess maybe I could just default back to to using 3.5E Barbarian and Rogue classes wholesale to avoid the issue and perhaps boost them with some extra Pathfinder abilities, so it would be more akin to adding to classes rather than removing from them. But yeah, with this kind of public support for these magical talents, I think I can forget them being removed from the core. :( Oh well, nothing can be done about this, so I suppose it is time for me to concentrate on looking at other issues in PF and not argue what appears to be a lost cause.
Well first off this is a completely different setting than the core 3.5 D&D setting. It's entirely appropriate that if Paizo wants to change it up a bit they can.
Also I wouldn't say that the Rogue has been a non-magical class. As far as core classes, in 3.5 and now, how many of them got Use Magical Device as a class skill? Sorcerer, Wizard, Bard and Rogue. I think that if a class is going to have the ability to use a magic device then they should at least have a slight magical aptitude.
As far as Barbarians...I totally could see Barbarians having a spiritual or magical connection to the land. Tapping into their inner strength as well as that from a totem etc.
Sorry but the new flavor just makes sense to me.
I say keep the magical abilities in play.
I think it has become patently clear that most people disagree with me on this issue. The magic/non-magic is a crucial flavor issue for me and in 3.5E these classes were (thankfully) entirely non-magical so these abilities are actually a departure from the 3.5E status qui..., but with this level of opposition to the removal of these 'features' I guess I will have to resort to banning basic class features in the game for both Barbarians and Rogues, which is something I really dislike doing. :(
Alternatively, I guess maybe I could just default back to to using 3.5E Barbarian and Rogue classes wholesale to avoid the issue and perhaps boost them with some extra Pathfinder abilities, so it would be more akin to adding to classes rather than removing from them. But yeah, with this kind of public support for these magical talents, I think I can forget them being removed from the core. :( Oh well, nothing can be done about this, so I suppose it is time for me to concentrate on looking at other issues in PF and not argue what appears to be a lost cause.
The rogue and barbarian still can be completelly nonmagical. Having the option of picking up a tiny bit of magic doesn't mean they're foisting something on the rogue. It's functionally identical to adding a feat "Rogue Magic" or something.
|
I would like to appeal to Jason to please, please, please remove the Minor Magic, Major Magic and Dispelling Attack from the talent list. They are wholly thematically inappropriate for a non-magical class, at least for the core rules impinge on the boundaries between the magical and the non-magical - this is a very important thematic issue for me. Many DMs, myself included, don't like banning basic features of classes - please, please move these magical abilities to an optional sidebar if they absolutely must stay.
Well at least you followed up and actually complained about the magic talents of the rogue too, so you're consistent. Now you need to make a thread begging for the droping of ki points for Monks, martial artists are after all completely non-magical, and the fact that unlike the barbarian or rogue they actually got hard wired into the class would actually be appropriate to your Jar-Jar analogy, since unlike the rogue talents and barbarian elemental rage it isn't an option you can simply say, "hey guys you aren't allowed to take this." Anywho, I'll just throw in my support that as long as they are optional and a character doesn't have to have them, they should stay.
And see my above post about the dispelling strike there are several limits on it that people seem to be forgetting about. Saying that it is the one talent that makes me squirm a little, however I still don't think it's really that powerful or too thematically off center.
And see my above post about the dispelling strike there are several limits on it that people seem to be forgetting about. Saying that it is the one talent that makes me squirm a little, however I still don't think it's really that powerful or too thematically off center.
Umm... it is one talent. I know what you are suggesting but the the talents are cumulative in effect. Either it's predecessors are the right strength in which case Dispelling attack should be worth... 1 talent. Or it's predecessors are the underpowered in which case they should be fixed. That's a topic for another thread though.
My issue with dispelling attack is that the rogue can use it all day long, potentially multiple times per round. If there was a limit/ day or even a once per round limit it would be easier to swallow. A rogue with haste and multiple attacks or TWF can strip a lot of spells in a round.
Well, since I like mechanics discussions, I may as well chime in on the mechanics of the talents too.
The Minor Magic and the Major Magic talents are not overpowered, but the Dispelling Attack is mechanically too much.
How about ditching Dispelling Attack in favor of Penetrating Attack or Bypassing Attack (whichever name you prefer):
Penetrating Attack/Bypassing Attack (Ex):
The rogue has learned how to exploit weak spots in magical defenses. When making a sneak attack against an opponent with magical spell protection, the rogue can make a reflex saving throw against the spell to bypass the magical bonus. The rogue can chose one defensive spell to bypass using this ability if he is aware of it. If the rogue doesn't know the specific spell he wants to bypass, the ability applies to the lowest level active defensive spell.
It would theoretically be possible to extend this ability to bypass magical protection offered by items too - e.g. the enhancement bonus of armor. This could be a follow on talent (the first talent could then be termed Bypassing Attack and the second talent could be called Penetrating Attack. Perhaps the reflex saving throw to penetrate the magical protection of items would be dependent on caster level.
Alternatively, the mechanics of Dispelling Attack could be used for both of the above talents, but instead of dispelling the spell, the Rogue would be bypassing the spell in question.
Penetrating Attack/Bypassing Attack (Ex):
I'm not going to touch the get rid of dispelling attack part but I like this effect. I would also suggest... I'm not sure how you would make it so it was reasonably balanced but getting the rogue the ability to bypass DR in a similar way would be a cool talent. Maybe one rogue talent per DR type? Dunno, it's an interesting thought.
Penetrating Attack/Bypassing Attack (Ex):I'm not going to touch the get rid of dispelling attack part but I like this effect.
Well, I do think dispelling is too powerful, but if you wanted to keep it you could make dispelling attack require all of the above as part of its pre-requisites - with so many pre-requisites it might be balanced.
Well, I do think dispelling is too powerful, but if you wanted to keep it you could make dispelling attack require all of the above as part of its pre-requisites - with so many pre-requisites it might be balanced.Penetrating Attack/Bypassing Attack (Ex):I'm not going to touch the get rid of dispelling attack part but I like this effect.
Umm... I wasn't trying to suggest one way or the other about dispelling attack. I think it's a little much as written but feel some small changes would fix it and don't think it needs to be excised is all.