Thought I'd share what I think is a gem. Very simple.
Rogues get slow BAB progression, and get +1 to attacks per odd level when in a position to sneak attack (regardless of whether the target is immune to sneak attack damage).
I noticed that high level rogues start losing their edge compared to fighters as the levels advance. Fighters do more average damage than rogues even if you assume the rogue gets a sneak attack every time. By 20th level, Fighters have about a +11 better to hit than Rogues without even taking into account how many resources go into weapons (+4 weapon training, +5 good BAB progression, +2 IWF/GWF). This house rule reduces the difference to +6, which isn't too bad considering the 10d6 of sneak attack damage on a hit. I think this house rule makes rogues good at every level compared to Fighters.
Thought I'd share what I think is a gem. Very simple.
Rogues get slow BAB progression, and get +1 to attacks per odd level when in a position to sneak attack (regardless of whether the target is immune to sneak attack damage).
I noticed that high level rogues start losing their edge compared to fighters as the levels advance. Fighters do more average damage than rogues even if you assume the rogue gets a sneak attack every time. By 20th level, Fighters have about a +11 better to hit than Rogues without even taking into account how many resources go into weapons (+4 weapon training, +5 good BAB progression, +2 IWF/GWF). This house rule reduces the difference to +6, which isn't too bad considering the 10d6 of sneak attack damage on a hit. I think this house rule makes rogues good at every level compared to Fighters.
This is a very interesting idea. It's always been my experience that rogues will usually invest in TWF (for more sneak attack) or a way to deny opponents their dexterity bonus (feint, invisibility, HiPS). I think this is an interesting concept, but have you run the numbers?
From what I can tell, you'd absolutely have to invest in TWF. With only a single attack until level 12 (yikes) it would be difficult to remain competitive with the melee brutes. You'd also rely heavily on arcane support (bardic music, haste) to really start exceeding the fighter's potential. In fact, with only a single attack (at a very respectable to-hit bonus) it would encourage skirmish builds.
Also, how does this work with the Arcane Trickster? Do you grant them any bonus at all, or is the class even more screwed in terms of attack bonus?
I love the Rogue and I did think he needed help in 3.5 (I am not overly familiar with PRG), but not against the Fighter. I mean, shouldn't the fighter be better at…well…fighting?
Setting my own prejudices aside, this is an interesting idea.
Said the fighter to the rogue, "Meh, I got this one. Go pick a lock somewhere."
Fighters should deal the most damage in a toe-to-toe fight. Where rogues shine in melee is in their opportunistic attacks, not in a real smack-down. They should be creative in forcing those opportunistic advantages by flanking, feinting, tripping, or even working in tandem with the wizard who's casting hold person.
Making a rogue deal as much damage as a fighter (on average) seems to steal much of the fighter's thunder, IMO.
I didn't run the numbers, yet, but the high-level view makes me like it. The rogue is clearly worse at fighting without sneak attack, which is fine with me because he gradually faded to worthlessness when not sneak attacking at high levels anyway. Even sneak attacking rogues were awfully weak at the highest levels, with a slow creep toward a lack of contribution. An attack differential of 11 between rogues and fighters at 20th level (not including the fact that fighters often spend more resources on increasing attack prowess than rogues) made rogues pretty useless in combat by 20th level. At other levels, they slowly lost ground as levels advanced, though they compare pretty well at the low-to-mid levels.
Give a boost of +1 at low levels, on up to +5 at 19th level, relative to the old rogue, in sneak attack and that should fix their loss of importance. And since I saw the numbers on fighters and rogues before and the fighters were completely dominant (on these boards), I doubt even a sneak attacking rogue will catch up with the house rule. Plus the rogue is a full hit down from a fighter if they get 3 hp/level. (Estimating damage of about 4 @ 1st level, scaling to about 42 @ 20th level, which is the hit point differential between the house rule rogue and the fighter.) So even if they get really close to a fighter in damage delivery when sneak attacking, the fact that they have to sneak attack to get the advantage and the fact that they have quite a few fewer hit points makes it seem OK to me.
Thought I'd share what I think is a gem. Very simple.
Rogues get slow BAB progression, and get +1 to attacks per odd level when in a position to sneak attack (regardless of whether the target is immune to sneak attack damage).
I noticed that high level rogues start losing their edge compared to fighters as the levels advance. Fighters do more average damage than rogues even if you assume the rogue gets a sneak attack every time. By 20th level, Fighters have about a +11 better to hit than Rogues without even taking into account how many resources go into weapons (+4 weapon training, +5 good BAB progression, +2 IWF/GWF). This house rule reduces the difference to +6, which isn't too bad considering the 10d6 of sneak attack damage on a hit. I think this house rule makes rogues good at every level compared to Fighters.
This is a very interesting idea. It's always been my experience that rogues will usually invest in TWF (for more sneak attack) or a way to deny opponents their dexterity bonus (feint, invisibility, HiPS). I think this is an interesting concept, but have you run the numbers?
From what I can tell, you'd absolutely have to invest in TWF. With only a single attack until level 12 (yikes) it would be difficult to remain competitive with the melee brutes. You'd also rely heavily on arcane support (bardic music, haste) to really start exceeding the fighter's potential. In fact, with only a single attack (at a very respectable to-hit bonus) it would encourage skirmish builds.
Also, how does this work with the Arcane Trickster? Do you grant them any bonus at all, or is the class even more screwed in terms of attack bonus?
Thought I'd share what I think is a gem. Very simple.
Rogues get slow BAB progression, and get +1 to attacks per odd level when in a position to sneak attack (regardless of whether the target is immune to sneak attack damage).
I noticed that high level rogues start losing their edge compared to fighters as the levels advance. Fighters do more average damage than rogues even if you assume the rogue gets a sneak attack every time. By 20th level, Fighters have about a +11 better to hit than Rogues without even taking into account how many resources go into weapons (+4 weapon training, +5 good BAB progression, +2 IWF/GWF). This house rule reduces the difference to +6, which isn't too bad considering the 10d6 of sneak attack damage on a hit. I think this house rule makes rogues good at every level compared to Fighters.
It's an interesting idea. I think it would be easier to administer just by giving them +1 to hit on sneak attacks at level 1, and an additional +1 every 4 levels.
It's funny, because I was considering just giving the Fighter 6 skillpoints per level and expanding his skill list. Compared to the Rogue, the Fighter just can't compete outside of combat at all. Have more skillpoints and class skills means he can keep up with the Rogue out-of-combat, like the Rogue is keeping up with him in-combat.
.
I know this sounds like I'm being a jerk and just saying the opposite, but I'm being serious. I was seriously considering expanding the Knowledge skills with added utility and the addition of Knowledge (tactics), to give the fighter types more options outside of combat that aren't just more acrobatics or lockpicking.
So a Fighter could have 6 skillpoints per level to get Knowledge (engineering, and tactics), as well as Perception and Sense Motive (guard duty), along with his customary Intimidate and Survival (or Ride or whatever his other "niche" will be).
If a Fighter was getting an expanded skillset, I wouldn't be against the Rogue getting +1 to attack while Sneak Attacking (+1 BAB might be a bit much, and would get wonky since Sneak Attacks aren't based on full attack actions like Flurry).
6 skill points?? Would you up Ranger and Bard to 8 then? I could see giving the fighter (and everyone else with 2 + int) 4 + int, but 6?
Rangers have animal companions and spells (things that grow exponentially, not linearly like feats). Bards have bardic music and even greater spells.
The Fighter has his fighting ability. Now granted, I was thinking 6 skillpoints based on the 3.5e Fighter, however the Fighter really didn't get anything from Pathfinder that gives him a greater role. He's just "even better" at killing. No magic (and rightly so), no companions (which the original D&D fighter did get a higher levels.. almost automatic leadership kind of thing), and virtually no skills that have any major significance outside of combat.
Give the Fighter the same skillpoints as the Ranger and Bard, and I can see a lot of the complaints about Fighters being reduced.
It sounds like a lot until you see how the class will use it, and how it balances the class out (the whole "more than a sum of it's parts" thing).
Rangers have animal companions and spells (things that grow exponentially, not linearly like feats). Bards have bardic music and even greater spells.
The Fighter has his fighting ability. Now granted, I was thinking 6 skillpoints based on the 3.5e Fighter, however the Fighter really didn't get anything from Pathfinder that gives him a greater role. He's just "even better" at killing. No magic (and rightly so), no companions (which the original D&D fighter did get a higher levels.. almost automatic leadership kind of thing), and virtually no skills that have any major significance outside of combat.
Give the Fighter the same skillpoints as the Ranger and Bard, and I can see a lot of the complaints about Fighters being reduced.
It sounds like a lot until you see how the class will use it, and how it balances the class out (the whole "more than a sum of it's parts" thing).
I agree. I have a bunch of house rules, but don't post much because I just don't think there would be much interest. (I posted the rogue one because it was simple.)
Anyway, I cut the skill points of a rogue to 4, but give them a +1 bonus per level up to 5th level in any skills in which they maintain maximum ranks. (They can take rogue talents to continue getting bonus ranks.) And I make any skill I don't classify as "lore" a class skill. This was primarily to make them more expert-like and less bard- (jack-of-all-trades-) like, rather than an attempt to bring Fighters up to the heights of rogues. Incidentally, I also got rid of that bard skill-substitution crap and gave them 8 skill points/level.
For Fighters, I just made a bunch of good skills class skills: Athletics, Endurance, Intimidate, Military Lore (all), Perception, Stealth, and any 1 other. (You'll note I have a couple of house skills in there, too.) I think that is enough love for fighters.
Honestly, I could go on for pages.
If Rogues want to fight like Fighters, they should be Fighters.
Not to kick anyone in the junk here but I think they're fine how they are considering no one seems willing to give a Fighter a +10d6 damage bonus just because some monster, on average, has a BAB 11 points higher.
I gamed with Rogues as they are written (up to 30th+ level) in the book and they did fine, even in the thickest of the challenges. While they may not have the same HPs my Fighter does they could dole the punishment just as well as I could, and I was thankful for it too. A smart Rogue doesn't need a house rule to make him more capable, they just need to take advantage of every trick and tactic they have available to them.
If the Rogue is fighting something the Rogue can't hit then it's either 1) the GMs fault for not scaling the encounter or 2) the Rogue bit off more than they could chew, and that's how the world takes care of dumb Rogues.
I have noticed that on average a Wizard or Sorcerer can out damage my Fighter with all these Maximized, Empowered, or whatever you finger wigglin' kids are calling em' these days, spells... I think Fighters need a x10 damage house rule.
:P Seems fair.
I have also DM'd almost every class in 3.5e to reasonably high levels. Rogues do pretty well, I agree. However, dropping the rogue's hit points, lowering BAB, and giving a bonus to hit with sneak attack is not making rogues fight like fighters. If anything, it makes rogues fight more like rogues.
I disagree with your premise that it is the GM's fault if the rogue can't hit (or the rogue's fault for trying to fight something too tough). I think the rogue should do fine relative to a fighter as long as the rogue sticks to the shadows.
I'm not even sure how to take the "joke" about how fighters need to do x10 damage to compete with wizards. If I'm not mistaken, this is the place for house rules. No need to become a smart-ass when one is proposed.
If Rogues want to fight like Fighters, they should be Fighters.
Not to kick anyone in the junk here but I think they're fine how they are considering no one seems willing to give a Fighter a +10d6 damage bonus just because some monster, on average, has a BAB 11 points higher.
I gamed with Rogues as they are written (up to 30th+ level) in the book and they did fine, even in the thickest of the challenges. While they may not have the same HPs my Fighter does they could dole the punishment just as well as I could, and I was thankful for it too. A smart Rogue doesn't need a house rule to make him more capable, they just need to take advantage of every trick and tactic they have available to them.
If the Rogue is fighting something the Rogue can't hit then it's either 1) the GMs fault for not scaling the encounter or 2) the Rogue bit off more than they could chew, and that's how the world takes care of dumb Rogues.
I have noticed that on average a Wizard or Sorcerer can out damage my Fighter with all these Maximized, Empowered, or whatever you finger wigglin' kids are calling em' these days, spells... I think Fighters need a x10 damage house rule.
:P Seems fair.
I'm not even sure how to take the "joke" about how fighters need to do x10 damage to compete with wizards. If I'm not mistaken, this is the place for house rules. No need to become a smart-ass when one is proposed.
Take it how ya like, I'm not going to lose sleep either way.
My point was a Rogue can and does keep up with a Fighter in combat. I've seen it, it has been proven to me, and no amount of number crunching by anyone else will prove otherwise. If people want to house rule it that a Rogue needs a better BAB to 'keep up' with the Fighters, then let em', it's their game. More power to em', I just don't see a need for it.
In that rationale though since a Fighter, on average has +11 more on his BAB are you also going to give the Rogues more HPs too? A Fighter on average will have 40-60 more HPs that a Rogue will. If someone is butt-hurt over the Fighter having more BAB shouldn't they be butt-hurt over the Fighter having more HPs too? Hate for those to not be able to 'keep up' when they finally do get hit...
Each class fills a niche, sure they aren't perfect and we could nit-pick em apart all night but when you start changing things just because 'they do it better' it opens an unnecessary can of worms where 'A' becomes better than 'B' and now 'C' needs to be balanced to keep up with 'B' and then 'D' falls out of whack too...
They've made so many positive changes to the 3.5 system and it amazes me that we still aren't happy. +xd6 sneak attack damage, opportunist, resiliency, surprise attack... all these things a rogue has at their disposal and still players want more. Each class has has everything they need to be effective at what they do.
Just my opinion. Like I said though, if it works for you guys, seriously, go for it, don't let my inane belly aching ruffle your feathers.
I think Rogues should get good BAB like a Fighter. After a sentence like that, your comments make sense.
I think Rogues should get fewer hit points and worse BAB, but better sneak attack. After a sentence like that, your comments make no sense at all. Your hyperbole isn't even on the right trajectory. In fact, you could cut and paste your comments after any suggested house rule and it would be equally inapplicable.
General statements that changing something might introduce a need to change something else are about as useful as nipples on a bull. If your position is that lowering BAB and hp of a Rogue, while increasing to hit with sneak attacks, is going to make Fighters unable to fill their niche, let's hear it. I don't see why you want to go Chicken Little based upon what you've written, though.
My point was a Rogue can and does keep up with a Fighter in combat. I've seen it, it has been proven to me, and no amount of number crunching by anyone else will prove otherwise. If people want to house rule it that a Rogue needs a better BAB to 'keep up' with the Fighters, then let em', it's their game. More power to em', I just don't see a need for it.
In that rationale though since a Fighter, on average has +11 more on his BAB are you also going to give the Rogues more HPs too? A Fighter on average will have 40-60 more HPs that a Rogue will. If someone is b*#*-hurt over the Fighter having more BAB shouldn't they be b*#*-hurt over the Fighter having more HPs too? Hate for those to not be able to 'keep up' when they finally do get hit...
Each class fills a niche, sure they aren't perfect and we could nit-pick em apart all night but when you start changing things just because 'they do it better' it opens an unnecessary can of worms where 'A' becomes better than 'B' and now 'C' needs to be balanced to keep up with 'B' and then 'D' falls out of whack too...
They've made so many positive changes to the 3.5 system and it amazes me that we still aren't happy. +xd6 sneak attack damage, opportunist, resiliency, surprise attack... all these things a rogue has at their disposal and still players want more. Each class has has everything they need to be effective at what they do.
Just my opinion. Like I said though, if it works for you guys, seriously, go for it, don't let my inane belly aching ruffle your feathers.