|
Shortly I will be starting my Serpent's Skull AP game with 5 players with the following classes;
Fighter (Crossbowman)
Ranger
Cleric
Wizard
Alchemist
I am a little concerned about the lack of a Rogue in the group.
I am looking for some advice on if this is an legitimate or unfounded concern? If it is legitimate concern what are things I can do to work around this issue?
Here are a few ideas we are working on now.
Our Alchemist taking a few levels of Rogue - Though at first this looks like the perfect solution, it does not initially fit his character concept, anyone have any ideas for cool concepts of a Alchemist/Rogue mix?
Invite a 6th player - I could invite another player and convince them maybe to play a Rogue but this could lead to a problem, we have a player that had to drop out temporary and may come back into the game later, which would make 7 players which I don't want!
Anyone else have any other Ideas? Just a quick rule, I am trying to stick as closely to RAW as possible, but am willing to reach out to 3 Party sources if anyone knows something that would help.
It should hardly be necessary to have a Rogue in the group. It is never a bad class to have – but it, like all the other classes, it is optional.
I can only speak from reading the first adventure so far, but there is nothing that screams “rogue” about it. There are some traps, but nothing too major or dangerous that necessitates a trap finder.
From your post it is a bit unclear to me if you are the gm or a player. If you are a player and feel threatened by “rogue” like elements such as traps or overcomplicated devices that needs disabling. Hint it to your GM, he can change some traps into combat/other encounters and adjust DCs and such as necessary if he feels some encounters will be unfair/not fun without a rogue.
It is a much better option for all to simply do light adjustments in the module then forcing someone to play a character/concept they do not wish. That said no changes is needed in this particular module even if rogue-less groups. Never hurts to have some perception, disable device and other means of stealth though.
As long as you have one PC who is willing to put some ranks in perception and disable device the "trapfinding" aspect of the rogue is covered.
'Trapfinding' the class feature is different that it was in 3.x. You no longer NEED a rogue to find a trap with a DC higher then 20. SO! carry on with your party of five and have a great time!
Well the rogue in my group is complaining that there is little use for her abilities in smugglers shiv, although I suspect her trapfinding may come in handy later. Remember that anyone can find and remove non-magical traps as long as their perception and disable device scores are high enough so I wouldn't worry to much.
Trapfinding
A rogue adds 1/2 her level to Perception skill checks made to locate traps and to Disable Device skill checks (minimum +1). A rogue can use Disable Device to disarm magic traps.
The alchemist has both Disable Device and Perception as class skills. If the alchemist's race is one with Keen Senses (elf, gnome. half-elf, halfling) or possibly a dwarf with Stonecunning (most dungeons feature stonework), you don't even need a high Wis or Skill Focus (Perception).
An Urban Ranger is also an option. The fighter would be another: take three levels of rogue (Sniper) for Sneak Attack, the class skill bonus, Accuracy (halve range increment penalties), and Deadly Range (Sneak Attack at 40 ft); the Snap Shot rogue talent is pretty nice, too. A human fighter with a 12 Int has four Skill Ranks per level, without even counting the favored class bonus (unless you switch out Skilled for one of the "Heart of" alternate racial traits).
Also, if you have Seekers of Secrets (i.e., the Pathfinder handbook), one of your PCs (the ranger or alchemist, most likely) could take some levels in the Pathfinder Delver prestige class. I believe that fosters a lot of trapfinding goodness (though I don't have the book in front of me).
Also, as an author in this AP, I can assure you there will be plenty of opportunties for a rogue to shine. And there will be plenty of traps to challenge your party. Proceed with caution. ;-)
That is all,
--Neil
The group I DM for generally deals with not having a rogue in the following manner:
The fighter walks about 15 feet ahead of the party, with the cleric ready to heal him.
What can I say? Works for them. They say, "A tank (fighter) is the best trap finder out there."
The group I DM for generally deals with not having a rogue in the following manner:
The fighter walks about 15 feet ahead of the party, with the cleric ready to heal him.
What can I say? Works for them. They say, "A tank (fighter) is the best trap finder out there."
I wouldn't recommend this tactic. Certain traps don't just deal damage. You might have pits filled with water, teleportation traps (will save isn't exactly the fighters strong point), glyphs containing curses, spheres of annihilation or any number of other nasty stuff. Or what about something as simple as a pit that closes, then the big brute monsters appear from a hidden door to ravage the now fighter-less party.
I don't think any class is indispensable, the rogue included. Some might argue that you need a trapfinder and lock picker or you just won't succeed. To put it simply, that just ain't true. The only thing that a rogue can do that other classes can't is sneak attack, which is hardly necessary to have a successful adventuring party.
You have a ranger in your crew, so he has the ability to do your sneaking and scouting as needed. Probably has a decent Perception score too, which helps with detecting traps. Detect Magic is on the ranger spell list, so supplying him with a Wand of Detect Magic will allow him to scan for magic traps too, if you feel you must.
The Alchemist has Disable Device as a class skill, and Perception too, so if you find any traps you want to avoid, let the alchemist take a whack at it. You can certainly place masterwork Thieves' tools as loot, so that could give him a bonus to his attempts. If you're feeling particularly generous, you can also supply a Wand of Find Traps and either have the Cleric wield it or suggest that the person with the highest Perception score put some ranks into Use Magic Device.
Please note that even Rogues don't get to detect traps unless they are actively searching for them, and now they are no better at that than anyone else. The only exception is a Rogue who selects the Trap Spotter rogue talent, then they get a bonus to perception vs traps and a chance to spot them by being close by. But I've noticed very few players really choose that one until medium to high levels as there are more glamorous talent choices which allow them to take a more direct role -- Rogue Finesse and Combat Trick come to mind.
Trust me on this, you don't need a rogue... If I were your party, I'd be more worried that their only Fighter capable of wearing decent armor is specializing in ranged weapons, which may make your front line a little weak. But again, you can roll with it with other options: Wizard can summon critters to take hits, cleric can buff defenses sometimes, ranger can melee if he either fights defensively or doesn't mind being hit back, and even though crossbow spec'd, the fighter can still fight in melee almost as good as the ranger can. No class is indispensable.
we regularly go without a rogue, we are pretty far along in the AP.
Between our ranger, our monk and some spells, we got it covered, the druid has an insanely high perception (she hates failing perception rolls so took perception skill focus)
dont think u need a rogue you will be ok.
What can I say? Works for them. They say, "A tank (fighter) is the best trap finder out there."
In that role Dwarven Barbarians are even better ;)
As the DM, what you can do is fairly simple:
Remove the worst of the traps. Thats really the only "thing" the rogue can do that no one else can- they usually pump up perception and have disable handy. Just remove the traps or give the PC's some other way around them and you are good to go.
Remove the traps, the magical ones especially, and there should be no reason the team ever misses the rogue.
-S
|
|
Going with out a rogue is doable but the group may still benifit if some one, not the alchemist, took a level or two of the class but only if it fits there pc in some way. I took levels of rogue but had already taken desable device as a cross class skill and bought a toolkit at first level creation. The sneak attack melded well with my combat methods and speed from barbarian.
Shortly I will be starting my Serpent's Skull AP game with 5 players with the following classes;
Fighter (Crossbowman)
Ranger
Cleric
Wizard
AlchemistI am a little concerned about the lack of a Rogue in the group.
I am looking for some advice on if this is an legitimate or unfounded concern? If it is legitimate concern what are things I can do to work around this issue?
Here are a few ideas we are working on now.
Our Alchemist taking a few levels of Rogue - Though at first this looks like the perfect solution, it does not initially fit his character concept, anyone have any ideas for cool concepts of a Alchemist/Rogue mix?
Invite a 6th player - I could invite another player and convince them maybe to play a Rogue but this could lead to a problem, we have a player that had to drop out temporary and may come back into the game later, which would make 7 players which I don't want!
Anyone else have any other Ideas? Just a quick rule, I am trying to stick as closely to RAW as possible, but am willing to reach out to 3 Party sources if anyone knows something that would help.
I would suggest the ranger take on level of rogue just to be able to disable magical traps. Some DM's allow you to disable a trap if you come up with a creative way to do so. If that is the case for your group the one level dip may not be needed.