"People of Sands book puts the ability to disable magic traps in the form of a trait."
Yo can I get a link for this?
I'm having trouble finding it.
Trap Finder. Its been linked a few times now.
Trap Finder. Its been linked a few times now."People of Sands book puts the ability to disable magic traps in the form of a trait."
Yo can I get a link for this?
I'm having trouble finding it.
TY. I lost it during the forum glitch time.
I was gonna say this trait is the last handful of dirt thrown on the Rogue's grave, but I thought that was the case before and then saw Rogues being buried a little bit deeper time and time again.
I'd totally use a rogue in this game type that bears zero resemblance to anything that could ever appear in PFS. What's that? A vivisectionist? Don't be ridiculous, those aren't allowed in PFS so they don't count!
I was gonna say this trait is the last handful of dirt thrown on the Rogue's grave, but I thought that was the case before and then saw Rogues being buried a little bit deeper time and time again.
I think it's telling that you could gestalt fighter and rogue together and that class would still be less powerful than most of the current replacements.
I was gonna say this trait is the last handful of dirt thrown on the Rogue's grave, but I thought that was the case before and then saw Rogues being buried a little bit deeper time and time again.I think it's telling that you could gestalt fighter and rogue together and that class would still be less powerful than most of the current replacements.
Well... It would at least make it a decent class. Not OP by any means, but still a good class.
Honestly, I don't like the idea of giving Rogues full BAB and heavy armor proficiency. I'd rather play a Rogue that doesn't feel like a Trapper Ranger.
Rogues could become a pretty good class by simply fixing their Rogue talents, including creating/modifying a few ones to compensate for their awful saves and low accuracy.
I did create a Rogue fix homebrew that did just that... It seem to work, although I haven't play tested it too profoundly yet. I used it as NPCs in my campaign and they did pretty well, actually.
My next step is seeing one in play in a campaign. I considered playing one myself in an online game, but I find Sneak Attack and Trap Finding to be extremely boring, and since we already had a Magus and an Inquisitor, I felt like a Rogue would be redundant.
I did consider creating an Archaeologist Bard, but ended up playing a Druid instead.
Well if we are talking complex home-brew I gave my one shot at the rogue class.
I think the gestalt idea is cleaner though.
Well, the slayer comes out one day. That might turn into a cool class... or not! Who knows.
Edit: Personally, I hope slayer gets the power to cast Raining Blood and Angel of Death.
Rogues could become a pretty good class by simply fixing their Rogue talents, including creating/modifying a few ones to compensate for their awful saves and low accuracy.
Those talents would also be available to archaeologist bards and ninjas (any other classes/archetypes that pick up rogue talents?) though. Still, it's a good start.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, the slayer comes out one day. That might turn into a cool class... or not! Who knows.
Edit: Personally, I hope slayer gets the power to cast Raining Blood and Angel of Death.
Heh... It should also get "Mosh Pit" as a Favored Terrain.
Rogues could become a pretty good class by simply fixing their Rogue talents, including creating/modifying a few ones to compensate for their awful saves and low accuracy.Those talents would also be available to archaeologist bards and ninjas (any other classes/archetypes that pick up rogue talents?) though. Still, it's a good start.
True. But making the Rogue a good class is more important than making them better than Archaeologist Bards, IMO.
Besides, stuff related to precision damage wouldn't be very good to Bards, and Ninjas can't have more than 1 advanced Rogue Talent, so if Rogue talents are good enough, having more of them can be a good advantage.... And Ninjas could use a buff as well.
EDIT: If anyone is interested, you can see my homebrew Rogue fix here.
It includes a list of modified Rogue Talents, but the class itself has only a few minor changes. (like getting Poison Use, Improved Evasion and Trap Spotter for free, as well as proficiency with whips and bucklers and the ability of adding 2 extra skills of the player's choice to their list of class skills. Ninjas also get Evasion and proficiency with whips and bucklers.
Well... It would at least make it a decent class. Not OP by any means, but still a good class.
It's for that reason that I will probably ban both fighters and rogues as PC classes in the next campaign I run. If you want to play one you will just have to make do with the gestalt version.
EDIT: If anyone is interested, you can see my homebrew Rogue fix here.
It includes a list of modified Rogue Talents, but the class itself has only a few minor changes. (like getting Poison Use, Improved Evasion and Trap Spotter for free, as well as proficiency with whips and bucklers and the ability of adding 2 extra skills of the player's choice to their list of class skills. Ninjas also get Evasion and proficiency with whips and bucklers.
You nerfed skill mastery :(
I'd rather be able to take 10 on a limited amount of skills than roll twice for all of them.
Rolling twice, you only have about a 1/5 chance of getting below a 10. And the expected value on the roll is about 14. It's much better than taking 10.
You nerfed skill mastery :(
I'd rather be able to take 10 on a limited amount of skills than roll twice for all of them.
There is only a 20% chance that both your rolls will be a 9 or lower. (well, 20.25%, if you want to be picky).
So unless you're really, really unlucky, you're better off with an extra roll. I thought about adding another Rogue Talent to allow the Rogue to take 10 on multiple skill, but I didn't feel it was necessary.
EDIT: Nnja'd. By 3min... -.-'
Being able to remove the luck aspect of your skills is the whole point of skill mastery.
IMHO 20.25% is still fairly frequent.
Being able to remove the luck aspect of your skills is the whole point of skill mastery.
IMHO 20.25% is still fairly frequent.
It doesn't remove the luck aspect, but greatly reduces it. And in exchanges, gives you the chance to get much better rolls.
Also, it's not limited to 5~6 skills. (And that's for a Rogue with unusually high Int, most take a 10 or 12).
Being able to remove the luck aspect of your skills is the whole point of skill mastery.
IMHO 20.25% is still fairly frequent.
It doesn't remove the luck aspect, but greatly reduces it. And in exchanges, gives you the chance to get much better rolls.
Also, it's not limited to 5~6 skills. (And that's for a Rogue with unusually high Int, most take a 10 or 12).
Exactly the problem. Rolling the skill is statistically better than taking 10 anyways (ave of 10.5) I take skill mastery because I want to NEVER fail.
Think of it this way your skill mastery is essentially the same thing as giving a rogue +4 to all skill checks.
That's a good point, but vanilla Skill Mastery is likely to be used on your skills with the highest bonuses anyway. Taking 10 on those skills is usually unnecessary or not a guarantee of success (if it's a resisted check), and spending a Talent to be able to take 10 on skills you're not very good at doesn't seem like a good deal for me.
With a reroll, you can save yourself from those few times you roll very low not only with your main skills, but also the ones where taking 10 is not a safe bet. It's also more... let's say, "interactive" than simply saying "I take 10". Besides rolling, say, an 8 instead of a 10 is not that big of a difference. OTOH, having an extra chance to succeed against difficult odds is a great boon. Suddenly your chances to roll a 16 or higher go from 25% to 43.75%.
Additionally, there is a number of new talents that make the Rogue much better at skills he'd need in combat (Acrobatics, Bluff, Escape Artist, Sense Motive, etc).
Last but not least, Rogues are now capable of focusing on more fitting attributes without sucking. They can focus on Dex, Int and Cha and still be solid characters. They still need Str 10 to carry their stuff, but they no longer need to boost Wis just to survive mid levels. They are rewarded for higher Int and Cha scores, so they end up being even better at Rogue skills.
Skill Mastery(Bluff, UMD, Stealth, Disable Device, Acrobatics)
Assuming 14 int
Something that has been bugging me. If a rogue gets a plus int item can she use skill mastery on more skills?
NOTE: UMD becomes a very bad skill for rogues without vanilla skill mastery, and they could really use the access to magic. Not to just wands, but staffs and scrolls too.
Something that has been bugging me. If a rogue gets a plus int item can she use skill mastery on more skills?
RAW? Probably not... I'd allow it, though.
NOTE: UMD becomes a very bad skill for rogues without vanilla skill mastery, and they could really use the access to magic.
Bit of hyperbole there... UMD is a trained only skill, so by 10th level you have at least a +14 bonus (assuming Cha 10). That means you need a 6 to use wand.
With a reroll, that means you have a 9% chance of not making that DC20 check.
Admittedly, I'd like to add a few Talents to make UMD better for Rogues.
Or you could just leave skill mastery alone.
EDIT: Using wands is something even a fighter could do. It's having a constant caster level and ability score that lets the rogue use staves. Scroll DCs are pretty high too. Taking 10 allows the rogue to use those better.
IMHO needing a 6 to use a wand is still pretty aweful when vanilla skill mastery allowed then to just use the wand always, all the time.
Since it says 'upon gaining this ability' before listing how many skills can be mastered, I'm pretty sure that is a no. I would also allow retroactivity if for no other reason than ease of bookkeeping.
So if the rogue was wearing an INT item at the time then what?
Depends on if it were a permanent bonus. If he takes skill mastery after wearing the item for 24 hours, he gets the extra choices. If it is still temporary, he doesn't.
Why does that make sense?
Depends on if it were a permanent bonus. If he takes skill mastery after wearing the item for 24 hours, he gets the extra choices. If it is still temporary, he doesn't.Why does that make sense?
It doesn't. But that' RAW for you... It can be extra silly and still be considered official rules.
It doesn't. But that' RAW for you... It can be extra silly and still be considered official rules.Depends on if it were a permanent bonus. If he takes skill mastery after wearing the item for 24 hours, he gets the extra choices. If it is still temporary, he doesn't.Why does that make sense?
Oh well. I'll just add this to my list of house rules. (Which seem to only be about fighters, rogues, and monks)
Oh well. I'll just add this to my list of house rules. (Which seem to only be about fighters, rogues, and monks)You know what they say about fixing things that ain't broke. ;)
To my experience they are only not broken when playing together (but the same thing can be said for NPC classes).
In my games (most material and mythics), these classes just do not add anything to the party that something else can't do + more.
I know, I was commenting on the lack of houserules for other classes.
*whoosh*
Totally missed that.
I'm tricky like that. :3
my favorite 'Rogue' was a sylph wizard of the air elemental school whom used a homebrewed Archetype to gain trapfinding in place of scribe scroll, a rogue talent in place of an arcane discovery, a bunch of roguish skills in place of knowledge skills, and a bunch of free pre-determined roguish cantrips in place of a 1st level school power.
she was a stage magician whom also did burglary when she wasn't performing card tricks for tips, begged for old discounted leftover food when she couldn't steal an apple, and lived in a metropolis heehee. she had no arcane bond though.
Would be nice to have a rogue archetype based around the idea of using traps in combat. Like the trapper ranger, but more in-depth with better trap abilities.
Imagine if a rogue could collect traps over the course of a campaign and use those traps repeatably on enemies?
The trapsmith Prc in 3.5 worked.
Just convert to a base class.
The trapsmith Prc in 3.5 worked.
Just convert to a base class.
I think the trapper ranger might be an appropriate analogy. Anyone can learn to make Ranger Traps too.
I think the trapper ranger might be an appropriate analogy. Anyone can learn to make Ranger Traps too.
Yeah, but why give up spell casting when you can simply a trait for Trap Finding?
I think the trapper ranger might be an appropriate analogy. Anyone can learn to make Ranger Traps too.Yeah, but why give up spell casting when you can simply a trait for Trap Finding?
Because you really like traps I guess?
I know when I was younger I just disliked vancian spell casting enough to avoid spell casting classes at all cost. Unfortunately there aren't really any great trade-offs for losing your spell casting in pathfinder. Since I moved to pathfinder I've either asked to play using a 3.5 mechanic or just used Vancian, but I still have a dislike for it.
I think the trapper ranger might be an appropriate analogy. Anyone can learn to make Ranger Traps too.The trapsmith Prc in 3.5 worked.
Just convert to a base class.
Ranger Traps look really underwhelming to me, especially because the interesting ones all seem to have some sort of costly material component required. Is there something good there that I missed?
I think the trapper ranger might be an appropriate analogy. Anyone can learn to make Ranger Traps too.Yeah, but why give up spell casting when you can simply a trait for Trap Finding?
You have a petrifying fear of success and happiness?
Ranger Traps look really underwhelming to me, especially because the interesting ones all seem to have some sort of costly material component required. Is there something good there that I missed?I think the trapper ranger might be an appropriate analogy. Anyone can learn to make Ranger Traps too.The trapsmith Prc in 3.5 worked.
Just convert to a base class.
You don't have to pay the cost, the traps just don't last as long then.
IMHO less useful than spellcasting. You're just going out of your way to add some rogue gimp to yourself.
Ranger Traps look really underwhelming to me, especially because the interesting ones all seem to have some sort of costly material component required. Is there something good there that I missed?
Mostly underwhelming and don't scale very well as far as I can tell. I said it was an analogy and option, not that it had a lot of merit. I hadn't looked much over them until now to be honest.
Ranger Traps look really underwhelming to me, especially because the interesting ones all seem to have some sort of costly material component required. Is there something good there that I missed?I think the trapper ranger might be an appropriate analogy. Anyone can learn to make Ranger Traps too.The trapsmith Prc in 3.5 worked.
Just convert to a base class.
You don't have to pay the cost, the traps just don't last as long then.
IMHO less useful than spellcasting. You're just going out of your way to add some rogue gimp to yourself.
Yeah... Ranger traps are... Well, awful. And pretty much useless in combat before you get the ability to shoot them. I think Ranges could get the archetype for free and the power upgrade it'd be mostly unnoticeable.
Now, as much as /i like the idea of a Ranger shooting an arrow with a bear-trap on some orc's face, giving up spell casting for traps is a horrible deal. Admittedly, you still end up being better than a Rogue, but that's nothing to write home about...
Just take the trait and enjoy. If you really, really want to make the Rogue even more useless, spend your second trait to get disable device as a class skill, although I'd suggest taking one to boost your will save or caster level.
The DCs don't seem that bad as they're 10+1/2 lvl+wis. Looking at some of the effects they seem like they could be potentially interesting.
Marthkus, where do you see that? What I'm seeing is it saying that it can be mechanical or magic, with the difference being mechanical is easier to avoid but lasts longer. It doesn't seem to mention anything about components being optional.
The DCs don't seem that bad as they're 10+1/2 lvl+wis. Looking at some of the effects they seem like they could be potentially interesting.
One of the bigger advantages casters have is that they can pump one caster stat or put feats into their abilities to end up with a relatively high DC. So its ends up relatively short. The effects are also underwhelming, and the scaling isn't too amazing either.
The DCs don't seem that bad as they're 10+1/2 lvl+wis. Looking at some of the effects they seem like they could be potentially interesting.
Marthkus, where do you see that? What I'm seeing is it saying that it can be mechanical or magic, with the difference being mechanical is easier to avoid but lasts longer. It doesn't seem to mention anything about components being optional.
Hmm seems new traps were added, and maybe possible errata since the last time I looked. Pfff whatever.
I think someday I'm going to have to try to optimize those traps now (if those components can be ignored after all). Think I'd start with a Guided weapon... It would still be pretty terrible, but depending on the game it could be workable.
Also, yeah off topic, but the inadequacies of the Rogue have been thoroughly discussed already.
Also, yeah off topic, but the inadequacies of the Rogue have been thoroughly discussed already.
Hell even I have been convinced and I probably have hundreds of post defending the rogue.