Would allowing Rogues to target "touch AC" help increase their power?


Homebrew and House Rules

51 to 100 of 101 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Allowing to target touch AC does nothing for their defenses that just giving them a higher "to hit" would not accomplish.


Allow rogue the able to attack with touch AC render fighter useless and it makes no sense. How can a rogue hit a fighter who is heavy armored and well train in melee combat? Rogue's sneak attack already suggest how a rogue should be played. Rogue supposed to fight smart, instead of having full BAB and touch attack. They should be able to attack in more ways than fighter could just as using magical device, set off enemies' firearm, explode enemies' splash weapons, put bugs in fighter' armor.

To me, I believe it is foolish to give rogue full BAB and touch attacks, because it shouldn't be where rogue's strength at. Rogue's strength should come from abilities to our smart any enemies and finish them off when they less expected, which mean flat footed. If we give rogue full BAB and touch attacks, we allow rogue to be able to hit regardless the targets while still can't address the problem of rogue enable to survive magic and melee fight. I don't think rogue should be better at melee fight like fighters, it makes no sense. However, rogue should be allowed to add their int to their will saves and stealth without being detected by magic as long as they not using magical item. It makes perfect sense, they out smart enemies' spell by thinking in ways that caster can not understand, which only rogue should be allowed to do so.

Rogue does not need touch attacks nor full BAB. They just need ways to survive, to sneak and do things outside the box that other class couldn't do because they are not smart enough. With what I suggested, it gives players the choice to play as dex based rogue and int based rogue as well as higher survival chance in combat since it will be far more difficult to detect them.

Silver Crusade

Aelryinth wrote:

Allowing rogues to hit touch ac encourages them to be a dip class for classes that can actually do consistent damage.

==Aelryinth

So you would "dip" into a class for five levels?

Silver Crusade

wraithstrike wrote:
Allowing to target touch AC does nothing for their defenses that just giving them a higher "to hit" would not accomplish.

So instead of needing to spend feats and money on offensive I could spend that money and those feats, or even rogue talents, on better armour and magic items of protection such as Ring of Protection etc...

Silver Crusade

SiuoL wrote:

Allow rogue the able to attack with touch AC render fighter useless and it makes no sense. How can a rogue hit a fighter who is heavy armored and well train in melee combat? Rogue's sneak attack already suggest how a rogue should be played. Rogue supposed to fight smart, instead of having full BAB and touch attack. They should be able to attack in more ways than fighter could just as using magical device, set off enemies' firearm, explode enemies' splash weapons, put bugs in fighter' armor.

To me, I believe it is foolish to give rogue full BAB and touch attacks, because it shouldn't be where rogue's strength at. Rogue's strength should come from abilities to our smart any enemies and finish them off when they less expected, which mean flat footed. If we give rogue full BAB and touch attacks, we allow rogue to be able to hit regardless the targets while still can't address the problem of rogue enable to survive magic and melee fight. I don't think rogue should be better at melee fight like fighters, it makes no sense. However, rogue should be allowed to add their int to their will saves and stealth without being detected by magic as long as they not using magical item. It makes perfect sense, they out smart enemies' spell by thinking in ways that caster can not understand, which only rogue should be allowed to do so.

Rogue does not need touch attacks nor full BAB. They just need ways to survive, to sneak and do things outside the box that other class couldn't do because they are not smart enough. With what I suggested, it gives players the choice to play as dex based rogue and int based rogue as well as higher survival chance in combat since it will be far more difficult to detect them.

Why are you worried about the fighter? Last time I checked, Pathfinder wasn't about PvP, besides, I already explained in the first paragraph the reasoning behind Sneak Attack and how a rogue operates. They are opportunists who look for that chink in the armour or that perfect opportunity to slip that blade in between the plates in armour, or even where the straps connect.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The simplest fix we should take comes from an example from the Warpriest. Whenever the Warpriest is using a weapon from their deity or a weapon that they have Weapon Focus in, they use their class level as their BAB when making melee attacks.

The same fix can be applied here, letting the Rogue use their class level as their BAB when they are able to sneak attack or attacking an enemy who is denied (or loses) their Dexterity modifier. Now Rogues are relevant as 'support-martials' again.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

And fighters are highly trained combatants who use armor to deny opponents opportunities in combat and...hey, any 5th level rogue can just IGNORE THAT.

No.

Give them full BAB, and let them pick their 'situational opportunities'.

And yeah, 5 levels is a dip if you take the other 15 as something that can do great damage and ALWAYS HIT.

Or, to put it another way:

Alternate Fighter/20 level Cap: All your attacks are now touch attacks.

And you want to give something that I think is overpowered at level 20 away at level 5?

==Aelryinth


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

The simplest fix we should take comes from an example from the Warpriest. Whenever the Warpriest is using a weapon from their deity or a weapon that they have Weapon Focus in, they use their class level as their BAB when making melee attacks.

The same fix can be applied here, letting the Rogue use their class level as their BAB when they are able to sneak attack or attacking an enemy who is denied (or loses) their Dexterity modifier. Now Rogues are relevant as 'support-martials' again.

Again with the 'giving Rogues more bennies when they can sneak attack' bit.

Granted, Flanking type Sneak Attacks do struggle to hit. But what the Rogue needs even more than increased to-hit is improved viability when not sneak attacking.

(Also, good Rogue Talents.)


shallowsoul wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Allowing to target touch AC does nothing for their defenses that just giving them a higher "to hit" would not accomplish.
So instead of needing to spend feats and money on offensive I could spend that money and those feats, or even rogue talents, on better armour and magic items of protection such as Ring of Protection etc...

You would not have to spend any more feats that a rogue spends now with my idea, unless you are trying to make them a lot better and spend virtually nothing.

You may be thinking the rogue offense is a lot worse than what it is, but it is not that bad. What needs to be shored up is their ability to do utility based things. That is why I suggested actually making them better at skills in other threads.

As for the armor comment I would let them apply int to their AC also, and they should have good will saves IMHO.

As an example diplomacy might act like charm person X/day, or they can auto-escape a grapple at certain times by using escape artist. Instead of having to declare a perception check, they get free checks without having to use the trap spotter talent.

TLDR-->They get a special use out of each class skill that nobody else has that is bordline magical. Whether this is accessible to all rogues or you need talents is another question.

PS: I am assuming you are a looking for general simple solution, but I don't think it will be as simple as you want it to be.


A rouge fix would include a complete rouge talent rework and an accuracy bonus for sneak attacks.

I wont post my entire Talent rework, but here's the rest of my rouge changes:

Universal rule changes that support the rouge in my games:
Improved two-weapon fight reduces the TWF penalties by 1.
Greater Two weapon fight reduces the TWF penalties by another 1.

Daggers universally gain +1 on melee attack rolls as an added proficiency bonus.

Rouge changes:
Sneak attack (along with other class damage bonuses such as smite, challenge and bane) cannot proc on off-hand attacks, bonuses to attack rolls remain.

Against a flat-footed or flanked target the rouge gains Full Bab, possibly enabling extra attacks. He still counts as a partial BAB class for all other purposes.

Rouges can deal precision damage to foes within equal or less light dependent concealment conditions.

You may select the "Combat trick" rouge talent once at 2nd level and one additional time every 4 levels thereafter.

At 2nd level the rouge selects any one "Improved" combat maneuver feat ignoring its "power attack", "Combat expertise" or "Improved unarmed strike" prerequisites. Henceforth thee rouge can select any "improved" or "Greater" maneuver feat ignoring the "power attack", "Combat expertise" or "Improved unarmed strike" prerequisites.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

The simplest fix we should take comes from an example from the Warpriest. Whenever the Warpriest is using a weapon from their deity or a weapon that they have Weapon Focus in, they use their class level as their BAB when making melee attacks.

The same fix can be applied here, letting the Rogue use their class level as their BAB when they are able to sneak attack or attacking an enemy who is denied (or loses) their Dexterity modifier. Now Rogues are relevant as 'support-martials' again.

Again with the 'giving Rogues more bennies when they can sneak attack' bit.

Granted, Flanking type Sneak Attacks do struggle to hit. But what the Rogue needs even more than increased to-hit is improved viability when not sneak attacking.

(Also, good Rogue Talents.)

To be honest, I'm not sure why it's an issue. Rogues are defined as being able to use Sneak Attack when 1. Flanking, and 2. Target is denied their Dexterity Modifier to AC. With that being said, they should do their damnedest to try and set it up, the same way any other Martial should do their damnedest to try and set up full attacks.

Feats like Outflank and Gang Up are perfect for a rogue, since it allows them to flank as long as 2 other allies threaten the target, and Outflank increases their flanking bonuses by 2 with those who also have this feat; tack on being able to make AoOs when your allies critically hit the target, and it becomes a great feat for all martials to take, especially with 15-20 critical multipliers. With Combat Expertise and Int 13 as pre-reqs, it's not too difficult for a rogue to snatch up, especially since those same pre-reqs are for Dirty Tricks, something which every rogue who calls himself a rogue should take, given the innumerable assortment of potential debuffs and ability to do so while being able to make attacks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:

I also thought about adding a talent that would allow you to sneak attack even without a flanker assuming you(general statement) did not want to go with making feint a swift action for a rogue, which would be a talent if you did not want to make it into a rogue ability.

PS: Moving them to medium armor might also be a good idea. With the increased damage they become more likely to be targeted unless you have another idea to boost their AC.

Actually I do. The fact of the matter is, the non-magic limitations are NOT what is keeping rogue talent power level down. Developer imagination and balance misconceptions are. Some combat-focused rogue talents I think might be a good idea:

1) Duck and Weave: Rogues learn particular facility at dodging blows when stealth and deceit fails. Gains +1 dodge bonus to AC +1 for every five rogue levels or so. (Which should stack with the Dodge feat, etc, because dodge bonus)

2) "Sucker Punch": The rogue learns to be adept at causing debilitating pain when they get the jump on their enemies. Living opponents who are not otherwise immune to pain effects suffer the sickened condition (no save) for 1 round after a successful sneak attack.

3) Streetfighter's tricks: X times per day, a rogue may attempt a Dirty Trick combat maneuver upon an enemy within 10 feet as a swift action (without provoking attacks of opportunity). The character uses their Rogue levels in place of their attack bonus (adding any attack bonus gained from other classes or racial HD normally) and may use their dexterity or intelligence bonus in place of strength. This might ease the difficulty of getting sneak attack up a bit. Or at least be another option/alternative to feint, etc.

4) Slip away: As a move action, the rogue may move up to their base speed without provoking attacks of opportunity (without requiring any sort of acrobatics or other check). Usable once per day plus one more time for every six rogue levels.

YMMV, of course.


I don't know. I guess I've got mixed feeling on the AC thing. The base armors all have remarkably similar total bonuses, presuming max Dex. And I don't think rogues SHOULD be surpassing dedicated martial classes as far as armor goes.


Shadowdweller wrote:
I don't know. I guess I've got mixed feeling on the AC thing. The base armors all have remarkably similar total bonuses, presuming max Dex. And I don't think rogues SHOULD be surpassing dedicated martial classes as far as armor goes.

I think they should be on par with medium armor wearing classes if they are expected to be in melee. That would still give them room to be decent utility wise.

The inquisitor as an example is decent in combat, has medium armor and is good outside of combat. I would at that class or a bard as the starting point to compare combat and utility use, and the worse the rogue was in combat the more I would give him "out of combat options".


Shadowdweller wrote:

Actually I do. The fact of the matter is, the non-magic limitations are NOT what is keeping rogue talent power level down. Developer imagination and balance misconceptions are. Some combat-focused rogue talents I think might be a good idea:

1) Duck and Weave: Rogues learn particular facility at dodging blows when stealth and deceit fails. Gains +1 dodge bonus to AC +1 for every five rogue levels or so. (Which should stack with the Dodge feat, etc, because dodge bonus)

2) "Sucker Punch": The rogue learns to be adept at causing debilitating pain when they get the jump on their enemies. Living opponents who are not otherwise immune to pain effects suffer the sickened condition (no save) for 1 round after a successful sneak attack.

3) Streetfighter's tricks: X times per day, a rogue may attempt a Dirty Trick combat maneuver upon an enemy within 10 feet as a swift action (without provoking attacks of opportunity). The character uses their Rogue levels in place of their attack bonus (adding any attack bonus gained from other classes or racial HD normally) and may use their dexterity or intelligence bonus in place of strength. This might ease the difficulty of getting sneak attack up a bit. Or at least be another option/alternative to feint, etc.

4) Slip away: As a move action, the rogue may move up to their base speed without provoking attacks of opportunity (without requiring any sort of acrobatics or other check). Usable once per day plus one more time for every six rogue levels.

YMMV, of course.

1) Is pretty overpowered +5 dodge bonus to AC for 1 feat equivalent?

2) Is okay I think balance on it might be better if it was switched to 1 round per 1d6 sneak attack dice you have but including a fort. save with DC 10+1/2 rogue levels+(Str or Dex whichever is higher).

3)Is okay depends on what the X ends up being but it's certainly not bad.

4) Ugh just no. Still bad. Making it a 1/day ability blows and is absolutely not worth a feat imo. Make it 1 plus one per 6 levels +(Int or Cha) at the absolute minimum or make it a freebie that gets added in at level 6 or something.

Also I'd add:
5) Crafty Combatant - Gain either Improved Feint or Improved Dirty Trick feat, you may treat your Rogue levels as your BAB for qualifying for further feats enhancing this maneuver and may ignore any other(non BAB) prerequisites for selecting said feats.

6) Sharpened Eyesight - Gain Darkvision - 60ft


gnomersy wrote:
Shadowdweller wrote:

1) Duck and Weave: Rogues learn particular facility at dodging blows when stealth and deceit fails. Gains +1 dodge bonus to AC +1 for every five rogue levels or so. (Which should stack with the Dodge feat, etc, because dodge bonus)

1) Is pretty overpowered +5 dodge bonus to AC for 1 feat equivalent

Take a look at Beast Totem


kyrt-ryder wrote:
gnomersy wrote:
Shadowdweller wrote:

1) Duck and Weave: Rogues learn particular facility at dodging blows when stealth and deceit fails. Gains +1 dodge bonus to AC +1 for every five rogue levels or so. (Which should stack with the Dodge feat, etc, because dodge bonus)

1) Is pretty overpowered +5 dodge bonus to AC for 1 feat equivalent
Take a look at Beast Totem

Sooooo you want to balance the Rogue's combat ability with the best line of Barbarian rage powers which incidentally blocks out about a dozen other options when you take it and is gated by a level and a pretty bad pre requisite power?

Edit: Also Natural Armor doesn't stack unlike dodge.

Silver Crusade

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

The simplest fix we should take comes from an example from the Warpriest. Whenever the Warpriest is using a weapon from their deity or a weapon that they have Weapon Focus in, they use their class level as their BAB when making melee attacks.

The same fix can be applied here, letting the Rogue use their class level as their BAB when they are able to sneak attack or attacking an enemy who is denied (or loses) their Dexterity modifier. Now Rogues are relevant as 'support-martials' again.

I really like this idea!

Fair play.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
gnomersy wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
gnomersy wrote:
Shadowdweller wrote:

1) Duck and Weave: Rogues learn particular facility at dodging blows when stealth and deceit fails. Gains +1 dodge bonus to AC +1 for every five rogue levels or so. (Which should stack with the Dodge feat, etc, because dodge bonus)

1) Is pretty overpowered +5 dodge bonus to AC for 1 feat equivalent
Take a look at Beast Totem
Sooooo you want to balance the Rogue's combat ability with the best line of Barbarian rage powers which incidentally blocks out about a dozen other options when you take it

'blocking out options' isn't really a topic for debate when 95% of Barbarians take it. That's less of an option more a Barbarian Class Feature at this point.

Quote:
and is gated by a level

Woe is me, I'll just take Combat Talent: Dodge until level 6, then take Duck and Weave while Retraining Combat Talent into something else.

Quote:
and a pretty bad pre requisite power?

Point taken.

Quote:
Edit: Also Natural Armor doesn't stack unlike dodge.

What exactly is the Natural Armor in Beast Totem competing with? Racial Natural Armor?


kyrt-ryder wrote:


'blocking out options' isn't really a topic for debate when 95% of Barbarians take it. That's less of an option more a Barbarian Class Feature at this point.
Quote:
and is gated by a level

Woe is me, I'll just take Combat Talent: Dodge until level 6, then take Duck and Weave while Retraining Combat Talent into something else.

Quote:
and a pretty bad pre requisite power?

Point taken.

Quote:
Edit: Also Natural Armor doesn't stack unlike dodge.
What exactly is the Natural Armor in Beast Totem competing with? Racial Natural Armor?

Urgh retraining. For what it's worth at my table we have never and will probably never use that rule because it's a damn mess.

And yes Racial Natural Armor as well as Template based ones since anything you put in the game in general is available to the DM as well and some spells give you NA (no not Barkskin I know that's an enhancement).


shallowsoul wrote:


Why are you worried about the fighter? Last time I checked, Pathfinder wasn't about PvP, besides, I already explained in the first paragraph the reasoning behind Sneak Attack and how a rogue operates. They are opportunists who look for that chink in the armour or that perfect opportunity to...

Simple, I worry about fighter is because Pathfinder's fighter is pretty bad already. The only class they can fight against is rogue, it's not about PvP but that doesn't stop GM throwing rogue at your party. Fighter supposed to be guard or someone who is well trained in melee combat. There is no way for a rogue to get perfect opportunity to look for that chink in the armour every single attack he make against someone who is well trained to not let enemies hit their weakspots. Roleplay wise, it doesn't make sense for a rogue to beat a fighter in a straight up fight. Oh the other hand, there are nothing stopping full casters at high levels, while roleplay wise, rogue supposed to be the class that can our smart and out wit casters. So allow rogue to hide from magic detecting, add their int to their will saves and able to trip enemies would be enough to balance the game. It will allow rogue to survive better than Fighter against magic, able to stealth close enough to caster means more sneak attack, and better at tripping, set traps, setting off enemies firearm allow them to do more in combat. It's is perfect both roleplay wise and mechanic wise.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
gnomersy wrote:
1) Is pretty overpowered +5 dodge bonus to AC for 1 feat equivalent?

Yeah, I'm inclined to agree with you in retrospect. Was just a brainstorm :) I kinda don't think rogues have terrible AC, given that the majority tend to be Dex-focused. (Or at least the fantasy stereotype tends to be). If they lag behind inquisitor AC it's prolly because of magic buffs, judgements, and/or shields. I also sorta don't think they SHOULD be matching or exceeding dedicated martials. That said, a bonus of a point or two seems reasonably thematic to me - dodging around blows. I don't know, the scaling of everything is off.

gnomersy wrote:
4) Ugh just no. Still bad. Making it a 1/day ability blows and is absolutely not worth a feat imo. Make...

Scaling of course is the tricky part. I kinda think that by the time you get to +stat times per day you're reaching the point of "not reasonably going to run out" which I don't think is great for this ability, given the existence of Tumble, Mobility and the like. Eh.

gnomersy wrote:

Also I'd add:

5) Crafty Combatant - Gain either Improved Feint or Improved Dirty Trick feat, you may treat your Rogue levels as your BAB for qualifying for further feats enhancing this maneuver and may ignore any other(non BAB) prerequisites for selecting said feats.

6) Sharpened Eyesight - Gain Darkvision - 60ft

Both of those seem pretty good to me, though I might be tempted to label the darkvision one as *gasp* supernatural. I've long thought that darkvision disproportionately affects rogues given the concealment and sneak attack thing (which I'd like to see disappear WITHOUT the need for a feat...at least by a certain rogue level). From a conceptual standpoint, I don't even have problems with giving generally non-magical classes some quasi-magical abilities. Who is to say a fighter, rogue or whatever WOULDN'T normally try to make use of a few magical tricks if such things existed, worked, and were generally within the realm of their expertise? Alternately, giving them the ability to crudely locate obstacles and creatures (and sneak attack the latter!) within a certain relatively short radius rather than full on accurate darkvision would be reasonably thematic and potentially worthwhile as a possible extraordinary alternative. In addition to maintaining a certain market for dimly lit rooms, concealed candles (or Thieves' lanterns a la Name of the Wind / Wise Man's fear) and the like.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

The simplest fix we should take comes from an example from the Warpriest. Whenever the Warpriest is using a weapon from their deity or a weapon that they have Weapon Focus in, they use their class level as their BAB when making melee attacks.

The same fix can be applied here, letting the Rogue use their class level as their BAB when they are able to sneak attack or attacking an enemy who is denied (or loses) their Dexterity modifier. Now Rogues are relevant as 'support-martials' again.

Again with the 'giving Rogues more bennies when they can sneak attack' bit.

Granted, Flanking type Sneak Attacks do struggle to hit. But what the Rogue needs even more than increased to-hit is improved viability when not sneak attacking.

(Also, good Rogue Talents.)

To be honest, I'm not sure why it's an issue. Rogues are defined as being able to use Sneak Attack when 1. Flanking, and 2. Target is denied their Dexterity Modifier to AC. With that being said, they should do their damnedest to try and set it up, the same way any other Martial should do their damnedest to try and set up full attacks.

Feats like Outflank and Gang Up are perfect for a rogue, since it allows them to flank as long as 2 other allies threaten the target, and Outflank increases their flanking bonuses by 2 with those who also have this feat; tack on being able to make AoOs when your allies critically hit the target, and it becomes a great feat for all martials to take, especially with 15-20 critical multipliers. With Combat Expertise and Int 13 as pre-reqs, it's not too difficult for a rogue to snatch up, especially since those same pre-reqs are for Dirty Tricks, something which every rogue who calls himself a rogue should take, given the innumerable assortment of potential debuffs and ability to do so while being able to make attacks.

It's really mostly a control issue. Read any of the angryposts from a gamer feeling their choices/rights were taken away regarding Y, and then compare that to the up/down way SA works.

It's also that skills need to be more useful in specific ways.

The first is an issue with the SA mechanic itself (and a trust issue), and the second a more overall design issue that is outside the scope of an errata.

Silver Crusade

I really wish the mods would stop moving threads to the wrong forum. This is not a suggestion or a house rule conversation, it's a hypothetical "what if".


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

wouldn't a flat footed touch AC be like 10?


I don't like the idea of normal attacks targeting touch AC, it goes against a base assumption of the game and can easily derail into broken and/or annoying territory. (Which is why I hate firearm rules, despite liking the gunslinger class)

I think there are other ways to makes Rogues effective without breaking a baseline rule.

Silver Crusade

Bandw2 wrote:
wouldn't a flat footed touch AC be like 10?

Flat footed just means you don't add dex mod or a dodge bonus.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
shallowsoul wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
wouldn't a flat footed touch AC be like 10?
Flat footed just means you don't add dex mod or a dodge bonus.

and then touch is like don't add anything else, except really misc armor anyway, or does enhancement still work.


I could see allowing it as a full round action. I would probably make it an advanced talent so it can't be taken before level 10. Rogues can be hurt a lot by high AC enemies, and other classes can hit touch AC already.

One thing you need to keep in mind when comparing DPR between classes is how the class gets its DPR. Full BAB classes don't out-damage the Rogue, they out consistency it. The Rogue gets the most benefit to DPR from gaining BAB or ability to hit regularly, because they have the highest source of damage. +1.75 average damage per level is more than any other martial class gets. Giving the rogue the ability to target touch AC would spike its DPR so that it would blow other classes away. Unless you limit their damage output when they do it by either forcing them to make only 1 attack or not getting sneak attack for the round, you will easily make them the goto class for damage.


I still don't see how a rogue can look for the gap between armor and strike against someone who is well trained against that kind of attacks all the time. Rogue doesn't train as much as fighter and paladin, they are just skilled and smart. And giving rogue touch attack will only means they can hit any guy with armors and still can't kill them, and still die because he could come close to. Believe me, I fought a rogue who is one level higher than me in a one on one match and he crit almost every round so armor won't matter at this point. My fighter still won. So this doesn't help rogue, and still no one can kill those guys in a robe carrying all those magic items like bracers of armor.

More efficient way to fix rogue, give them more options. Clarify their talents like black-market so they can sneak some swarm or ant inside the armor of those big guys. Give them stealth against magical detection, let them add Int to their Will saves so they can outsmart their spell and survive magic better. Sneak attack deal full damage when enemies wearing light or no armor except for natural armor. Allow rogue to disarm magical items with their skills. Give option to trip better so they can set up sneak attack better. That would give rogue better survival chance against everything while still not blowing other class away.


Bandw2 wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
wouldn't a flat footed touch AC be like 10?
Flat footed just means you don't add dex mod or a dodge bonus.
and then touch is like don't add anything else, except really misc armor anyway, or does enhancement still work.

Touch is only ignoring Shield (including enhancement bonus to that), Armor (including enhancement bonus to that) and Natural Armor (including enhancement bonus to that)

Flatfooted Touch retains Deflection, Insight, Luck, Sacred/Profane, Morale, Circumstance, Competence, Trait, and Size.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
wouldn't a flat footed touch AC be like 10?
Flat footed just means you don't add dex mod or a dodge bonus.
and then touch is like don't add anything else, except really misc armor anyway, or does enhancement still work.

Touch is only ignoring Shield (including enhancement bonus to that), Armor (including enhancement bonus to that) and Natural Armor (including enhancement bonus to that)

Flatfooted Touch retains Deflection, Insight, Luck, Sacred/Profane, Morale, Circumstance, Competence, Trait, and Size.

so yeah, misc AC :/


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Caineach wrote:
Giving the rogue the ability to target touch AC would spike its DPR so that it would blow other classes away. Unless you limit their damage output when they do it by either forcing them to make only 1 attack or not getting sneak attack for the round, you will easily make them the goto class for damage.

While that may not be the ideal solution- and during the course of this thread I've come to believe that giving them constant touch attacks is a poor option- I see absolutely nothing wrong with possibly making Rogue the goto class for damage. That's certainly what pops into a new player's mind when he reads the class. 'Oh wow look at all that bonus damage, this guy's going to be a shredder.'

That's not inherently bad. What is bad is that right now the class presents itself one way to those who don't understand the system, but in-truth plays a different way entirely.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Giving the rogue the ability to target touch AC would spike its DPR so that it would blow other classes away. Unless you limit their damage output when they do it by either forcing them to make only 1 attack or not getting sneak attack for the round, you will easily make them the goto class for damage.

While that may not be the ideal solution- and during the course of this thread I've come to believe that giving them constant touch attacks is a poor option- I see absolutely nothing wrong with possibly making Rogue the goto class for damage. That's certainly what pops into a new player's mind when he reads the class. 'Oh wow look at all that bonus damage, this guy's going to be a shredder.'

That's not inherently bad. What is bad is that right now the class presents itself one way to those who don't understand the system, but in-truth plays a different way entirely.

Personally I wouldn't really like it if the rogue became the high damage class, since I don't really like straight damage-dealing anyways but I like the other things the rogue idea is suppose to represent.

But then, I already have multiple rogues that I am happy with. Jason Bulhman wrote a really nice rogue-fix for 3.5, and it works just as well in pathfinder (actually I think its balance is better when it is ported to pathfinder than it is in 3.5). Chris Bennett wrote a really awesome rouge-fix for pathfinder, and I'm happy with that. So, I suppose if they turn the original rogue class into something I don't like I won't mind:)
Of course, making it a straight-damage focused class would still make it somewhat underpowered. In pathfinder, damage as a sole means of accomplishing goals is rather narrow in its application. But, as long as it keeps its high skill points, and gets a bunch of damage, it will have something over both the barbarian (more skills) and the bard (more damage), making it not completely overshadowed.


I like the idea, but it can be implemented much more simply: Rogue gets +1 BAB per 2 Rogue levels to all sneak attacks.


I'd just make feinting way easier. Make it a swift class ability you can use once per enemy or something. It can get better as levels go higher.

Then it's something your character is actively doing to set up a sneak attack, you're in full control.

It won't work against everything, but nothing should.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Giving the rogue the ability to target touch AC would spike its DPR so that it would blow other classes away. Unless you limit their damage output when they do it by either forcing them to make only 1 attack or not getting sneak attack for the round, you will easily make them the goto class for damage.

While that may not be the ideal solution- and during the course of this thread I've come to believe that giving them constant touch attacks is a poor option- I see absolutely nothing wrong with possibly making Rogue the goto class for damage. That's certainly what pops into a new player's mind when he reads the class. 'Oh wow look at all that bonus damage, this guy's going to be a shredder.'

That's not inherently bad. What is bad is that right now the class presents itself one way to those who don't understand the system, but in-truth plays a different way entirely.

Agreed. In fact the slayer kind of fixes this issue if you know to point the player at it. If you want to be the cutthrought sneaky stabby murder guy you have the slayer.

The rogue on the other hand, really needs a new identity. Or at least one that is focused enough to make sense. Just upping its power isnt going to 'fix' the class. The problem, much like the monk, is the rogue's identity is waaay too scattered, and it doesnt have magic to back it up.

A lot of the space the 'rogue' sat in originally has been carved up elsewhere. The ninja, the slayer, the investigator, and the swashbuckler all cut off pieces of what the rogue class was originally trying to protray. So the answer in my mind is to find its footing outside the concepts that those classes do better.

What does it actually mean to be a rogue that isnt a ninja, slayer, investigator or swashbuckler? Answer that and we have a real start for making the rogue work.


My idea of a rogue (over the other 4) is a guy that throws sand in your face, pushes you over a railing and stabs you in the groin while you're down, then runs away.

There isn't a very mechanically useful way to convey that in Pathfinder.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
mephnick wrote:

My idea of a rogue (over the other 4) is a guy that throws sand in your face, pushes you over a railing and stabs you in the groin while you're down, then runs away.

There isn't a very mechanically useful way to convey that in Pathfinder.

Sure there is. It just involves actual unique class mechanics for the rogue. Like a 'dirty trick pool' or some such thing. Here I'll give you a draft.

Dirty Fighting:
At first level a rogue recieves the improved dirty trick feat as a bonus feat. In addition, when using the dirty trick combat maneuver the rogue uses his rogue level, in place of his base attack bonus when determining his combat maneuver bonus.

Dirty Trick Pool
The rogue is truely exceptional at dastardly tricks. WHen using the dirty trick combat maneuver he can spend 1 point from his dirty trick pool to extend the duration of the condition imposed by dirty trick by a number of rounds equal to his intelligence modifier. A rogue has a number of dirty trick pool points equal to 3 plus his intelligence modifier.

Rogue tricks
Combined trick: The rogue with this trick can spend a point from his dirty trick pool to grant an additional negative condition upon a successful dirty trick combat maneuver.

Silver Crusade

Kolokotroni wrote:
mephnick wrote:

My idea of a rogue (over the other 4) is a guy that throws sand in your face, pushes you over a railing and stabs you in the groin while you're down, then runs away.

There isn't a very mechanically useful way to convey that in Pathfinder.

Sure there is. It just involves actual unique class mechanics for the rogue. Like a 'dirty trick pool' or some such thing. Here I'll give you a draft.

Dirty Fighting:
At first level a rogue recieves the improved dirty trick feat as a bonus feat. In addition, when using the dirty trick combat maneuver the rogue uses his rogue level, in place of his base attack bonus when determining his combat maneuver bonus.

Dirty Trick Pool
The rogue is truely exceptional at dastardly tricks. WHen using the dirty trick combat maneuver he can spend 1 point from his dirty trick pool to extend the duration of the condition imposed by dirty trick by a number of rounds equal to his intelligence modifier. A rogue has a number of dirty trick pool points equal to 3 plus his intelligence modifier.

Rogue tricks
Combined trick: The rogue with this trick can spend a point from his dirty trick pool to grant an additional negative condition upon a successful dirty trick combat maneuver.

I don't like certain things limited to a certain number per day. Supernatural things are fine but non magical things are not. A rogue should be able to throw sand in people's eyes all day long.

Would be too 4th edition D&D for me.


While I'm not sure the 4E quip was appropriate, I am of a similar mind in regards to limited uses per day of mundane options.

This fear of handing out powerful mundane abilities at-will is completely unfounded, but it seems to pervade the PF community.


I'd considered something like Rogue level + Dex to CMB instead of BAB + Str for certain maneuvers. I've played enough sports to know you don't have to be strong to clip a guy's heel and take him down for a trip.

I don't expect a rogue to bullrush a knight, but trip or disarm? Sure.


It's not preventing the rogue from throwing sand into people's eyes. It's just impacting how often the rogue can make it last longer than normal. That's within the realm of a per day ability.

I actually really like that idea...


I...think this needs some more thought and refining, but I really believe you all are onto something


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
shallowsoul wrote:


I don't like certain things limited to a certain number per day. Supernatural things are fine but non magical things are not. A rogue should be able to throw sand in people's eyes all day long.

Would be too 4th edition D&D for me.

Why? Its rather thin reasoning as to why magic is limited per day, isntead of say by endurance, or some kind of well of power. Why can a cavalier only 'challenge' x times per day? Or a barbarian rage? Those arent magic.

Its a way of managing peak vs general power. Every class except the fighter and the rogue have some sort of resource that let them do something extra special a certain number times a day. If you automatically remove the mundane characters from that, then they will always suffer. Because balance wise, general ability should be less then peak, but if everyone else has limited resources, the all day ability matters little since the rest of the party needs to pace themselves.

The explanation that a rogue only gets the chance to do this stuff a certain number of times before he's worn out, or his luck runs out, or whatever is about as plausible as why a perfectly healthy, energetic and vital sorceror runs out of spells, or the limit on the number of times an alchemist can mix chemicals together in a day to make a bomb.

The limited use resource just gives the rogue the game space to do something special. Your kind of thinking is literally what is holding the rogue back design wise. Its not 4th edition. Its pathfinder. That is how pathfinder works. The only reason the rogue and fighter dont have these things is holdovers from 3.5.


Kolokotroni wrote:
Because balance wise, general ability should be less then peak, but if everyone else has limited resources, the all day ability matters little since the rest of the party needs to pace themselves.

This is precisely why there's no need to force classes into having a General/Peak dynamic.

Believe it or not, it's OK to have (as a random example) a Fighter class which performs as well at level 20 as he does at level 1 (a level at which a swing of a greatsword has a similar level of effect as a level appropriate spell, and can be used all day long.)


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:

While I'm not sure the 4E quip was appropriate, I am of a similar mind in regards to limited uses per day of mundane options.

This fear of handing out powerful mundane abilities at-will is completely unfounded, but it seems to pervade the PF community.

It has nothing to do with fear. It has to do with game balance and game structure. If your 'at will' ability is a match for someone else's limited use ability, the game is not functioning correctly. Every class (including the non magical and pseudo magical) pathfinder has added to the game has a resource to spend. This is a design convention. You have baseline power, and peak (spending reasources) power. Peak power is greater then baseline power.

As mentioned by Disciple of Sakura, I am not recommending the rogue get 'spells', where all his abilities are tied to per day options. I am recommending he get a resource that lets him go above and beyond the normal. The same way the cavalier has challenge, the barbarian has rage, the gunslinger has grit (all non-magical by the way). They get something to spend to do something above and beyond and get their shining moment.

If you keep that away from the rogue, you are left with either an overpowered rogue (a rogue that can always shine where as everyone else can only shine some of the time) or an underpowered rogue (where everyone else gets a shining moment, and the rogue is always a lower baseline of effectiveness).


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
Because balance wise, general ability should be less then peak, but if everyone else has limited resources, the all day ability matters little since the rest of the party needs to pace themselves.

This is precisely why there's no need to force classes into having a General/Peak dynamic.

Believe it or not, it's OK to have (as a random example) a Fighter class which performs as well at level 20 as he does at level 1 (a level at which a swing of a greatsword has a similar level of effect as a level appropriate spell, and can be used all day long.)

Except everyone except the fighter and rogue have peak vs general performance. Odd how they seem to always be the odd men out huh? Its not a coincidence. The limited resources give the design space needed to give those classes a moment in the spotlight. Without it, you are left with 2 classes that simply do not fit the rest of the game.


Running concurrently to your idea, Kolokotroni, one could add that option for all the combat maneuvers, so you don't have to have a dirty fighting rogue, you could have a disarming rogue or whatever.

One thing I've also thought of is that the rogue should have options to mimic other class options, similar to the 3.5 Factotum and/or Chameleon. I've been toying with the idea for rogue talents to be used to modify the class, with tricks like "appending" spells per day to the class build, allowing them to cast a small number of spells from a spellbook like a wizard, for example. Letting the rogue be a dilettante. I'm not sure, but I was contemplating something like that.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

For the sake of not derailing the thread further, I've created a new thread with the Lethal Trickster rogue archetype.

51 to 100 of 101 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Would allowing Rogues to target "touch AC" help increase their power? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.