What's the deal with the rogue hate?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

251 to 300 of 607 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

A monk has no armor yet a rogue should not be beefier than an armorless PC..


Snickersnack wrote:
A monk has no armor yet a rogue should not be beefier than an armorless PC..

Most assuredly. A guy who doesn't wear armor should definitely be able to take a hit as well as a guy who usually does...in the situations where they both are wearing the same amount of armor.

If you notice, I mentioned "beefy" in the context of hit points, not AC. AC is the ability to avoid the hit, not take it.


thegreenteagamer wrote:
Snickersnack wrote:
A monk has no armor yet a rogue should not be beefier than an armorless PC..

Most assuredly. A guy who doesn't wear armor should definitely be able to take a hit as well as a guy who usually does...in the situations where they both are wearing the same amount of armor.

If you notice, I mentioned "beefy" in the context of hit points, not AC. AC is the ability to avoid the hit, not take it.

This is why I equate "beefy" with AC and HP:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/beefy

To me, they are as one, not separate entities.


I do not see what large/strong/often fat has to do with one's ability to avoid a hit.

I DO see how it would be involved in taking a hit, quite easily. Your link did not clarify any merger between AC and HP, but rather simplified it's separation.

But to remain on topic and not go too far off tangent, I don't think rogues should have more HP than monks, though more AC does make sense.


Okay so perhaps I can leave that out and try it with the changes I've implemented.

How would multiplying sneak attack work alongside feats that work on them like Sap Adept and Sap Master? Would they multiply since it changes how much it does.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The change the rogue need the most is an improvement of the rogue talents. I would recomend Lemmy's revised rogue talents (I do not like all of them but It is a start). I think they are somewhere in the forum, you probably can find them with a search.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Multiply sneak attack damage on a crit is not the answer. It is easier to just give the rogue more consistent damage if you give it something like the inquisitor or ranger has which is bonuses to attacks and damage under certain situation if you care about the damage. You also don't have to depend on crit builds. As a more specific example maybe they get extra "to hit" bonuses when flanking. That would allow them to hit more often, and if they got a bonus to their AC, maybe an insight bonus, it can keep them in light armor and give than an AC that matters.

However it has been my experience that most people who play a rogue don't do it primarily for damage so I would not give it a big boost to damage. I would find a way to make them better at using skills, and no I don't mean just give them bigger modifiers. They should be able to do things that other classes can't.

Example:Maybe they can use diplomacy as a suggestion or charm person spell X/day, but it won't be magical. Instead of having a bonus to perception that only works against traps. The bonus should apply to all perception checks like the archaeologist bard does.


thegreenteagamer wrote:

I do not see what large/strong/often fat has to do with one's ability to avoid a hit.

I DO see how it would be involved in taking a hit, quite easily. Your link did not clarify any merger between AC and HP, but rather simplified it's separation.

But to remain on topic and not go too far off tangent, I don't think rogues should have more HP than monks, though more AC does make sense.

You must have missed my link

Merrian Webster Dictionary wrote:


heavily and powerfully built <a beefy thug>


When my brother runs a campaign, he grants rogues Weapon Finesse and Fast Stealth at first level.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

In my campaign I adjusted sneak attack to work like this.

Sneak attack adds +1 to hit and +1d6 damage with light, one-handed, and ranged weapons (within 30 ft). If you are flanking or your opponent is denied Dex to AC (flat footed, blinded, etc) then you double your sneak attack bonuses against that foe (so +1/+1d6 becomes +2/+2d6 against that foe).

The rogue's SA progression changes from +1d6/2 levels to +1d6/4 levels (so the rogue's top-end damage doesn't change very much but they consistently perform better). The biggest change is that their accuracy with normal hits is much improved and they don't need to rely on Strength to deal respectable damage when not flanking.

For example, if you have a 5th level rogue, you'd have a +2 bonus to hit with any light, one-handed, or ranged weapon (within 30 ft) and deal +2d6 per hit. If you then dove in and flanked an enemy, you'd suddenly have +4 to hit (+6 with flanking) and deal +4d6 damage per hit. So you're rewarded for playing like a rogue while being able to be consistent even when you're not flanking.

In other words, you are rewarded for being tactical and the rogue shines when they get the drop on enemies, rather than being required to be tactical just to reach average.


Actually, if anyone wants, I can catalog some of my rogue revisions and post it as a pdf for anyone interested. I haven't bothered to format/beautify a number of my house rules because I've been too distracted with working on my new d20 core.


I do feel like people have an almost instinctual hatred of sniping, specifically getting sneak attacks at range. You know, where a sneak attack makes way more sense than being within 5 feet of someone.

I understand that it would be kind of annoying to take 1d8+2+4d6 from 20 squares away every turn against an opponent who specializes in Stealth, but it's something I think a lot of people wish you could do when they think of a hired killer.

Scarab Sages

DominusMegadeus wrote:

I do feel like people have an almost instinctual hatred of sniping, specifically getting sneak attacks at range. You know, where a sneak attack makes way more sense than being within 5 feet of someone.

I understand that it would be kind of annoying to take 1d8+2+4d6 from 20 squares away every turn against an opponent who specializes in Stealth, but it's something I think a lot of people wish you could do when they think of a hired killer.

I don't have a hatred of sniping, I have a hatred of the stealth rules. If you have a reliable means of ranged concealment (greater invisibility/ Firesight & Smokestiks/ goz mask & obscuring mist) sniper rogues are a good way to go.

Unfortunately, a lot of the methods for doing so neuter the rest of the party as well as your enemies.


DominusMegadeus wrote:

I do feel like people have an almost instinctual hatred of sniping, specifically getting sneak attacks at range. You know, where a sneak attack makes way more sense than being within 5 feet of someone.

I understand that it would be kind of annoying to take 1d8+2+4d6 from 20 squares away every turn against an opponent who specializes in Stealth, but it's something I think a lot of people wish you could do when they think of a hired killer.

I have never seen anyone say they have a problem with sniping.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DominusMegadeus wrote:

I do feel like people have an almost instinctual hatred of sniping, specifically getting sneak attacks at range. You know, where a sneak attack makes way more sense than being within 5 feet of someone.

I understand that it would be kind of annoying to take 1d8+2+4d6 from 20 squares away every turn against an opponent who specializes in Stealth, but it's something I think a lot of people wish you could do when they think of a hired killer.

Most of that hatred stems from the Stealth + Perception rules. It is trivially easy to be able to snipe someone from 200 ft. away, and sniping specifically allows you to attack without revealing yourself, and when you're taking big damage with no real means of evading it (especially when you start accounting for certain types of magical ammunition) it gets old fast.


Ashiel wrote:

In my campaign I adjusted sneak attack to work like this.

Sneak attack adds +1 to hit and +1d6 damage with light, one-handed, and ranged weapons (within 30 ft). If you are flanking or your opponent is denied Dex to AC (flat footed, blinded, etc) then you double your sneak attack bonuses against that foe (so +1/+1d6 becomes +2/+2d6 against that foe).

The rogue's SA progression changes from +1d6/2 levels to +1d6/4 levels (so the rogue's top-end damage doesn't change very much but they consistently perform better). The biggest change is that their accuracy with normal hits is much improved and they don't need to rely on Strength to deal respectable damage when not flanking.

For example, if you have a 5th level rogue, you'd have a +2 bonus to hit with any light, one-handed, or ranged weapon (within 30 ft) and deal +2d6 per hit. If you then dove in and flanked an enemy, you'd suddenly have +4 to hit (+6 with flanking) and deal +4d6 damage per hit. So you're rewarded for playing like a rogue while being able to be consistent even when you're not flanking.

In other words, you are rewarded for being tactical and the rogue shines when they get the drop on enemies, rather than being required to be tactical just to reach average.

I like this idea


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rogues are AWESOME!

- It's not hard to get a sneak attack every round, then use Cunning Action to dash away before the target can retaliate.

- Add twice your proficiency bonus to your favorite skills with Expertise, then at level 11 you can't roll below a 10 with those skills, with the capstone auto-succeed at level 20.

- Use your reaction for reduce damage you take by half.

- Blindsense.

- Thief's Reflexes gives you two turns on the first round of combat.

- Assassinate gives you an auto-critical if you have surprise.

- Invisible Mage Hand.

- Stealing spells right out of the mind of a spellcaster.

It just get better and... wait. Are you guys talking about Pathfinder rogues? Yeah, I guess that is different. Never mind.


Ashiel wrote:
Actually, if anyone wants, I can catalog some of my rogue revisions and post it as a pdf for anyone interested. I haven't bothered to format/beautify a number of my house rules because I've been too distracted with working on my new d20 core.

I'd like to see it. Your Sneak attack idea is fantastic.

I'd revise them to be +1/+1d6 every 3 instead of 4, but the base frame is genius.


Ashiel wrote:
Actually, if anyone wants, I can catalog some of my rogue revisions and post it as a pdf for anyone interested. I haven't bothered to format/beautify a number of my house rules because I've been too distracted with working on my new d20 core.

You have peaked my curiosity.

Also, Am I late guys? Has everything been said already?


wraithstrike wrote:
What is wrong with the stealth rules?

Unanswered questions here.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

"What's wrong with Stealth? If you make this houserule, it works fine."

Shadow Lodge

If that was directed at me, you missed my point completely.


Starbuck_II wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Actually, if anyone wants, I can catalog some of my rogue revisions and post it as a pdf for anyone interested. I haven't bothered to format/beautify a number of my house rules because I've been too distracted with working on my new d20 core.

I'd like to see it. Your Sneak attack idea is fantastic.

I'd revise them to be +1/+1d6 every 3 instead of 4, but the base frame is genius.

seconded.

this is my rogue. main reason I won't modify sneak attack, certainly not for the better, is because other classes can pluck it. hence my emphasis on class features that interact with it, which are now exclusive.


Starbuck_II wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Actually, if anyone wants, I can catalog some of my rogue revisions and post it as a pdf for anyone interested. I haven't bothered to format/beautify a number of my house rules because I've been too distracted with working on my new d20 core.

I'd like to see it. Your Sneak attack idea is fantastic.

I'd revise them to be +1/+1d6 every 3 instead of 4, but the base frame is genius.

Scavion wrote:
You have peaked my curiosity.

Look to my coming, at first light, on the fifth day. At dawn, look to the East.


In my PF home game I allow my party rogue to make sneak attacks against foes with concealment, though not against foes with total concealment. I have three reasons for doing this.

1. The notion of a rogue bushwhacking someone in a dark alley is the iconic idea of a rogue, but without this house rule a human rogue cannot physically do it.

2. Concealment already causes the penalty of a 20% miss chance, which is sufficient to make players want to find ways of avoiding it. Since a miss will negate a sneak attack this means it is as bad for the rogue as for anyone else, but not worse specifically for rogues.

3. From the FAQs and errata around the Stealth skill, it is clear that there was some confusion during the writing of the CRB about the difference between concealment and total concealment, and sometimes one term was used when the other was meant in the text of Stealth. These issues were resolved with the FAQs and errata. I believe that this was also the case with sneak attack, that the original RAI was in fact that total concealment was what would negate sneak attack, and that the same writer that did the stealth entry also wrote the original sneak attack text and made the same errors. For some reason these were never fixed, and now that game mechanics exist based on mitigating it, we are now stuck with it.


davidvs wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
What is wrong with the stealth rules?
Unanswered questions here.

The only thing relevant in that link is "distraction" not being more codified. Everything else is handled by the rules, and is more nitpicking than a rules issue.

Sovereign Court

I don't have a hatred of sniping, I have a hatred of the stealth rules. If you have a reliable means of ranged concealment (greater invisibility/ Firesight & Smokestiks/ goz mask & obscuring mist) sniper rogues are a good way to go.

Unfortunately, a lot of the methods for doing so neuter the rest of the party as well as your enemies.

and you've clearly identified my gunslinger ninja's preferred method for sniping. Touch against flatfooted using (darkness (my guy's a tiefling) or goz mask & obscuring mist). You literally can't miss even with my typical rolls. Unless the opponent has blindsight (and I've yet to run into that in PFS). Note: I don't use vanish and prefer the ki pool for additional attacks.

Neuter the rest of the party - not entirely. Your rogue doesn't have to clear all the encounters. You find a good spot to use this method and either cut off escape, take half the board away from the enemy, etc. Its a 1 or 2 times a game thing.


davidvs wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
What is wrong with the stealth rules?
Unanswered questions here.

I see two problems with this down at the bottom of the page you linked. First is this:

Quote:


Why can't a spell caster use the Blur spell as a cheap version of Hide in Plain Sight? Blur grants concealment but does not nullify the other prerequisite for using Stealth: not being observed. (Note, however, that a Shadowdancer or Assassin with Blur could use Stealth, since their Hide in Plain Sight ability does indeed completely nullify the other prerequisite.)
Quote:


Hide in Plain Sight (Su): A shadowdancer can use the Stealth skill even while being observed. As long as she is within 10 feet of an area of dim light, a shadowdancer can hide herself from view in the open without anything to actually hide behind. She cannot, however, hide in her own shadow.

The Hide in Plain Sight supernatural ability is contingent on being near dim light. Just because you have Blur on to grant concealment does not give you the ability to hide while observed unless you are near an area of dim light.

Another thing you mention is that dim light is not the same as darkness. Since darkness is indeed a deeper shade of dim light, one could say that in darkness you are in/near dim light. It does not mean that the ability only works near dim light and no other degree of lightless area but rather it can be used in an area within 10ft of dim light or darker. Logic by definition.

dim: adj.
- lacking in brightness
- badly illuminated
- lacking sharpness or clarity of understanding or perception. See Synonyms at dark.
- having weak or indistinct vision

Sovereign Court

I like the luck bonus theory, rather than upping the bab etc.

2+int or cha (a form of ki pool)
Spend a luck point for a d6 to hit, skill checks, or saves. Max 1d6/5 levels.

I'm not saying there aren't more powerful choices than rogue, just the whole "bringing down the party" isn't my experience.


Righty_ wrote:

I like the luck bonus theory, rather than upping the bab etc.

2+int or cha (a form of ki pool)
Spend a luck point for a d6 to hit, skill checks, or saves. Max 1d6/5 levels.

I'm not saying there aren't more powerful choices than rogue, just the whole "bringing down the party" isn't my experience.

sounds like inspiration.

Paizo Glitterati Robot

Removed a post and the replies to it. Using "retarded" (in any creative form) as a pejorative is never appropriate on paizo.com.

Grand Lodge

21 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

By utilizing flame retardant, the fire was retarded.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Scavion wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Actually, if anyone wants, I can catalog some of my rogue revisions and post it as a pdf for anyone interested. I haven't bothered to format/beautify a number of my house rules because I've been too distracted with working on my new d20 core.

You have peaked my curiosity.

Also, Am I late guys? Has everything been said already?

Scavion, I believe the word you were actually looking for was PIQUED.

just an FYI. Gamers tend to get the craziest vocabularies...

==Aelryinth

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Scavion wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Actually, if anyone wants, I can catalog some of my rogue revisions and post it as a pdf for anyone interested. I haven't bothered to format/beautify a number of my house rules because I've been too distracted with working on my new d20 core.

You have peaked my curiosity.

Also, Am I late guys? Has everything been said already?

Let's be honest.

If you turned Sneak Attack into +1 TH/+1d6 dmg, what would you get?

Someone who, when Sneak Attacking, could actually hit and do damage to a target in Melee. And likely hit with almost everything. Sneak Attacks would be hugely strong, and the more you had of them, the better.

If you Changed Sneak Attack to a flat out damage bonus (Cunning or something) of +1 instead of a d6 when attacking with a light or one handed weapon, what would you get? A Rogue that could get a consistent damage bonus even if they couldn't sneak attack something.

Then you make a couple class abilities, like Underhanded: If your primary weapon attack hits, once a round you may make an off hand attack that is automatically a Sneak Attack, at normal off hand penalties.

and Blood for Blood: If you are in a flanking position and struck by the enemy, you may take an AoO into the opening provided you once a round. This attack is automatically a Sneak Attack.

i.e the key to making a rogue effective in combat is Attacks, and making sure those attacks hit, and then making sure those attacks are Sneak Attacks.

Right now, the Rogue sucks at all three.
Underhanded gives a great reason to use two weapons - more attacks, and its a SA!
Blood for Blood rewards the Rogue for flanking a foe, and punishes them if they choose to attack the Rogue.
Move Opportunist down to level 5 or 6, and the Rogue will be the best fighting partner you can have, consistently getting off SA's on anything and everything.

If you let SA also add to TH rolls, then they have TH capacity to make Power Attack or Expertise work.

How about Dangerous Expertise: If you land a Sneak Attack in melee combat, you may immediately choose to use Expertise until the beginning of your next turn. You do not need the feat to do this.

meaning you are rewarded for charging in to flank something and get a nice AC bonus for popping it.

And Partners in Blood: You may move and differ your melee attack until after the initiative of a chosen person. Your own initiative is not changed for subsequent rounds.

i.e. move, wait for Thrud McPowerattack to advance into position, then both of you hit the target, and then you go again first next round with a full attack combo and your flanking partner in place.

i.e. things like this, that would make the rogue actually a lethal partner in a fight.

==Aelryinth


You're no quoting the abilities/feats you think you are. Got links?


Many of these suggestions would make good rogue talents. Also all once a day talents should be changed to all the time. Do this and add a couple more good talents like a true skill mastery that gives you +1/2 rogue levels to a skill that can be taken more than once to cover more than one skill. Making these talents rogue only talents like fighter feats would keep other classes from taking them and the rouge would probably be in good shape.


You need a feat to sneak attack with concealment, but it is a feat worth taking for any rogue.

Shadow Strike (Combat)
You accurately strike even those you cannot clearly see.
Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +1.

Benefit: You can deal precision damage, such as sneak attack damage, against targets with concealment (but not total concealment).

And don't blame the messengers that point out why rogues are gimped, blame those who did the gimping. When traps could kill characters rather than make parties expend resources, and the rogue was the only one to disarm the death traps, the rogue was special. Many times traps now make the party bookkeeper have to determine how many charges of the communal CLW wands are used.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Oh If anyone is curious, I had few ideas for rogues a while back.

Mainly some homebrew talents to address sneak attack and the other rogue saves.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qy7g?New-Rogue-Talents#1


Rogues should get more accuracy bonuses out of flanking and flat-footed enemies than other characters, since those attacks are what they specialize in.

In 1e Thieves got a bigger to-hit bonus for attacking from behind than other characters, and the bonus scaled based on level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:
Scavion wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Actually, if anyone wants, I can catalog some of my rogue revisions and post it as a pdf for anyone interested. I haven't bothered to format/beautify a number of my house rules because I've been too distracted with working on my new d20 core.

You have peaked my curiosity.

Also, Am I late guys? Has everything been said already?

Let's be honest.

If you turned Sneak Attack into +1 TH/+1d6 dmg, what would you get?

Someone who, when Sneak Attacking, could actually hit and do damage to a target in Melee. And likely hit with almost everything. Sneak Attacks would be hugely strong, and the more you had of them, the better.

Let's be honest.

If you had read the change to the rogue I mentioned, you'd notice that the progression was intentionally slowed down and only works with one-handed melee weapons and ranged weapons within 30 ft, which means top end the rogue attacks at +20 (+15 BAB, +5 class) with +5d6 damage (average +17.5 damage), but you have reduced iterative attacks, and can't actually match the accuracy of a real martial (most every martial in core swings at +20/+20/+15/+10/+5 at top end, while having between +6 and +12 or so to hit from class features on top of that, and generally at least as much to damage if not much more).

Assuming the rogue manages to get into the correct location, the rogue gets to shout "Stabbity-rip-stab-stab!" and swings at +10/+35 avg damage per hit. Of course, you're not getting 1.5 Strength to attacks, and you're getting fewer accurate attacks, and due to your reduced BAB and number of attacks Power Attack and similar things are less useful.

Naturally throwing more attacks would be a good idea. Kind of like throwing more attacks is...always a good idea? I know when I'm playing a Ranger, or Paladin, or Barbarian, getting all the extra attacks I can to maximize those fat +10 to hit modifiers is pretty much par for the course, especially when you're swinging +10 or better damage and auto-confirming critical hits.

And no, you wouldn't hit everything. AC can shoot to great heights at high levels. Most characters can hit ACs in the 40s-50s, while some characters like druids can push ACs to 60s, and that's before you get into things like concealment cloaks, mirror images, etc.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The correct fix to the rogue:
Remove the rogue completely. Increase the skill points of all other classes by 2 (4 to a maximum of 8 for non-casters). Give everyone +2 class skills selected at chargen. Give fighters sense motive and bluff as class skills. Reduce the perception and disable DCs of all traps by 33%. Remove the restriction on who can disable magical traps and trap-like spells.

That puts the skill balance more or less where it should have been all along and lets any class pick up the now obsolete trapfinding niche. You'll still have an excess of boring traps in published adventures, but other than that it repairs most of the damage the rogue has done to the game in a single short paragraph.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Ashiel, a +1 TH per SA dice when sneak attacking would effectively put the Rogue at full BAB+5 when Sneak Attacking. He'd be hitting stuff as reliably as a fighter or Barbarian...when Sneak Attacking.

The attacks would land. Which is what they are supposed to do.

Miss chances and stuff are beside the point.

Since his bonuses are fixed by SA, it benefits him more then a Str based build to have off hand attacks...he gets full damage instead of half damage. The +2 for flanking or the flat footedness often counterbalances the TWF penalty.

But the only time a Rogue should be TWF is when he gets tons of bonuses so he can actually hit something and do the damage. Otherwise he should be endeavoring just to hit at all.

his damage would get very swingy...not so good in some cases, and absolutely lethal in others.

And yes, more attacks is always better...right up until you can't hit with any of them, i.e. many monks with Flurry of Misses. The rogues biggest problem is hitting with his attacks, the next problem is doing damage with them via SA, and the third is getting more attacks to accelerate him into the higher tier of damage dealers.

==Aelryinth

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Snickersnack wrote:
You're no quoting the abilities/feats you think you are. Got links?

Oh, made them up on the spur of the moment. We're talking about Rogue fixes, right?

==Aelryinth

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Aelryinth wrote:
Ashiel, a +1 TH per SA dice when sneak attacking would effectively put the Rogue at full BAB+5 when Sneak Attacking. He'd be hitting stuff as reliably as a fighter or Barbarian...when Sneak Attacking.

Where are you getting the +5 over full BAB from Ashiel's post?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What is really needed are some good talents like the these. If your only allow actual rogues to choose these talents will fix a lot of problems with the rouge, including the rouge not being able to do anything that someone else can’t do better. Since there are fighter only combat feats the precedent is already been set.

Accurate Sneak Attack: The rogue gains +1 to hit with sneak attack. At 5th level the rogue gains an additional +1. The bonus increases +1 per four levels after 4th to a maximum of +5 at 17th level. This talent can be combined with one other talent that modifies sneak attack.

Improved Skill: Choose one skill; the rogue gains a bonus of +1/2 per level on selected skill. This talent can be taken multiple times but does not stack. Each time it applies to a different skill.

Skill Specialization: Choose one skill; the rogue rolls twice for that skill taking the higher roll. This talent can be taken multiple times but does not stack. Each time it applies to a different skill.

Quick Skill: The chosen skill takes half the time it normally does. A full round action becomes a standard action, a standard action becomes a move action, and a move action becomes a free action. This talent can be taken multiple times but does not stack. Each time it applies to a different skill.

Supreme Diplomacy: The rogue can use diplomacy to shift the attitude of a NPC one additional step. This ability stacks with all other abilities that allow shift attitudes additional steps.

A rogue with improved bluff and improved feint can now feint as a free action. Pick up accurate sneak attack and the problems with sneak attack disappear. A human rogue with the Supreme Diplomacy and Silver Tongue can talk his way out of almost anything.

251 to 300 of 607 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / What's the deal with the rogue hate? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.