Rogues and weapon proficiencies


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 57 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

I was just comparing the weapon proficiencies of the different roguish types.

Rogue:
"Rogues are proficient with all simple weapons, plus the hand crossbow, rapier, sap, shortbow, and short sword. They are proficient with light armor, but not with shields."

Unchained rogue:
"Rogues are proficient with all simple weapons, plus the hand crossbow, rapier, sap, short sword, and shortbow. They are proficient with light armor, but not with shields."

Investigator:
"Investigators are proficient with simple weapons, plus the hand crossbow, rapier, sap, shortbow, short sword, and sword cane. They are proficient in light armors, but not shields."

Slayer:
"A slayer is proficient with all simple and martial weapons, as well as with light armor, medium armor, and shields (except tower shields)."

Assassin:
"Assassins are proficient with the crossbow (hand, light, or heavy), dagger (any type), dart, rapier, sap, shortbow (normal and composite), and short sword. Assassins are proficient with light armor but not with shields.

In my opinion these are a bit too limited. E.g. I think all of them should be able to use longbow, in order to be more efficient ranged attacker. Rogues and assassin should be able to to use sword cane like investigator. And furthermore they should be proficient with all the finessable weapons, especially whips. Also I would add buckler proficiency too.

What are your opinions about this? And what are all the daggers that assassin is able to use?


A.) Sword cane sucks. If you are going for a hidden weapon that can only be used in 1 hand, just use a dagger.

B.) The difference between a bow and long bow is 1 average damage. So this is not much for making you a 'more efficient ranged attack', and not really worth the loss of flavor (long bows are weapons of war, short bows are easier to master weapons of hunting and such)

C.) Who the hell needs buckler proficiency? No one, not even martial classes, need buckler proficiency.

You do not actually understand how proficiency penalties work for armor and shields, do you? Basically- the armor check penalty is applies to attack rolls. But...if ACP is 0, then the penalty is 0. Both bucklers and light shields have an ACP of -1, which goes to 0 when they are masterwork. There is a reason why the iconic rogue's builds get bucklers.

D.) 'proficient in all finessable weapons'? That includes all martial and exotic light weapons, and it also includes the elven curved blade (an 18-20x2 2 handed weapon) and the elven branched sword (which is a reach weapon that gives +2 to AoO attack rolls). Monks had a vague justification (I still think the unchained monk should have only gotten the simple and martial monk weapons; those were the only funny bits- exotic should stay exotic), this doesn't.

There is a vague justification for whips, but those are often niche builds anyway.

Overall, the current proficiencies work- simple weapons cover all of the basics, and then you get some rather nice weapons like rapiers, short bows, and saps on top of that.


I dont Think extra weapon proffs are gonna save the old rogue, i dont Think the others need the boost and i dont undestand why. I dont know why all rogues should be trained in spiked chain and knuckle axe. If this is fore a home game, just go ahead it wont make a Big difference, exept pehaps more rogues Will use elven curved blade. But if it is a general rally to change what weapons rogues Can use i dont Think you Will get it.


lemeres wrote:
A.) Sword cane sucks. If you are going for a hidden weapon that can only be used in 1 hand, just use a dagger.

Even though they suck, who would better be suited to use them than rogues? There are many things that suck but it doesn't mean that they are not used.

lemeres wrote:
B.) The difference between a bow and long bow is 1 average damage. So this is not much for making you a 'more efficient ranged attack', and not really worth the loss of flavor (long bows are weapons of war, short bows are easier to master weapons of hunting and such)

In my opinion range is quite important too and shortbow lacks in that.

lemeres wrote:
C.) Who the hell needs buckler proficiency? No one, not even martial classes, need buckler proficiency.

Low-level squishy rogue for example.

lemeres wrote:
You do not actually understand how proficiency penalties work for armor and shields, do you? Basically- the armor check penalty is applies to attack rolls. But...if ACP is 0, then the penalty is 0. Both bucklers and light shields have an ACP of -1, which goes to 0 when they are masterwork. There is a reason why the iconic rogue's builds get bucklers.

I understand perfectly well how the penalties work, thank you very much, but again the low-level rogue doesn't have the money for the masterwork shield.

lemeres wrote:
D.) 'proficient in all finessable weapons'? That includes all martial and exotic light weapons, and it also includes the elven curved blade (an 18-20x2 2 handed weapon) and the elven branched sword (which is a reach weapon that gives +2 to AoO attack rolls). Monks had a vague justification (I still think the unchained monk should have only gotten the simple and martial monk weapons; those were the only funny bits- exotic should stay exotic), this doesn't.

Well maybe not exotic finessable weapons but there are many very roguish weapons in martial light weapon category e.g. kukri or blade boot.

lemeres wrote:
There is a vague justification for whips, but those are often niche builds anyway.

Might be niche but still very well suited for rogue. I have a jailor, slavemaster or executioner or torturer in mind.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Earl Grey wrote:
lemeres wrote:
B.) The difference between a bow and long bow is 1 average damage. So this is not much for making you a 'more efficient ranged attack', and not really worth the loss of flavor (long bows are weapons of war, short bows are easier to master weapons of hunting and such)

In my opinion range is quite important too and shortbow lacks in that.

Range isn't that big a deal when sneak attack only works within 30 feet normally. More with magic but well within shortbow range.


I can see the argument for them being too limited. Sword Cane makes sense for Rogues. Whip is arguable. But there's not much point to buckler proficiency, longbows make very little actual sense, and all finesseable weapons go way too far.


If you want a Rogue that is more of a weapon aficionado instead of a sneaky guy, then what's the harm in dipping a level of Fighter or Ranger (or even Barbarian) to get basically all of the proficiencies you want? Delayed Sneak Attack dice progression (but no net Sneak Attack dice loss)? Losing of the Rogue capstone (which actually sucks anyway, and won't hardly get any use)?

The Rogue doesn't really lose anything by dipping a level into a class that has all of the proficiencies. In fact, it's actually one of the few things in Pathfinder (as far as multi-classing is concerned) that isn't a complete kick in the nuts to do. The only issue is their (valuable) class features are delayed a level, and it's not really that bad, if you think weapon proficiencies are so damn important.


Earl Grey wrote:
lemeres wrote:
C.) Who the hell needs buckler proficiency? No one, not even martial classes, need buckler proficiency.

Low-level squishy rogue for example.

lemeres wrote:
You do not actually understand how proficiency penalties work for armor and shields, do you? Basically- the armor check penalty is applies to attack rolls. But...if ACP is 0, then the penalty is 0. Both bucklers and light shields have an ACP of -1, which goes to 0 when they are masterwork. There is a reason why the iconic rogue's builds get bucklers.
I understand perfectly well how the penalties work, thank you very much, but again the low-level rogue doesn't have the money for the masterwork shield.

...not really. Dex builds have slightly better AC than others early on because they don't have to wait until full plate is affordable.

And considering the fact that masterwork bucklers only cost 155 gp, that makes the affordable by level 2, and not even that large of an investment for the general funds expected by that level (~1,000 gp). So, still only 1/10 the price of fullplate.


Earl Grey,
I agree that "rogue" should be a broader class able to mechanically replicate a wider range of concepts, as expressed by the weapon proficiencies. How about:

Rogue Proficiencies:
The rogue is proficient in all simple weapons, shortsword, shortbow, and light armor. She may additionally choose 3 weapon or shield proficiencies to add to her list at 1st level.

this trades out hand x-bow, rapier, and sap, for 3 other choices... the 1E rogue had a battleaxe afterall...


In my house rules, these are the Rogue's weapon and armor proficiency.

Quote:
A rogue is proficient with all simple weapons, plus the Blade Boot; Crossbow, Crank (Light); Crossbow, Hand; Crossbow, Launching; Crossbow, Repeating (Light); Cutlass; Dagger, Punching; Garrote; Katar, Tri-bladed; Kerambit; Knife, Switchblade; Kukri; Longsword; Rapier; Sap; Shortsword; Shortbow; Starknife; War Razor and Whip. They are also proficient with light armor and shields (except tower shields).

With it the Rogue can fit in more archetypes, like a assassin and a sniper better.


So...besides of a couple trick weapons like the cane and whip....this is mostly just going to be 'I want more 18-20 weapons', isn't it?


Metal Sonic wrote:

In my house rules, these are the Rogue's weapon and armor proficiency.

Quote:
A rogue is proficient with all simple weapons, plus the Blade Boot; Crossbow, Crank (Light); Crossbow, Hand; Crossbow, Launching; Crossbow, Repeating (Light); Cutlass; Dagger, Punching; Garrote; Katar, Tri-bladed; Kerambit; Knife, Switchblade; Kukri; Longsword; Rapier; Sap; Shortsword; Shortbow; Starknife; War Razor and Whip. They are also proficient with light armor and shields (except tower shields).
With it the Rogue can fit in more archetypes, like a assassin and a sniper better.

Yes, this is what I meant when starting this thread. Maybe not longsword though.

lemeres wrote:
So...besides of a couple trick weapons like the cane and whip....this is mostly just going to be 'I want more 18-20 weapons', isn't it?

No, didn't even consider that. Our campaign doesn't have elves so I wasn't after elvish weapons. I think racial weapons should be racial and shouldn't be available even via exotic weapon profiency without a really good backstory.


Earl Grey wrote:


Yes, this is what I meant when starting this thread. Maybe not longsword though.

It was inspired by AD&D, where some iconic Thieves used longswords. I may be wrong, thought. :p


Earl Grey wrote:
lemeres wrote:
So...besides of a couple trick weapons like the cane and whip....this is mostly just going to be 'I want more 18-20 weapons', isn't it?

No, didn't even consider that. Our campaign doesn't have elves so I wasn't after elvish weapons. I think racial weapons should be racial and shouldn't be available even via exotic weapon profiency without a really good backstory.

But you did explicitly ask for kukri, which is fairly close to 'dagger, but better criticals' in mechanical terms. And while you were reluctant about the long sword in the house ruled list above, you didn't seem to complain about the cutlass.


lemeres wrote:
But you did explicitly ask for kukri, which is fairly close to 'dagger, but better criticals' in mechanical terms. And while you were reluctant about the long sword in the house ruled list above, you didn't seem to complain about the cutlass.

Kukri yes, because just like you said, is close to dagger. Cutlass because that would ideal for rogue pirates.


The great point for me to choose that weapons is for sake of options, so you don't need to spend a feat or dip in another class to get the weapons you're supposed to know how to use.

The crossbows got some love in my games, because all of the exotic ones are now martials.


I would trade most of those recommendations (maybe keep the sword cane) for the garrotte.

Sweet, sweet (slow and ineffective) strangulation. How can I have a proper thug and extorter without it?!


(Actual) simple weapons aside, shortsword and shortbow are like halfway bewtween simple and martial weapons, the sap is a thuggish weapon, and the hand crossbow and rapier are swashbuckler weapons.

To me, simple weapons is a given, plus a splash of archetypical weapons (bootblade for spy, bolas for bounty hunter, garrote for assassin, longbow for scout, swordcane for investigator, etc) goes a decent way towards satisfying a lot of "rogue" tropes (within class).


Hubaris wrote:

I would trade most of those recommendations (maybe keep the sword cane) for the garrotte.

Sweet, sweet (slow and ineffective) strangulation. How can I have a proper thug and extorter without it?!

That is indeed something all the thugs rogues should have at their disposal. ;) What I can't understand is that it is exotic, a weapon doesn't get much simpler. And furthermore this: "Sneak attack damage does not apply to a garrote."

On the contrary, to use it the victim needs to be unaware of you (=stealth), so is there anything more rogue than that?


rainzax wrote:
To me, simple weapons is a given, plus a splash of archetypical weapons (bootblade for spy, bolas for bounty hunter, garrote for assassin, longbow for scout, swordcane for investigator, etc) goes a decent way towards satisfying a lot of "rogue" tropes (within class).

Yes, that is what I'd like to see. More variation with the rogues. In that sense your suggestion further above is excellent.

Maybe the profiencies should differ between the archetypes?


rainzax wrote:

(Actual) simple weapons aside, shortsword and shortbow are like halfway bewtween simple and martial weapons, the sap is a thuggish weapon, and the hand crossbow and rapier are swashbuckler weapons.

To me, simple weapons is a given, plus a splash of archetypical weapons (bootblade for spy, bolas for bounty hunter, garrote for assassin, longbow for scout, swordcane for investigator, etc) goes a decent way towards satisfying a lot of "rogue" tropes (within class).

I would somewhat question how 'archetypal' those are.

Bolas are a weapon originating from Pre-Columbian settlements, so their place in a mostly medieval style setting is...odd, to say the least. Lassos maybe....

Garrotes, outside of their role as an execution or torture device (mostly attached to a strange chair) seems more like a modern tool (some sources citing it as a post WWII practice). And even for assassins...a nice dagger to the throat just seems... less complicated and maybe more iconic.

I have already said my two bits about longbow/short bow debate.


Earl Grey wrote:
Maybe the proficiencies should differ between the archetypes?

That would have been clever.

Honestly, the fact that the Unchained Rogue gets free Finesse Training bothers me because it limits what kind of (conceptual) "rogues" are possible. The class should be way more open in this sense. But that's a different topic altogether.

Quicklist:

Spoiler:

Acrobat
Bandit
Burglar
Carnivalist
Chameleon
Charlatan
Counterfeit Mage
Cutpurse
Driver
Investigator
Knife Master
Liberator
Makeshift Scrapper
Pirate
Poisoner
Rake
River Rat
Roof Runner
Sanctified Rogue
Sapper
Scavenger
Scout
Scroll Scoundrel
Smuggler
Sniper
Spy
Survivalist
Swahbuckler
Swindler
Thug
Trapsmith
Underground Chemist
Vexing Dodger


rainzax wrote:
Honestly, the fact that the Unchained Rogue gets free Finesse Training bothers me because it limits what kind of (conceptual) "rogues" are possible. The class should be way more open in this sense.

That is true.

Btw. There is a pirate archetype who doesn't know how to use a boarding axe or a cutlass.

And why is light mace simple but light hammer is not?


rainzax wrote:
Earl Grey wrote:
Maybe the proficiencies should differ between the archetypes?

That would have been clever.

Honestly, the fact that the Unchained Rogue gets free Finesse Training bothers me because it limits what kind of (conceptual) "rogues" are possible. The class should be way more open in this sense. But that's a different topic altogether.

Quicklist:** spoiler omitted **

Like how people presume the swashbuckler 'has to' use dex, when very few of its mechanics are actually tied to dex (although it is exceedingly dex friendly).

Its good save is reflex, and it has surprisingly good AC because it highly encourages sword and board (between a mithral breast plate and a good buckler, you can have fantastic AC)- that removes two of the main reasons to go dex based in the first place.

Only the addition to AoOs convinced me that dex is 'typically' better for a swashbuckler. Otherwise, rather than thinking of it as 'the dex class', I just think of it as 'the one that salvages 1weapon/1hand, non TWF sword and board, and throwing builds'.

Still, you can do perfectly well with stats that better belong on a melee paladin.


This version of the garrote is way better that the one of Pathfinder. i think it's stats are based on the 3.0 weapon.

Grand Lodge

lemeres wrote:
So...besides of a couple trick weapons like the cane and whip....this is mostly just going to be 'I want more 18-20 weapons', isn't it?

Even if that was all it is about, the Rogue really should get that, though. Ninja getting the wakizashi proficiency makes it better than the rogue right out of the gate, even before you get into the better class features.

But honestly crit fishing fits the rogue's schtick way better than any other martial since it's supposed to be all about finding the weak points and hitting where it hurts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
EntrerisShadow wrote:
lemeres wrote:
So...besides of a couple trick weapons like the cane and whip....this is mostly just going to be 'I want more 18-20 weapons', isn't it?

Even if that was all it is about, the Rogue really should get that, though. Ninja getting the wakizashi proficiency makes it better than the rogue right out of the gate, even before you get into the better class features.

But honestly crit fishing fits the rogue's schtick way better than any other martial since it's supposed to be all about finding the weak points and hitting where it hurts.

Yeah, and crit fishing even works well with the rogue's signature feature, Sneak Attack. Think of all the extra damage you could get from multiplying the precision...

...wait a minute...

...nevermind.


A rogue really isn't even a trained person though. What skills and proficiencies they do pick up seems like learned street smarts and hard knocks. Its nice to see that it isn't just given a blanket proficiency for everything.


Hubaris wrote:
A rogue really isn't even a trained person though.
Pathfinder Unchained wrote:

Never knowing what to expect, they prepare for everything, becoming masters of a wide variety of skills, training themselves to be adept manipulators, agile acrobats, shadowy stalkers, or masters of any of dozens of other professions or talents.

Rogues aren't petty thieves or some purse cutter. He's a trained professional.


Rogue is an intuitive class like Barbarian and Sorcerer


Metal Sonic wrote:
Hubaris wrote:
A rogue really isn't even a trained person though.
Pathfinder Unchained wrote:

Never knowing what to expect, they prepare for everything, becoming masters of a wide variety of skills, training themselves to be adept manipulators, agile acrobats, shadowy stalkers, or masters of any of dozens of other professions or talents.

Rogues aren't petty thieves or some purse cutter. He's a trained professional.

But he wasn't trained by a professional, as per your bolded quote. He is self taught, which is NOT what people mean when they say trained.


Metal Sonic wrote:
Hubaris wrote:
A rogue really isn't even a trained person though.
Pathfinder Unchained wrote:

Never knowing what to expect, they prepare for everything, becoming masters of a wide variety of skills, training themselves to be adept manipulators, agile acrobats, shadowy stalkers, or masters of any of dozens of other professions or talents.

Rogues aren't petty thieves or some purse cutter. He's a trained professional.

Eh, just because you train in something doesn't mean you are a professional. Anyone in little league can tell you that. So they can be professionals...or they could just be guys making do with a bit of sleight of hand and banter.

Grand Lodge

Snowblind wrote:
EntrerisShadow wrote:
lemeres wrote:
So...besides of a couple trick weapons like the cane and whip....this is mostly just going to be 'I want more 18-20 weapons', isn't it?

Even if that was all it is about, the Rogue really should get that, though. Ninja getting the wakizashi proficiency makes it better than the rogue right out of the gate, even before you get into the better class features.

But honestly crit fishing fits the rogue's schtick way better than any other martial since it's supposed to be all about finding the weak points and hitting where it hurts.

Yeah, and crit fishing even works well with the rogue's signature feature, Sneak Attack. Think of all the extra damage you could get from multiplying the precision...

...wait a minute...

...nevermind.

How foolish of me to forget that the absolute best thing about the rogue is how all of its damage is tied to sneak attack and it has no really good additional thematic damage dealing options.


Metal Sonic wrote:


Pathfinder Unchained wrote:

Never knowing what to expect, they prepare for everything, becoming masters of a wide variety of skills, training themselves to be adept manipulators, agile acrobats, shadowy stalkers, or masters of any of dozens of other professions or talents.

Rogues aren't petty thieves or some purse cutter. He's a trained professional.

All the more reason why there should be more options available. Isn't it funny how they all train themselves to be able to use exactly the same weapons?


For anyone interested, I've been working on a rogue rework, and after seeing this thread figured I'd go back and redo their proficiencies as well

Rogues are proficient with all simple weapons, plus the blade boot, bladed scarf, bolas, butterfly knife, crank crossbow (light and heavy), cutlass, dueling sword, estoc, garrote, grappling hook, hand crossbow, harpoon, knuckle axe, kukri, lasso, longsword, machete, net, rapier, rope gauntlet, sap, scimitar, shortbow, short sword, spiked chain, switchknife, swordbreaker dagger, two-bladed sword, unarmed strikes, war razor, and whip. They are proficient with light armor, but not with shields.


Opuk0 wrote:

For anyone interested, I've been working on a rogue rework, and after seeing this thread figured I'd go back and redo their proficiencies as well

Rogues are proficient with all simple weapons, plus the blade boot, bladed scarf, bolas, butterfly knife, crank crossbow (light and heavy), cutlass, dueling sword, estoc, garrote, grappling hook, hand crossbow, harpoon, knuckle axe, kukri, lasso, longsword, machete, net, rapier, rope gauntlet, sap, scimitar, shortbow, short sword, spiked chain, switchknife, swordbreaker dagger, two-bladed sword, unarmed strikes, war razor, and whip. They are proficient with light armor, but not with shields.

The list looks good but now I see why the pathfinder dev team has done it like they have. It is much simpler and less space consuming to say "Rogues are proficient with all simple weapons, plus the hand crossbow, rapier, sap, shortbow, and short sword. They are proficient with light armor, but not with shields." than list all the thematically appropriate weapons like you did.

Jason Buhlman stated elsewhere:

JasonBuhlman wrote:
I think we probably should have spelled this out a wee bit clearer, but space in the Stealth description was extraordinarily tight and ever word was at a premium.

I understand that they don't want to mess up with the page numbers in the Core rules with errata but with unchained rogue they could have change this.

EDIT: Maybe this would work:

Rogues are proficient with all simple weapons, plus the hand crossbow, shortbow, light blades and close-combat weapons (see fighter weapon groups).


Opuk0 wrote:

For anyone interested, I've been working on a rogue rework, and after seeing this thread figured I'd go back and redo their proficiencies as well

Rogues are proficient with all simple weapons, plus the blade boot, bladed scarf, bolas, butterfly knife, crank crossbow (light and heavy), cutlass, dueling sword, estoc, garrote, grappling hook, hand crossbow, harpoon, knuckle axe, kukri, lasso, longsword, machete, net, rapier, rope gauntlet, sap, scimitar, shortbow, short sword, spiked chain, switchknife, swordbreaker dagger, two-bladed sword, unarmed strikes, war razor, and whip. They are proficient with light armor, but not with shields.

I Fail to undestand why rogues need to be proficient in weapons from different cultures from all over the World. This is like saying "I can imagine barbarians with exotic weapons, so they should get them all!"

I can only imagine that you see rogues as some sort of weapon experts. And i suggest you give them a bonus to hit, or not even profisincy in every Cheasy weapon in the game will save them.
Does profisient in unarmed strikes meen that they get improved unarmed strike for free?


Cap. Darling wrote:

I Fail to undestand why rogues need to be proficient in weapons from different cultures from all over the World. This is like saying "I can imagine barbarians with exotic weapons, so they should get them all!"

I can only imagine that you see rogues as some sort of weapon experts. And i suggest you give them a bonus to hit, or not even profisincy in every Cheasy weapon in the game will save them.
Does profisient in unarmed strikes meen that they get improved unarmed strike for free?

And I fail to understand why fighters should be proficient with all the weapons from different cultures from all over the world.

Are you saying that all the rogues come from the same cultural background and thus know only rapier, short sword in addition to simple weapons?

I would say the culturally special weapons should be available only to the people from those cultures. E.g. when I suggested that rogues would be proficient with light blades they could only choose those appropriate for their culture from that list. Most of them would just not be available even though in theory they might be able to use them. Now as a rogue from certain cultures, you are not able to choose weapons from that culture.

Liberty's Edge

Earl Grey wrote:
And I fail to understand why fighters should be proficient with all the weapons from different cultures from all over the world.

They aren't. Exotic Weapons aren't on their list at all.

And before you call that a false comparison...a lot of the weapons on Opuk0's list are, indeed, Exotic.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Earl Grey wrote:
And I fail to understand why fighters should be proficient with all the weapons from different cultures from all over the world.

They aren't. Exotic Weapons aren't on their list at all.

And before you call that a false comparison...a lot of the weapons on Opuk0's list are, indeed, Exotic.

This.

Also: you want more proficencies?

Try spending feats. It is what fighters do if they want an exoctic weapon proficiency


Earl Grey wrote:
Cap. Darling wrote:

I Fail to undestand why rogues need to be proficient in weapons from different cultures from all over the World. This is like saying "I can imagine barbarians with exotic weapons, so they should get them all!"

I can only imagine that you see rogues as some sort of weapon experts. And i suggest you give them a bonus to hit, or not even profisincy in every Cheasy weapon in the game will save them.
Does profisient in unarmed strikes meen that they get improved unarmed strike for free?

And I fail to understand why fighters should be proficient with all the weapons from different cultures from all over the world.

Are you saying that all the rogues come from the same cultural background and thus know only rapier, short sword in addition to simple weapons?

I would say the culturally special weapons should be available only to the people from those cultures. E.g. when I suggested that rogues would be proficient with light blades they could only choose those appropriate for their culture from that list. Most of them would just not be available even though in theory they might be able to use them. Now as a rogue from certain cultures, you are not able to choose weapons from that culture.

If you make exotic cultures in your game i think changing weapon proficiencies to match is a good idea. But to cluster bomb a class with weapon proficiencies so you can realize every exotic weapon expert in one character(that cannot hot because he is still a rogue) seem silly. But i am all for changing hand crosbow to somthing else if your rogue is not a native to the old Mad Max universe.


Earl Grey wrote:


And why is light mace simple but light hammer is not?

With the hammer you have to strike with the right side of the weapon. A mace is much easier to use. Just smash it into the enemy, no matter what side hits.

A mace, like the club or the baseball bat, is among the easiest weapons to use.


With unarmed strike proficiency, that's something from my own houserules where the proficiency is the same as improved unarmed strike, but the actual IUS feat lets you attack with all your limbs like Monks do, do you're still subject to half strength.

As for the smorgasbord of exotic weapons, I mostly tried to stick to light blades and finessable weapons without getting into racial weapons such as the elven curve blade.

Likewise, I also tried to incorporate a lot of unusual and unconventional weapons that someone living on the streets would use. For example, rope gauntlet and harpoon and grappling hook, while exotic, are not exactly weapons you would never see in your life time.

@Earl Grey: Using fighter weapon groups to denote proficiencies is actually a pretty good idea, and I definitely get the space limitations on books that someone making homebrew material on google docs wouldn't have to worry about.

Scarab Sages

Opuk0 wrote:

With unarmed strike proficiency, that's something from my own houserules where the proficiency is the same as improved unarmed strike, but the actual IUS feat lets you attack with all your limbs like Monks do, do you're still subject to half strength.

This houserule is not supported by the rules. Per the combat chapter, ANY unarmed strike can be a punch, kick, or headbutt.

Kicking is not limited to monks or people with the IUS feat.


That seems like an odd distinction to make in the Monk Unarmed Strike section then, especially considering the constant lack of space that was mentioned before hand.

Can I get the ruling or faq please?


Opuk0 wrote:

That seems like an odd distinction to make in the Monk Unarmed Strike section then, especially considering the constant lack of space that was mentioned before hand.

Can I get the ruling or faq please?

Because who would use unarmed strikes in the CRB other than monks? They were the only ones really using it, so why not put the rules in easy access so people don't have to look them up.

Anyway, here is the CRB on unarmed strikes:

CRB, Combat section wrote:

Unarmed Attacks

Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:


Thank you kindly

That still seems rather unnecessary to point out though.

So is the only real difference the damage scaling and full strength for monks unarmed strikes?


Opuk0 wrote:

Thank you kindly

That still seems rather unnecessary to point out though.

So is the only real difference the damage scaling and full strength for monks unarmed strikes?

There is also the argument that only monk unarmed strikes are allowed to be counted as both natural and manufactured weapons.

Which can be rather important now, since just skipping the amulet of mighty fists and going with greater magic fang/weapon is a viable strategy with pummeling style.


Well then looks like I have some revision to do

Back on topic, I think unarmed strike proficiency still fits pretty well with Rogues in terms of street brawling and such

Scarab Sages

Opuk0 wrote:

Well then looks like I have some revision to do

Back on topic, I think unarmed strike proficiency still fits pretty well with Rogues in terms of street brawling and such

I like it as a rogue talent myself. It's something that makes sense that they would have access to if they worked at it, but with access to all simple weapons, it seems more likely that a street tough would slip on a pair of brass knuckles.

1 to 50 of 57 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Rogues and weapon proficiencies All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.