|
Well, I don't own the book, so I can't read it. Fair enough?Heyooooo! Hooooooo!Ok, let's go there.
I said I don't like the Bard because it performs. His reply is no they don't, and commented on 15 years experience.
My Bard uses Perform (Oratory) to speak inspiring words to her allies and degrading insults to the enemy.
You seem to place far too much weight on the words used rather than the actual application. The Archaeologist archetype doesn't perform at all.
Well, I don't own the book, so I can't read it. Fair enough?Heyooooo! Hooooooo!Ok, let's go there.
I said I don't like the Bard because it performs. His reply is no they don't, and commented on 15 years experience.
My Bard uses Perform (Oratory) to speak inspiring words to her allies and degrading insults to the enemy.
You seem to place far too much weight on the words used rather than the actual application.
As mentioned multiple times in this very thread, Archaeologist Bard is also an option. In fact, it's basically a better rogue than the rogue, with spells as gravy.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dude, chill. People are trying to help you with your concept, but you went in with no knowledge of the game (playing ADnD does diddly-squat for knowing mechanics and internal balance of Pathfinder, except in the most basic concepts), and you come of in your posts as insulting and patronizing.
Well all of the books are available online for free as TOZ was nice enough to link. Also your tone seems to me at least to be dismissive and overly argumentative. If you have 0 Pathfinder experience why did you even bring up length of experience as if it is with other systems it will not matter, and also why are you dismissing the rather good advice that many have given in this thread without even reading up first?
Please look around the Pathfinder Reference Document, D20PFSRD, or the Archives of Nethys before deriding others attempts to help you. All of the aforementioned are sites you can simply Google.
Good Luck.
Adrian,
When you come to a Pathfinder site, with a character concept, where the thread is "the non-combat Rogue," styled after Sheila from the cartoon (who never backstabbed anyone for damage if I can recall in my old age), then consider that we're just providing the advice as best we understood the request.
The Unchained Rogue can do this (with the stealth and sneak attack as you mentioned being interested in in a later post).
The Archeologist Bard can do the skills best if you want to focus on the social skills (and really minimize the focus on combat as per the thread title and Sheila style play). You get real Invisibility via the spell, which I recall was Sheila's main ability).
There are other options.
Look up Lemmy's suggestions back on page 1. They're excellent.
Check the System Reference Document: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/
Best regards.
Investigator is also very good with skills. If you want to avoid magic, I would look at the Slueth Archetype.
LOL. Yes. The base Rogue can do that. But the Unchained Rogue is just straight up better (it has some bonuses, and no loses from what I know). If your game doesn't use any other options from the Unchained book, you'll still want to use the Unchained options for Rogues from the SRD or PRD websites.
If you are in a Pathfinder Society game that is Core (that is, you can only use the base book), and want a Rogue, then yes, you are using the vanilla one. Otherwise, enjoy the Unchained one (skill unlocks, combat feats, added Rogue talents, etc.)
|
Your concept works in theory.
It just happens to work better as several other Classes. I can, for example, make an Investigator or Archaeologist Bard who does literally every single thing your Rogue build does...only better at most of them. They'd fit your stated concept perfectly, for the most part.
If you really want to play Rogue, you certainly can...but you're not getting anything out of it except writing Rogue on your sheet. Is a word on your character sheet really that important to you?
Even if it is, refusing to play Unchained Rogue is just strange. It gets everything rogues do...and a couple more things. Why turn down free stuff?
Also, on a rules note, at 1st level, you are only allowed one rank in any individual skill.
Well, I don't own the book, so I can't read it. Fair enough?Heyooooo! Hooooooo!Ok, let's go there.
I said I don't like the Bard because it performs. His reply is no they don't, and commented on 15 years experience.
From the book then:
"Bardic Performance: A bard is trained to use the
Perform skill to create magical effects on those around
him, including himself if desired. He can use this
ability for a number of rounds per day equal to 4 + his
Charisma modifier."ya, that's exactly what I said I didn't like, and he threw 15 years experience in my face saying this wasn't part of the Bard class.
They don't have to be musicians is what I said. You can use perform: oratory and give rousing speeches or, like I also said, be an Archaeologist Bard who doesn't have performances at all.
You said Bard is a no go without knowing anything about the class. I would expect people who have more than a decade of experience with RPGs to actually read options before they dismiss them.
Statistics:
Look great to me.
Skills:
You have the right skills listed, except that you can only add 1 Rank per level. My GM made us select a Profession, and a Knowledge skill. Other modifiers:
Class skill = +3 (and all of yours listed are on the Rogue list, so you'll get a +3 to all the ones that you have listed)
Ability (you'll have no penalties with everything at 10+, and bonuses for skills based on Str Dex and Cha)
Feats (e.g. Stealthy)
Race (human gets other bonuses)
Archetype (I don't have any to recommend, but you are supposed to select one at level one or not at all).
Armour:
For now, regular Leather is probably good enough.
Soon I recommend Studded Leather, masterwork (20 gp + 150 gp for masterwork) or +1, when you can afford those. Those would be another point or two of defense without harming your skills.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/armor#TOC-Masterwork-Armor
Weapons:
Heavy Crossbow would indeed be the best in my group's campaign where we only get one round of ranged attack and then fight in hand to hand. Be aware that without quick draw, you'll technically take a round to get out your melee weapons, until you get to level 2 (where you can then draw another weapon since you'll have a BAB of +1). And it does take a round to reload, which doesn't really matter if you are just switching to melee after that one shot.
Couple of pointers.
A Core Rulebook Human Rogue (ie. basic rogue) with an 11 intelligence has 9 (or 10) skill points to spend. Rogue 8, Human 1, Favored Class Bonus either 1 skill point or 1 hit point.
Lets say 10 for arguments sake. You can only put 1 skill point in each skill you want. For a list of skills look HERE at the CRB Rogue.
You then add +3 if it is a class skill (noted in the above link) and then you add your ability score bonus for each skill. For instance if it is a Dexterity Skill you would add +3. If it is a Strength Skill you add +1, etc.
Acrobatics would be: 1 skill rank, +3 class skill, +3 dex for 7 total.
Do this for each skill. For your stealth skill because of the Stealthy feat it would be 9 since the feat adds +2 bonus.
-- david
RE: Quoting you, dumb operator error on my part. I tried to delete the post as soon as it went, since I did not mean to post without adding but stuff happened.
I suggest you read Generating a Character section of the online Paizo Reference Document. In fact that whole section on Getting Started would prove useful for someone who has no experience in playing DnD 3.0 (or 3.5) or Pathfinder (sometimes refered to as DnD 3.75).
I just misread something about skill points. Not a big deal, just means I get more skills with +1.
Otherwise though, how is this build so non-rogueish that others are telling me I'd be better off as other classes instead?
It is a fine basic rogue.
Couple of things to think about.
She would do well in most areas (city, outdoors, dungeon) as long as she is not the party "face", ie. lets someone else do the talking usually, although you do have the social skill Bluff but I figure that is for being able to let her do other roguish things.
She will not be a great damage dealer, but usually the warrior and divine characters take care of that.
It appears to me that your DnD experience is in either Basic DnD, or ADnD 1 or 2 (correct me if I am wrong, please). In DnD 3+, including Pathfinder, there are so many options including other classes that can do the "basic" rogue tasks as well as other things, that many folks find it difficult to understand why someone would want to play "just a rogue" when there are so many other options.
I understand both sides of this argument and depending on the game (ie. DM and Players and expectations) I can see where either side is valid.
-- david
edit: cross posted, I see you have 3.0 & 3.5 experience. Pathfinder is another level up from them as far as options.
I don't think it's the fact that it's non-rogueish, but the fact that the Core Rulebook Rogue is often seen as less than mediocre, to the point that Paizo themselves published a "fix" in the form of the Unchained Rogue.
Also, this should be in the Advice forum, flagged to be moved.
As for actual advice:
I definitely understand not wanting to go magical at all, but I'm not sure I understand it. You seem to have a problem with separating the class name and abilities from the actual flavor you want.
With the Investigator specifically, you mentioned how it seems to be focused on gathering knowledge and books and all that stuff, as if that part of the character was hard-coded into the class itself.
I see the flavor of a class as being just as mold able as the build itself.
Not every Rogue has to be that super stealthy, acrobatic thief. A half-orc barbarian/Scout rogue that sneak attacks on charges with a greataxe is just as flavor-based as that halfling rogue that just sneaks around stealing things.
The bard doesn't have to be the minstrel that frequents the taverns with their lute; it could just as easily be the battlefield tactician that has learned how to direct their allies in combat to maximize their combat abilities.
The great part about the roleplaying system is that you can pretty much reflavor anything to anything else, within reason of course.
As to why people are suggesting other classes/builds that you play, they're trying to help you (because you did ask for help) in creating the character that does what you want it to do.
If someone wants to play a certain concept with a specific class, but another class would do it just as well and/or better, it's certainly reasonable to expect them to suggest their other options.
Your Investigator's extracts can be reflavored as completely non-magical bursts of "luck", as long as you still follow the rules for them actually being spells.
Perhaps your hard-life "rogue" has developed quite a few tricks for surviving the streets, with her Invisibility just being her superior ability to sneak, her Spider Climb displaying her amazing climbing abilities, and her Cure infusions representing her ability to scrounge together a first aid kit from basically anything.
Investigators don't get any all-day cantrips, so flavor her extracts as part of her daily kit of equipment and go on with it.
Hope this helped!
Play the character that you want to. No one here has to approve of it. It serves no purpose to try to convince people offering the advice you solicited that you don't need their advice. You are very combative for someone purporting to seek assistance.
|
|
I remember reading about the ranks can't exceed levels. I thought I read something that allowed for the rank to be +1 higher than usual. Maybe a human trait? I can fix that, not an issue.
Humans get extra skill points, not the ability to raise skills higher.
So if the concern is with the skills I chose, what skills would a rogue choose instead?
No, the skills are fine aside from the minor mechanical error.
I'm uncertain as to why my concept works better as another class. My concept is based on rogue-skills. What does a rogue do that my concept doesn't?
Uh...the Rogue doesn't really do anything your concept doesn't. Your concept does things the Rogue doesn't.
In purely mechanical terms, the Rogue isn't actually that good at skills. They get a lot of them, but they're only as good as anyone else at actually using them.
Your concept seems to want to be actually good at the skills you have. Better than other people of the same level.
There are several classes that do that. Investigator is good at skills, getting to add +1d6 to them. The aforementioned Archaeologist Bard (who, unlike normal Bards, doesn't perform at all) gets to add a luck bonus to all of them.
The Slayer also does better at skills that target a particular person (including Stealth), and lacks spell casting...it's a bit more combative to start with, but that can easily be downplayed.
So...all of those classes do better at skills than your current build. And since you say skills are your primary priority...
They're also, incidentally, all a bit more durable (ie: better Saves in some way) than the Rogue, which is good for keeping your character alive.
Assuming that combat is one of the major components of group's games, you still need to be able to contribute if you want to be part of the team. Since half of the rogue's class feature have to do with combat, you'll be limiting yourself quite a bit by choosing to put all of your resources elsewhere. The rogue you describe is great in a movie or TV show because the story can cater to her. I like rogues for the reasons as you, but choosing a "rogue-variant" class will give you a lot more flexibility in achieving the character you want to play. Whatever class it is, she can still look and act like a rogue. Choosing the right traits will help her get the missing class skills.
I don't think anyone here has said that your concept is "wrong", in any way.
The stealthy rogue-type that runs around all acrobatic and sneaky and stuff if a stereotype that is quite popular. I think what is actually "wrong", if anything is, about your concept is that combat is a big part of most normal games.
If your group has decided that they all want to run a combat-light version of Pathfinder, that's great, those kind of games can and have worked before. But we assume that isn't the case, and are trying to give you what you want thematically while also allowing you to be useful in more than just unlocking doors and stealing stuff and other rogue skill things.
@Understanding but not understanding: my apologies, I hadn't realized I wrote it like that. What I was trying to say was that "avoiding most magic" and "not using any form of magic at all" are completely different things. Like I said above, it's completely possible for you to reflavor your extracts as completely mundane effects. And, as long as you aren't in an antimagic field, everything will be fine. Just ask your GM if this is alright beforehand.
@Investigators:
Whether on the trail of a fugitive, a long-lost treasure trove, or a criminal mastermind, investigators are motivated by an intense curiosity about the world and use knowledge of it as a weapon. Mixing gumption and learnedness into a personal alchemy of daring, investigators are full of surprises. Observing the world around them, they gain valuable knowledge about the situation they’re in, process that information using inspiration and deduction, and cut to the quick of the matter in unexpected ways. Investigators are always evaluating situations they encounter, sizing up potential foes, and looking out for secret dangers, all while using their vast knowledge and powers of perception to find solutions to the most perplexing problems.
Role: Investigators live to solve mysteries and find inventive ways to get out of jams. They serve as advisors and support for their adventuring parties, but can take center stage when knowledge and cunning are needed. No slouches in battle, they know how to make surprise attacks and use inspiration to bring those attacks home.
Nothing says you have to play the bookish investigator who spends his time in a mystical library reading ancient dusty tomes.
I don't think people are saying your concept doesn't fit a rogue, people are saying that your concept doesn't fit a Rogue (the Core class) as well as it fits other builds and classes.
Heck, Unchained Rogue is a straight upgrade from Core Rogue, which would allow you to get rid of some of that Strength, maybe moving it into Intelligence for more skill points?
Again, nothing anywhere says a rogue is always a Rogue. I've made characters that fit the bill of the role you're explaining with your street-hardened acrobatic/stealthy rogue with the Warpriest class (halfling worshippers of Achaekek).
The class name itself doesn't apply any strict flavor rules, in most cases, unless you want it to (the obvious exception being the Paladin; not a lot of room for movement there).
|
|
My thought was most other classes don't take Escape Artist, stealth, climb, etc. But if a fighter took the skills, and had just as much experience in them as I, wouldn't it make sense that he would be just as good as them as I? I suppose you're saying in a class-based game only being equal to someone else makes you dispensible?
The thing is that a lot of classes get those skills. Sure, if you're the only one who has them you'll be best. But being best at something by default is a bit lacklustre, and does nothing to let you sneak past someone with maxed Perception or similar things.
Opposed skill checks are, after all, a thing.
So what does a rogue do well? They have sneak attack, but the time lost getting into position might not be made up for by their extra damage when they finally do attack.
Rogue does almost nothing well. That's sort of the problem with Rogue, and why people are recommending other classes.
The Unchained Rogue is actually okay at combat, and has a few cool tricks, but remains not especially good at anything else.
|
|
... that is why I said it doesn't fit my concept. This bit about trusting in knowledge above all things. That's not who my character is at all.
The Class Descriptions mean almost nothing. They're a description of the most common way to play the Class, but far from the only one. Even in Paizo books specifically, statted up NPCs often don't follow those descriptions at all.
Play the character however you want, using the best set of mechanics to reflect the capabilities you want them to have.
Adrian,
There are many discussion threads online about whether certain games should just go classless (which would make those overall descriptions moot). Then you would have a whole big list of options to select from, including skills, sneak attack, spells, HD, etc. This is more or less how a lot of us are viewing the alternate classes and their archetypes, in order to do what you want.
As an example, I selected a Ranger for my character after a 20 year hiatus from the game. What I wanted was to be able to fight well with two weapons, have some favored enemies, and decent skills [particularly tracking]. If someone had suggested Slayer, then I would have had the same thing as I wanted, plus sneak attack dice (assuming I didn't want the spells and animal companion).
Rogues are a common topic of discussion on these boards specifically because they are a classic class that has been pushed out of its niche. When I played AD&D you straight-up needed a rogue because no-one else could handle traps, and those could be lethal. In Pathfinder traps are rarer and less lethal.
Pathfinder has changed the game without changing the Rogue much from 3.5 D&D. The skill system was reformed, making it easier for other classes to be good at skills. Lots of other classes got a significant boost to their combat prowess and versatility (Bard, Ranger, Barbarian etc).
Pathfinder also introduced Archetypes and other classes that did similar things to the Rogue, but either had lots of other options or were just better. There are options very like a rogue in theme, but mechanically superior. Archeologist Bards, Urban Rangers, Investigators and others are all similarly flavored to a classic Rogue. Each can do what a Rogue does in terms of skills but with better saves, casting, combat advantages etc.
You don't need to accept that the class on your character sheet is how you must play the character. Barbarians don't need to be crude brutes, Paladins don't need to be killjoys and anyone with an appropriate skillset can be a "thief".
I have a guy in my gaming group who sounds a lot like you. He loves playing "rogues" but gets immensely frustrated because he actually plays the Rogue class. He doesn't contribute meaningfully to combat, and when skills come in handy he tends to get overshadowed by the casters who use magic to boost skills.
For our latest campaign I pointed him towards the Investigator class. He didn't like it because it didn't fit his idea of Rogue. I pointed out that as long as he follows the mechanics, he can call his abilities whatever he likes. The party eventually found a magic item that can shoot 2 Magic Missiles every round so he uses that as his main "go to" combat option since he's pretty squishy.
He's pretty happy now. He provides a small but consistent level of damage in combat. He rolls ridiculously high skill checks thanks to his Inspirations and Extracts. He performs his party roll of scout and troubleshooter with great effectiveness.
People's first impression of the Rogue class is that it should be great at skills. The Rogue gets lots of skills but as other have mentioned up thread many other classes are better at performing them.
Don't be afraid to reflavor things. I played a Barbarian once and Rage didn't fit my concept at all. I renamed it "Focus", and played it mechanically the same way. Ignore the flavor bits for each class. Look at a class as a mechanical set of abilities and then just reflavor them as you wish to make them fit your idea.