How would you fix the rogue?


Homebrew and House Rules


One of my all time favorite classes, at least in theory, is the rogue. I love the idea, the way they can play, the sneak attacks. From the street urchin thrown into bigger things, the noble slumming for thrills, the cold professional assassin, the spear wielding soldier who fights cheap and dirty, to the orc with a big hammer who defines sneak attack as a broken kneecap and a message well sent.

Unfortunately, the unique element of the rogue back at the start of 3.x was versatility, skill points and bursty sneak attacks. The skill system for 3.x systems including pathfinder is so lackluster it never is a focus, the sneak attack is often weaker than alternatives and too situational compared to other class's "turn on and hurt" bonuses. And versatility has been lost as more options are made available to other classes. These days, the rogue gets to play second fiddle to a host of other classes who can rogue better than he ever could. If course, if the only way to make the rogue better is to limit options, then that's bad design.

So, if you were going to design a brand new rogue that was in no way beholden to the classic pathfinder rogue, one to capture the range of people - from dual daggers McShanky to the Ork with a big stick and a whole lot of intimidate, what would you go with?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Already been done. The Unchained rogue is a good fix.

And as I'm sure others will point out (unless they are tired of doing it for the millionth time), the rogue class isn't the only way to make a rogue-style character.

So I reject the premise that the rogue needs "fixing" at all. YMMV.


Well, like you just said, there're other classes (and MANY other archetypes) that are better at being rogues whilst keeping a middle-low magic flavor.

The point is, this kind of threads are a bit pointless: Why fix something that has been replaced in any aspect (both fluff AND crunch)?
I mean, c'mon, look at the Slayer and the Investigator, all the examples you made can be achieved by playing these classes (moreso with the Slayer, but still) while maintaining good efficency and simplicity.

Also, somehow, these threads allways end up becoming Fighter vs. Wizard battlegrounds.

(btw sorry for any grammatical error, not a native english speaker here).

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think Unchained did a fair job of fixing the Rogue. They just need to deal with the crapy Talents.
In the mean time try the Slayer with the Vanguard Archtype.


People are going to hate me for saying this, but the best way to fix the Rogue would be to take a Nerf Bat to those feats and abilities that allow others to do the Rogues job better then the Rogue does. Or at least almost as good.
But then I think there a number of feats that should just be drop as they are too powerful.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Fix the rogue in 3 easy steps:

1. Rip "Slayer" class description out of the ACG.
2. Glue/paste over top of "Rogue" class description in the CRB.
3. You're done! Have a drink.


I think that the Rogue's biggest claim to fame at this point is the Sneak Attack. Unfortunately, with out the right party and tactic, this is of situational use. I am not really sure what the solution is for that. I also agree that the Unchained version is a really good fix.

Liberty's Edge

Cuthel wrote:

People are going to hate me for saying this, but the best way to fix the Rogue would be to take a Nerf Bat to those feats and abilities that allow others to do the Rogues job better then the Rogue does. Or at least almost as good.

But then I think there a number of feats that should just be drop as they are too powerful.

You'd also have to eliminate multiclassing, remove disable device as a skill and remove a large number of spells to make this work. It seems like a lot of work to keep people from playing a better rogue.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

Unchained rogues have no need for "fixing".


Rogue is my favourite class, not just in theory but also in real play. I am not so happy with the Unchained version, because Dex to damage pushes players too much into a certain direction - Dex heavy builds.

Yes, a rogue has significant weaknesses. It's an underdog class, but can still shine here and there. You have to make your choices carefully, though, and you won't have the tool for everything (like rage for a barbarian) but a hopefully big toolbox:

* Above average scores all around the board. Others might call it 'MAD' but an opportunist calls it '6 chances to shine for little investment'. Resist the urge to spend most points on Dex. Scores of 12 are your new best friends, you can still spend the biggest chunk on Dex afterwards. Only works with point buy, of course. Accordingly, consider belts & headbands that give you 3 stats instead of 1.
* Flank after bringing yourself into position with Acrobatics. Attempts to move through foe's square are risky, but possible.
* Feint to improve your own damage, but also for your mates on the long run (Greater Feint).
* Snipe if the situation allows it. Don't expect the Stealth check to work, but a sneak attack as an opener is nice. Nobody forbids you to switch to melee afterwards. Swift as Shadows alternate racial trait is a good one if you want to snipe more reliably.
* Two-weapon fighting as long as you have the AB for it. I'd pick up the basic feat for twice the (potential) damage per round early on, but go no further. You are not the two-weapon fighter in disguise but someone looking for yet another cheap option.
* Total Defense in situations where you couldn't do much damage anyway. +6 AC with 3 ranks in Acrobatics is helpful. If foes move past you, switch to normal mode and stab their backs.
* Or use Aid Another in the same case. Combat Advice (provide +2 AB as move action, on distance!) is neat. Swift Aid (+1 AB / AC as swift action) is an option, but then make sure you have more uses for Combat Expertise than just unlocking this feat (Improved Feint etc.).
* Skills. Yes, Schroedinger's caster has spells that do it better. But this doesn't mean a real caster has them at hand, and they would have to spend their precious spell slots / spells per day on it.
* Spells. Yup, you can get stuff like Detect Magic & Shield for two rogue talents.
* More spells. Given that you can max out UMD easily and profit from good Cha anyway (feint, Diplomacy, maybe more), you are a good candidate for secondary magic support.
* Rogue talents. Well, many are overly situational, have too few uses per day or are flat-out weak. But there are a few gems: Finesse Rogue, Offensive Defense, Combat Trick, said Minor Magic & Major Magic. That's already 5 picks for 4 talents before the advanced ones. Speaking of them: Crippling Strike, Hunter's Surprise, Opportunist, Slippery Mind and Feat should help.

Personally, I wouldn't go human - the bonuses help you less than they help other classes. Halfling helps you with some issues (saves, AC, AB, nonsneak damage via Risky Striker) and bolsters some strengths (Stealth, Dex skills in general, Cha skills). The slow speed is an issue but can be fixed with Fleet of Foot - which trades away the same racial trait as Swift as Shadows though. Half-orc is a surprisingly good choice, given the strong Intimidate - Shatter Defenses can be brutal, but Dazzling Display is already a nice debuff. Darkvision makes a difference at dungeon delving (well, depending on GM) and starting off with a greataxe or falchion helps a lot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's an archetype that gives you 6/9 spell-casting... That one works great, because spell-casting.

Unchained Rogues is okay too... Could be better, but it isn't bad.

Personally, I honestly much prefer this particular homebrew... But I can't say I'm unbiased. ^^


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Legendary Rogues from Legendary Games did a good job of it in my opinion. It points out the flaws with the Rogue and it's Unchained variant (with mathematical evidence) and then outlines some solutions for them. The actual replacement class that's in there is very solid too and really gives you the tools to play whatever kind of rogue you want.

The biggest issues that the Unchained rogue has include;
1. Having nothing meaningful to do if they can't sneak attack.
2. Having trouble simply hitting an enemy at higher levels due to having zero accuracy boosts built into the class.

If those two issues can be fixed, you'll likely end up with a reliable (although not perfect) class.


a) take a look in the homebrew forum, there are uncounted numbers of threads rehashing this whole argument, ad nauseum.

b) I'd combine the fighter with the rogue: full BAB, lots of skills, give a bonus feat/rogue talent every level, make getting +1d6 precision damage a rogue talent. Any 2 saves good, the other weak, character's choice at creation.

Fixes the fighter's lack of options out of combat; fixes the rogue's lack of hitting power in combat; plus allows any character which wants to be able to specialise in more than one combat 'style' enough feats/talents to do so.

However, many people don't seem to like the idea of merging the two classes whatever the merits (or otherwise).


I guess to really answer that question you need to ask one. Why do you want to play a Rogue and not a Slayer or Investigator? I am not saying that the Rogue is obsolete now, you just need to think about why the Rogue in particular appeals to you. Then you need to focus on that and decide why the Unchained Rogue is still not good enough. Hopefully this will give you the answer, at least for your self.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

...why are there so many of these discussions? Haven't there been a ton of 'fixes' for rogues? Ninjas, slayers, unchained, the spellcasting archetype...

There is little reason to have a complaint about them unless you are playing core only.

Now, if we were complaining about monks, I could still join with you. That less had 'options with different niches' and more 'options that directly fought against eachother'. But rogue? No- it is doing fine, its 'fixes' don't invalidate eachother, and instead fill different niches (invisibility, huge bonuses to various social skills, dex to damage, spell casting). You should be able to find something that works for you.

If you are still having problems with your rogue... then maybe you don't actually want to play a rogue? Maybe you actually wanted a different niche. Are you sure you don't want a completely different class, and just to grab its sneaky archetype (like sandman bard or archaeologist bard?)


Whats the matter with Rogue... I personally thought it got a much need Unchained buff?!

Now the Ninja on the other hand.....

Dark Archive

How to fix the rogue? Make it an NPC class. Now you can use all of the better classes for Rogues, without people crying about wanting to play a class just because it's got a misleading name tacked on it.


In a class based game, every class hopefully should have at least one niche protection or two in a common/frequent aspect of adventuring. Pathfinder as of now has too much classes for that to be fulfilled.


I guess the best way to play a rogue is to play one if you want to and remind the other players they aren't playing your character when they constantly whine about rogues.

Wow. Really a pretty simple fix.

Scarab Sages

Rogue doesn't need a fix. Pathfinder just needs to be balanced more towards the claims of the base system. Against CR appropriate enemies and challenges, Rogues perform completely viably. They simply don't min/max as hard as other classes.

If the game were more consistent in the way it's optimization is executed, you wouldn't hear complaints about rogues. That's party of why I'm excited for Starfinder. I'm willing to bet the system will, while being backwards compatible, be more consistent throughout.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I really like how 5th Edition does the rogue:
1. Ranged Sneak Attack has no range limits.
2. Replace flanking Sneak Attack with just team-up-with-ally-also-adjacent-to-foe sneak attack.
3. Cunning Action: Use swift action to Hide, Double Move, or avoid AoOs when moving. Maybe add Feint as an option to make Sneak Attacking easier.
4. Sneak Attacks double on critical hits.

Another thing I would do is add "Rogue Points." You get 1 Rogue Point at 1st level, and 1 more at levels 5, 10, 15, and 20.

You can allocate Rogue Points at the beginning of each day. You can add one (or more) Rogue Point(s) to Attack Rolls and CMB, AC and CMD, Saving Throws, DR 1/-, Skill Checks, Initiative (x2), +5 feet of speed.

Dark Archive

Davor wrote:

Rogue doesn't need a fix. Pathfinder just needs to be balanced more towards the claims of the base system. Against CR appropriate enemies and challenges, Rogues perform completely viably. They simply don't min/max as hard as other classes.

If the game were more consistent in the way it's optimization is executed, you wouldn't hear complaints about rogues. That's party of why I'm excited for Starfinder. I'm willing to bet the system will, while being backwards compatible, be more consistent throughout.

CR appropriate? More like CR-1 or -2. If you're dealing with CR=CL enemies as a Rogue, you're going to have a bad time.


Unchained Rogue with Eldritch Scoundrel is a pretty good fix, which is why that combination is banned in PFS.

Ultimately you'd have to go back and remove a lot of the core game's emphasis on traps and disarming them, then they don't have to give up so much of their 'class budget' (for lack of a better term) to have it; apparently that problem goes all the way back to the D&D Thief.


SmiloDan wrote:

I really like how 5th Edition does the rogue:

1. Ranged Sneak Attack has no range limits.
4. Sneak Attacks double on critical hits.

Yes please. Do you know how hard it is to make sniping worthwhile before you even get into the fact that you have to be within 30 ft. of the target?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SmiloDan wrote:

I really like how 5th Edition does the rogue:

1. Ranged Sneak Attack has no range limits.
2. Replace flanking Sneak Attack with just team-up-with-ally-also-adjacent-to-foe sneak attack.
3. Cunning Action: Use swift action to Hide, Double Move, or avoid AoOs when moving. Maybe add Feint as an option to make Sneak Attacking easier.
4. Sneak Attacks double on critical hits.

Another thing I would do is add "Rogue Points." You get 1 Rogue Point at 1st level, and 1 more at levels 5, 10, 15, and 20.

You can allocate Rogue Points at the beginning of each day. You can add one (or more) Rogue Point(s) to Attack Rolls and CMB, AC and CMD, Saving Throws, DR 1/-, Skill Checks, Initiative (x2), +5 feet of speed.

In 5th there are also fewer ways for casters to take the rogue's stuff. Magic helps, but doesn't replace skill use. The Find Traps spell is instantaneous in 5th, meaning you can't extend it and replace trapfinding as whole - and most spells that truly help with skills do it by providing advantage, meaning that being proficient (or being an expert with double the proficiency bonus) stills means a great deal.

Scarab Sages

Legio_MCMLXXXVII wrote:
Davor wrote:

Rogue doesn't need a fix. Pathfinder just needs to be balanced more towards the claims of the base system. Against CR appropriate enemies and challenges, Rogues perform completely viably. They simply don't min/max as hard as other classes.

If the game were more consistent in the way it's optimization is executed, you wouldn't hear complaints about rogues. That's party of why I'm excited for Starfinder. I'm willing to bet the system will, while being backwards compatible, be more consistent throughout.

CR appropriate? More like CR-1 or -2. If you're dealing with CR=CL enemies as a Rogue, you're going to have a bad time.

No, I meant CR appropriate. I've said it before, and I'll say it again (not in this thread, but many different threads): The threshold of viability as far as the baseline assumptions of the system are concerned is much lower than the community makes it. The reason that people complain about the rogue is that other classes are just better than it. That's a fair complaint, but it doesn't make the rogue unviable: It just means that the DM needs to compensate less for a well-built rogue than, say, a well-built ranger, slayer, etc.

That's a statement that I've never heard fully refuted on the Paizo boards, but with as much math as I've seen, it's pretty true. If you assume that a CR=APL encounter is supposed to be an average encounter, go do the math on how much damage a character should be able to put out regularly over the course of several rounds (3-4 at minimum, roughly the expectation of the game). You'll find it's actually REALLY low compared to what most modestly optimized characters can do.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I would fix the Rogue by taking him to the vet.

The Exchange

Imho the whole rouge concept is flawed in a party game cause many abilitys are solo functions.
If his abilitys benefit the whole group without taking feats required...than...maybe...


There's not a lot wrong with the rogue that can't be attributed more largely to the game as a whole. Not to say that the rogue isn't bad, cause it is. Just that the problems are more ingrained in the system itself.

I'm more inclined to agree with VanCucci. Ignore the rogue entirely.


As long as the rogue is conflated with red face paint, it will remain beyond our ability to fix.

Liberty's Edge

VanCucci wrote:

Well, like you just said, there're other classes (and MANY other archetypes) that are better at being rogues whilst keeping a middle-low magic flavor.

The point is, this kind of threads are a bit pointless: Why fix something that has been replaced in any aspect (both fluff AND crunch)?
I mean, c'mon, look at the Slayer and the Investigator, all the examples you made can be achieved by playing these classes (moreso with the Slayer, but still) while maintaining good efficency and simplicity.

Also, somehow, these threads allways end up becoming Fighter vs. Wizard battlegrounds.

(btw sorry for any grammatical error, not a native english speaker here).

I am with you. If there are better archetypes and/or other classes, then just play one of these.

Do you really need to be called a rogue in system mechanics to think of yourself as a rogue? Good grief! Just play an investigator (or whatever) and think of yourself as a rogue. Was that really so hard?


I think that the rogue was a flawed concept to begin with. They were the ones that disabled traps and as a niche that was pretty terrible. It made DMs feel like they had to shoehorn in traps to justify the presence of the rogue. It was like there was a core class called the exorcist and then every dungeon had to be a haunted house so they could use their exorcise class feature.

If I were to fix the rogue it would require severly changing the class. Part of the problem is that all the things rogues are supposed to be known for ( cunning, charm and quick thinking) are things that players are expected to do not the characters so this will have to be changed. If rogues got several abilities like "you're so charming you can count someone as under effect of the suggestion spell" or " you can focus on moving this turn, effortlessly dodging at the same time. You can only take movement based actions this turn but enemies can no more hit you than if you casted dimensional door to get to your final location" then they'd start to feel like the role I imagined them as having.

What I seen now is a very boring class. If you took all the rogue's special abilities away they'd lose 1-2 ways of contributing in combat and just as much when contriuting out of it at best (but that's a problem for more than just the rogue)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bearserk wrote:

Imho the whole rouge concept is flawed in a party game cause many abilitys are solo functions.

If his abilitys benefit the whole group without taking feats required...than...maybe...

The only things i can think of which are even remotely solo functions are stealth and disguise. And those only are if nobody else can also be stealthy and disguised.

Other than that rogues are pretty good team players. Sneak attack for example does not only work well in a party, it requires one because without a flanking buddy you will only get one sneak attack off per battle and that one only if you manage to surprise your enemy. Picking locks and disabling traps obviously aid the group in advancing through dungeons, social skills are helpful to the group. I don't see where you get the idea that the rogue is not a teamplayer.

The Exchange

Bard!
Imho nearly anything as the rouge but more group orientated...and more fun!

And i don't like traps so im agree with vorArchivist! ;-)


Issues with the rogue are part of the reason why I'm not in favour of throwing skill points at every class. You have to let a class shine.


Bearserk wrote:

Bard!

Imho nearly anything as the rouge but more group orientated...and more fun!

And i don't like traps so im agree with vorArchivist! ;-)

That's no response to what I said. I'm not saying the rogue is the best at anything, i'm just saying it is not a solo oriented class at all.

Yes it's true bard is better at party interaction than a rogue. But then that's no surprise since it is one of the most support oriented classes available.


vorArchivist wrote:

I think that the rogue was a flawed concept to begin with. They were the ones that disabled traps and as a niche that was pretty terrible. It made DMs feel like they had to shoehorn in traps to justify the presence of the rogue. It was like there was a core class called the exorcist and then every dungeon had to be a haunted house so they could use their exorcise class feature.

Well, the game in its first times consisted in a majority of dungeon crawls, so traps were like 30% of the problems encountered and a guy able to handle an infinite number of them was handy.

Thieves were also able to achieve other kind of tasks like climbing, hiding in the shadows ecc.
The problem stands all in SYSTEM INCOMPATIBILITY. In older editions, the Rogue/Thief niche was protected by a system where magic was less reliable and skills weren't available to everyone.
Then in 3.5 the class kind stood his ground thanks to the great number of skill points and class skill (which in 3.5 meant a whole lot more) that allowed access to a lot of good prestige classes, the bread and butter of 3.5's character building, fast and without burning all the skill points, this made the class a good one to build around the character.
What happened with PF is more complicated.
We can list some of the reasons that "made the Rogue bad":

-an overall increase of health of monsters to counter the increase of damage of martial classes + sneak attack remained the same.

-loss of all the good PrC that were rogue-oriented.

-having a skill as a class skill means having just a +3 + various skill consolidated into one

There are many more reasons than these, but the point is that there's "rogue" (a guy whom solves problems trought cunning, expertise and usually finesse) and "Rogue" (the class we all know), The former is a concept if well executed can help a party like any other member, the latter needs help from the party to stay relevant, at least in this system...

...and then there's the rouge if you want look sexy.

Sovereign Court

Other than higher level issues which all martials share, Unchained Rogue pretty much did it. As far as martials go, it's a solid class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HowFortuitous wrote:
So, if you were going to design a brand new rogue that was in no way beholden to the classic pathfinder rogue, one to capture the range of people - from dual daggers McShanky to the Ork with a big stick and a whole lot of intimidate, what would you go with?

To answer your actual request, here's what I wrote a while back...

This was written in the Shameless Boost for Rogues thread, in three separate parts (plus a post showcasing Merisiel re-written with the new rules).
Other than the one favorite I got, not a lot of response; but it was quite the wall of text. Even though I'd not fully finished the entire project (other than Rogue Talents, I'd only done one example cunning craft, skill discipline and archetype; still a lot of work to go).

Here's the links to the posts:
General Class Breakdown
List of Rogue Talents
New Archetypes w/ example writeup (Archivist)
NPC Merisiel lvl 12 write up with my new rules

To be honest, it's a lot, so I fully expect most people to just kind of gloss over it or say "too much!" and move on.

However, since you asked for a brand new rogue that can be built with a versatility ranging from Daggers McShanky to Ork O'Bigstick.. figured this would be the place to put it.

One of these days I'll look at eventually completing this. Maybe.

Note: The writeup was posted back in 2014, and written up mostly before that too. Before the a lot of the new classes and things like skill unlocks, etc.


Rogar Valertis wrote:
Unchained rogues have no need for "fixing".

I mostly agree, though it doesn't give the Rogue a "niche". I took the unchained Rogue and added a modified Skill Unlocks, but lowered the skill requirements from 5/10/15/20 to 3/5/7/10, lowering the penalties to do stuff accordingly. Basically, the Rogue then becomes "the best there is at what they do", since the unlocks will give them abilities that nobody else can pull off without magic with their skills. We aren't going to argue that letting a rogue be able to read the surface thoughts of someone at level seven is "imbalancing", but it will make the Rogue stick out in a way that nobody else can via pure skill at that level.


Just say no to niche protection. Niche protection forces people to play classes they don't want to.

Not only should there be no protected roles, every single combination of noncombat role, combat role, and mechanical style should ideally have a class that can fill it.

Rogues that aren't eldritch scoundrels should just go. They fill a redundant role combination and therefore don't need fixing. Slayer is the nonmagical scout. Investigator is the alchemical scout. Archaeologist is the spontaneous arcane casting scout. Eldritch Scoundrel is the prepared arcane casting scout. Inquisitor and Hunter need rogue replacement archetypes and Ninja needs to better fit its role. It should probably have been a monk alternate class instead of a rogue alternate class.


I fixed them by using unchained Rogue and two following abilities. I let rogues pick two martial weapons of their choice to add list of proficiency. I add an ability at level 8 I call resilience, I gave this to fighters also. It gives them +3 comp or circumstance bonus(I don't remember which one it the one that does not stack with others of it type.) to one of their weak saves.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

1) I'd probably redesign the rogue as a combatant that excels before combat and during the surprise round. Most martials focus on dealing consistent damage or focusing on a single target throughout the fight. My rogue would focus on crippling a single target during the surprise round and then either finish them off or slink away into the shadows.

2) I'd remove rogue talents and replace them with another class feature that works similar to vigilante specialities in the vigilante playtest where you can have spellcasting, make yourself a better fighter, a ki pool, etc. I honestly think rogue talents doesn't have enough design space to make interesting abilities.


Cyrad wrote:
2) I'd remove rogue talents and replace them with another class feature that works similar to vigilante specialities in the vigilante playtest where you can have spellcasting, make yourself a better fighter, a ki pool, etc. I honestly think rogue talents doesn't have enough design space to make interesting abilities.

I'd suggest looking at the post I linked, because I rewrote the Rogue Talent list to specifically do such things.


Davor wrote:

Rogue doesn't need a fix. Pathfinder just needs to be balanced more towards the claims of the base system. Against CR appropriate enemies and challenges, Rogues perform completely viably. They simply don't min/max as hard as other classes.

If the game were more consistent in the way it's optimization is executed, you wouldn't hear complaints about rogues. That's party of why I'm excited for Starfinder. I'm willing to bet the system will, while being backwards compatible, be more consistent throughout.

The original rogue was fine with with appropriate CR enemies and challenges up to about level 12. That's when they got really bad, not instantly at level 12 but level 12 was the downward slide. The issue was the rogue couldn't hit well enough to deal with increased danger they put themselves in to get sneak attack due to stalled defenses. So it was hit with 25% to 50% of your attacks and get squished in 1 round of full attacks. So the rogue then hangs back avoid the killing blows but not getting their sneak attack in. This was typical of the old rogue. Unchained fixed that with Debilitating Injury. Now the unchained rogue only needs to hit once which they normally do and they get +6 at 10th or +8 at 16th to hit. Now the iterative attacks hit more often. On top of that they can apply two injuries and reduce the attack bonus of the enemy by the same amount. The rogue offense and defense just jumped significantly.


voska66 wrote:
The original rogue was fine with with appropriate CR enemies and challenges up to about level 12.

Appropriate CR is anything in the APL-1 to APL+3 range. Rogues start faring badly against the upper end a lot earlier because they don't have reserve accuracy.


Bringing back Spot, Search, and Listen. Combining these made Perception too powerful, and a good Rouge now needs Wisdom instead of making it a dump stat.


I would gestalt (wholesale combine) the Rogue, Fighter, and Monk, and call it the Adventurer or something.

That's what I would do. It's not necessarily what anyone else should do, nor what Pathfinder should do.


Atarlost wrote:

Appropriate CR is anything in the APL-1 to APL+3 range. Rogues start faring badly against the upper end a lot earlier because they don't have reserve accuracy.

I'd like to note that APL+3 is "Epic" difficulty. A group shouldn't be expected to reliably perform against this. This is why voska refers to appropriate CR enemies. APL+3 should be appropriate to get your ass kicked. The fact that well-optimized characters of other classes can easily overcome APL+3 CRs is the issue, not the reverse.

That said, it is usualy easier to buff a character up to a percieved standard, rather than nerf everyone else to the expected standard, which is why people want to "fix" the rogue.

Does the rogue need fixing ? Between the Unchained Rogue, the Slayer, the Investigator and the Bard, roguish characters aren't that bad. Still not Spellcaster power level, but they can be solid martial, effective support and good skill-monkeys.
As long as you kept up with the recent stuff (ACG and Unchained where released in August 2014 and April 2015), the roguish characters are ok.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / How would you fix the rogue? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules