jeremiah dodson 812 |
So my gaming group has a running joke about how much the PF Rogue just plane sucks. Even the UC Rogue is just a weak Swashbuckler in ALOT of ways. Now during one of these after game BS sessions my DM said he wants to rebuild the Rogue for his next campaign as a 6th level cast. The logic being that a master spy/thief/assassin would have a good understanding of the technology he runs up against and in PF that's magic. I'm just curious what people think of that idea and maybe what they would do for a "magic infiltrator" build?
MeanMutton |
So my gaming group has a running joke about how much the PF Rogue just plane sucks. Even the UC Rogue is just a weak Swashbuckler in ALOT of ways. Now during one of these after game BS sessions my DM said he wants to rebuild the Rogue for his next campaign as a 6th level cast. The logic being that a master spy/thief/assassin would have a good understanding of the technology he runs up against and in PF that's magic. I'm just curious what people think of that idea and maybe what they would do for a "magic infiltrator" build?
In what way is an unchained rogue a "weak Swashbuckler"?
TriOmegaZero |
Athaleon |
UC Rogue might not pull the damage numbers of a Swashbuckler but has a lot more utility and respectable damage.
Your best 6th-level-caster magic infiltrator is probably a Bard of some kind: Archaeologist for trap disarming, regular Bard (or possibly some other archetype) for using things like Fascinate and Suggestion for "people disarming". If you can spare the feats, Variant Multiclass Wizard gets you a familiar (invaluable for scouting) and some of the school powers from Divination or Illusion may appeal to you as well.
jeremiah dodson 812 |
jeremiah dodson 812 wrote:So my gaming group has a running joke about how much the PF Rogue just plane sucks. Even the UC Rogue is just a weak Swashbuckler in ALOT of ways. Now during one of these after game BS sessions my DM said he wants to rebuild the Rogue for his next campaign as a 6th level cast. The logic being that a master spy/thief/assassin would have a good understanding of the technology he runs up against and in PF that's magic. I'm just curious what people think of that idea and maybe what they would do for a "magic infiltrator" build?In what way is an unchained rogue a "weak Swashbuckler"?
Your focused on the wrong party of the post. This isn't a Rogue vs. Swashbuckler post.
Blackwaltzomega |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So my gaming group has a running joke about how much the PF Rogue just plane sucks. Even the UC Rogue is just a weak Swashbuckler in ALOT of ways. Now during one of these after game BS sessions my DM said he wants to rebuild the Rogue for his next campaign as a 6th level cast. The logic being that a master spy/thief/assassin would have a good understanding of the technology he runs up against and in PF that's magic. I'm just curious what people think of that idea and maybe what they would do for a "magic infiltrator" build?
Perhaps the Questioner Investigator?
Kinda a hybrid of the Rogue and the Bard instead of Rogue and Investigator.
"Magic must defeat magic" tends to be a pretty common end result with PF magic, so I'd say there is something to studying what the enemy uses to better defeat it.
I3igAl |
A "magic infiltrator" is not a rogue. If you wanted that role, investigator, inquisitor, bard, eldritch scoundrel, seeker oracle, seeker sorcerer, mesmerist, or alchemist would suit.
This. The investigator probably does this best.
Really no need to rebuild the rogue, if there is multiple stealthy 6lvl casters with dozens of archetypes are already available.Maneuvermoose |
Ian K wrote:Real? Aren't all Pathfinder characters imaginary?I don't think they form a field at all.
They don't, but they do form a group. At least I think they do since everyone's always talking about so-called "gaming groups."
The Sideromancer |
Atarlost wrote:They don't, but they do form a group. At least I think they do since everyone's always talking about so-called "gaming groups."Ian K wrote:Real? Aren't all Pathfinder characters imaginary?I don't think they form a field at all.
The question is how these relate to the monster group