There's a lot of talk about how rogues are underpowered. I don't disagree, but I don't compare players against each other for power and effectiveness, and I don't feel the need to make everyone equal in battle. There are roleplaying reasons for wanting to play a rogue, and personally I don't care if they're as effective in combat as a fighter.
That said, I've made two changes to rogues, and I'm curious what others are doing about the magic side of their rogue talents. The first is I use d12 for sneak attack damage, and I rule it like backstab (from behind, unaware) not sneak attacks (straight up combat).
The second is minor/major magic. This is what I'm curious about. What thief would waste two talents that take four levels to accumulate to get a single 0 and single 1st level spell when they could sacrifice 1 rogue level, take wizard or sorcerer, and get a bunch of spells and other abilities?
I combine them both into one talent that includes the benefits of both. Otherwise, you're begging your rogue interested in a few spells to take a spellcaster level and set back their rogue progression (skills, backstab, BAB, etc.).
What are people doing on rogue magic?
Anyone consider a similar move?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I did this:
* Minor Magic allows the spell to be cast once per day per level, or an unlimited number of times at 7th level. At 6th, 10th, 14th and 18th levels, add another cantrip.
* Major Magic allows the spell to be cast once per day per two levels, or an unlimited number of times at 10th level. At 8th, 13th and 18th levels, adds another spell.
* Greater Magic (prereq: Major Magic, Int 12) allows a 2nd level spell, cast once per day per three levels, or an unlimited number of times at 13th level. At 10th and 16th levels, add another spell.
Also, Bookish Rogue makes the talents much better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Leave the poor rogue ALONE. You, people, have cut the living heart out of the Rogue; the ability to climb, sneak and killing from behind [I was a vocal supporter of assassination percentage system from AD&D for rogues]. The lying, stealing and cheating all come out in role-playing. Giving the rogue the abilities of the arcane would be a further corruption of the class. If a thief-wizard is what you want then endure the dou-class restrictions. In conclusion, anyone who doesn't appreciate the rogue's skill with traps has not ever died in an interesting way.
Leave the poor rogue ALONE. You, people, have cut the living heart out of the Rogue; the ability to climb, sneak and killing from behind [I was a vocal supporter of assassination percentage system from AD&D for rogues]. The lying, stealing and cheating all come out in role-playing. Giving the rogue the abilities of the arcane would be a further corruption of the class. If a thief-wizard is what you want then endure the dou-class restrictions. In conclusion, anyone who doesn't appreciate the rogue's skill with traps has not ever died in an interesting way.
You're cherry picking history to suit your ideal. Thieves could cast spells from scrolls.
What is this "cut the living heart out of the Rogue" business? I agree that the class is great for what it can do. Your examples are stout. It doesn't need to have uber magic or straight up combat ability to be cool. However, there's always been a way to use magic items and magic without formal training. You play how you want and let others do the same.
"You people" lol
There should be a "You people" filter on Submit Post.
"You've started your post with "You people". Are you sure you want to submit? You may be judged as judgmental by your peers. Ok/Edit/Delete-Everything-I-Wrote
Minor Magic = Ability to cast 0 level spells as a Sorc of your level as a SLA.
Major Magic = Ability to cast 1st level spells as a Sorc of your level as a SLA.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"You people" lol
There should be a "You people" filter on Submit Post.
"You've started your post with "You people". Are you sure you want to submit? You may be judged as judgmental by your peers. Ok/Edit/Delete-Everything-I-Wrote
When you point out and comment on what is or what is not politically correct you are changing the subject and you do not grasp the full intention of the words. My intention was a sweeping inclusion of all players past, present, and future; all Dms past, present, and future; all Paizo staff and third-party producers past, present, and future; and anyone who would throw a die to determine the fate of another past, present, and future. I have an opinion that affects the game an as a whole, therefore, all were called to listen whether I get that hearing remains to be seen. I have always had my problems with the game in past, I have problems with the state of the game at present, and I know I will have problems with the game in the future. This is a dynamic game that needs dissenting opinions to open doors to different trains of thought and other possibilities. That is the nature of the beast, I am sure its’ like herding cats trying to get everybody going in one direction for changes rules-wise. All in all, we each should express our opinion with as low a voice as what can be heard by all without condemnation for or shouting for the past, present, and future
I was advocating for a stronger rogue class by returning it to its’ roots in AD&D. That was when the rogue had the most diverse set of mundane skills plus the use of arcane scrolls at fifth level.The rogue skills that are essential to the class climb, stealth, killing from behind, find, set and disable traps, and pickpockets. These skills should be used only by the rogue class like wizards have spells. Today everyone has access to rogue specific skills which leave the rogue fighting for relevance. Giving the rogue the abilities of the arcane spellcasting would be a further corruption of the class. If a thief-wizard is what you want then endure the dou-class restrictions. If you wanted to hustle, pickpocket, steal, cheat, or pull a fast shenanigan it will all come out in role-playing. In conclusion, anyone who doesn't appreciate the rogue's skill with traps has not ever died in an interesting way.
This is my opinion; what is yours?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My opinion as I already stated is you are cherry picking. Rogues could cast spells and use magic items beyond the mundane. Pathfinder today gives you many more options for Rogue abilities including everything from the origins of the game. You can take that to be better at roguery. You can take it to be a better fighter. You can also take it to get a few spells. Giving people options doesn't corrupt the rogue. It enables more fantasy play styles.
That's one of my favorite parts of Pathfinder and why I could never return to basic, AD&D, or any other flavor. You can play the classic core classes, but you can choose the special ability paths to pursue via feats. The idea of playing an AD&D fighter or thief is so boring now. They're all the same. A pathfinder thief? You could be an assassin, a face, a classic thief, you could even develop better fighting skills. That shouldn't have any impact whatsoever on how you personally want to play your rogue, so what's your angst? How does locking a player into a fixed progression of abilities make "a stronger rogue class by returning it to its' roots in AD&D." ?
I remember the 1e class very well. I don't recall ever playing one in my long career; I tended to stick to one character for as long as I was able to. But the 1e Anti-Paladin had the Backstab ability, so I did get to use that one a lot.
I have mixed feelings about this topic. I do know that as a fan of 3PP work if I wanted to play a mage-thief I'd play a Trickster from Kobold Press. I love the different options the PF Rogue has and the Core and the Unchained versions are both great, in my opinion. I like them both about equally and plan to allow players the choice of which version they want in my next campaign.
I guess I come down the middle of this topic. As a homebrew gamer I constantly tinker with rules. Not huge, sweeping changes, but just the occasional few I think would make my game better, not better for everyone's. I don't make changes to classes, however. I'm not good at gauging what are good or bad mechanics; I play a character for flavor and fun.
I'm pretty sure not much of this made any sense. I'm pretty tired after a long day and not much sleep the last couple of nights. But the long and short of it is I suppose I'm in the middle of the road on this.
no angst I am sorry you felt challenged. to emphasize [cherrypick] my point. a fighter with a high int could become a more accomplished rogue skills-wise than a regular rogue [thug]. what is the point? the lines between the classes are blurring where with feints and craft skills, anyone can become an alchemist. if all you have are mundane skills that separate your role then someone taking those skills that made your character role necessary in the group there would be resentment.
"You may be judged as judgmental by your peers." quoting The DM of. we have now passed the realms of the real and slipped into another dimension of sight and sound. you just do not know how judgemental you sound by just pointing it out in my writing. so quick to see the speck in another's eye while there is a beam in your own eye.
the dramatic tension that is built by arguing can open up new concepts and reveals hidden ideas.
this subject needs to be discussed. it is profitable to work these things out. two people can agree not to take it personally an argument can be a good thing. let us agree to be friends even when we disagree strongly.
another thing that grips me is this idea of a build to start at first level and scope out all the feints and skills at what level the can get them...
Octavio Sculles
Undead Fossil
/Dizzydoo42 and many more
My feelings on the rogue are 2 part: The rogue is not, necessarily, broken nor under powered. 2) The rules as written were not done so with the idea in mind that rogues (not unlike Fighters) would need opportunities to use their abilities, and thus much of the rules pigeon holed the rogues to only using their abilities in very nitch circumstances.
Example:
1) What if a fumble resulted in the loss of dex bonus and provoked an attack of opportunity, but the rogue only gets 1/2 their normal sneak attack.
2) What if flanking was applied anytime two or more foes threatened the same target regardless of positioning? Such as one in front, and one to the side? Vs having to be on opposite sides?
3) What if when a foe is flanked by a rogue the foe looses their Dex bonus to AC (helping to off set the rogues lower BAB).
4) Ranged sneak attack, current status broken. What if once the foe has been flanked by allies it's status as "flanked" allows the ranged rogue to get their sneak attack bonus?
Touching on the fighter / martial / melee classes example above for just a second: Full attack action (ie more than one attack per round, not counting AoO) is now simply a standard action. Drop the penalty for the second attack (ie: no - 5 to attack roll) which they still accrue every 5 BAB. This allows the fighter / melee classes to be able to move and attack, and not be hugely penalized for doing what they are supposed to do in the first place.
These types of things do not change the classes overly much, per se, but they do allow them to become much more viable without needed a full over haul. At least 1/2 the problem with the D20 system as a whole (going back to 3.0) had less to do with classes, feat, etc and more to do with a lack of development in the game system which allowed those classes to shine at doing what they are simply supposed to be doing. Which lead to system bloat with nearly 3000 feats, 1000's of spells, dozens of books, etc etc as they tried to rationalize that there must be something wrong with the class instead of fixing the root cause of the issue.