Why does everyone stick to conan as rogue? seriously, he may have been a thief and somewhat sneaky at times but as class he would have fighter, barbarian or something similar - he just skilled some thievery - his fighting style wasnt exactly build around finesseIn PF1, Conan is a Slayer, maybe with a Barbarian dip. I have no idea what he'd be in PF2, but it probably involves multiclassing.
From the official conan unchained! module for 1e, he's a fighter 13/thief 7. ;)
From the official conan unchained! module for 1e, he's a fighter 13/thief 7. ;)Why does everyone stick to conan as rogue? seriously, he may have been a thief and somewhat sneaky at times but as class he would have fighter, barbarian or something similar - he just skilled some thievery - his fighting style wasnt exactly build around finesseIn PF1, Conan is a Slayer, maybe with a Barbarian dip. I have no idea what he'd be in PF2, but it probably involves multiclassing.
Barbarian wasn't core 1e so it might not have been an option at the time. But still in PF2 it looks like Conan would probably be a fighter or barbarian, maybe with the rogue archetype but maybe just investing skill feats in stealth, acrobatics, and athletics. You don't need to be a rogue to be a thief you just need to be able to take things that don't belong to you, preferably without being caught.
Movie Conan, or comics Conan?
Arnie is great, but those comics were pretty darn fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Book Conan. Always.Movie Conan, or comics Conan?
Arnie is great, but those comics were pretty darn fun.
Best guesses the playtest concerning the classic roguish stronk man, though...
Hmmm...
Movie: Fighter with Rogue feats
Comics: Barbarian with Rogue feats
OG: Fighter with Rogue, Ranger, and Barbarian feats
Those are just guesses, though. Why isn't it Thursday yet?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hope strength rogues are supported in P2e. Even though I tend to prefer dexterity builds over strength builds, the fact that a strength rogue in 5e was explicitly unable to use sneak attack at all was a major put-off for me.
If the fact that Sneak Attack only works with Finesse/Agile weapons without a feat is true, well... I guess a feat tax is better than being without the option entirely, but it's definitely not ideal. That being said, though, things might look slightly better if there are agile weapons that greatly synergize with strength.
Barbarian wasn't core 1e so it might not have been an option at the time. But still in PF2 it looks like Conan would probably be a fighter or barbarian, maybe with the rogue archetype but maybe just investing skill feats in stealth, acrobatics, and athletics. You don't need to be a rogue to be a thief you just need to be able to take things that don't belong to you, preferably without being caught.From the official conan unchained! module for 1e, he's a fighter 13/thief 7. ;)Why does everyone stick to conan as rogue? seriously, he may have been a thief and somewhat sneaky at times but as class he would have fighter, barbarian or something similar - he just skilled some thievery - his fighting style wasnt exactly build around finesseIn PF1, Conan is a Slayer, maybe with a Barbarian dip. I have no idea what he'd be in PF2, but it probably involves multiclassing.
It was impossible to climb walls or hide without being a Thief back then. So it made a lot of sense for Conan to have levels in that. Ever since skills became a thing he's just a martial who invests heavily Climb, Perception, trapfinding and Stealth. Maybe also stealth of hand?
Of note is the Barbarian's Danger Sense/Trap Sense which I presume is based on his talent to avoid traps in the stories.
I hope strength rogues are supported in P2e. Even though I tend to prefer dexterity builds over strength builds, the fact that a strength rogue in 5e was explicitly unable to use sneak attack at all was a major put-off for me.
If the fact that Sneak Attack only works with Finesse/Agile weapons without a feat is true, well... I guess a feat tax is better than being without the option entirely, but it's definitely not ideal. That being said, though, things might look slightly better if there are agile weapons that greatly synergize with strength.
Yeah. Locking out options like that specifically makes me think there is some overpowered edge case that the designers want to avoid. Being a change from PF1, this seems pretty deliberate. I would really like to hear what the designers thoughts are on this.
For the playtest, it looks like the fate of strength rogues lies in being rogues through multi-classing into Rogue. I am having a hard time imagining that multi-classing into rogue is going to be a popular option, but I could be wrong. A lot more characters are going to have a Dex of 16 than an INT of 16 (with the exception of Alchemists). Sneak attack is something that scales at least without any other feats, so maybe it will be better for Strong rogues to be fighters or rangers or Barbarians that MC into Rogue with a STR 18/Dex 16, than starting off as rogues.
I am not saying this is what I want, I am saying that this is what we will have to work with in the playtest as the strong rogue option, and if it feels like a completely unsupported option it will be a good place to start looking at what should change.
It will be interesting to see if the bonus for attacking things that are flat-footed, stacks well-enough with rogue feats that give the character more options for making their enemies flat-footed will be a strong enough option for a two-handed weapon barbarian to justify taking the MC feat, even if they can't use the great axe to SA. I am suspecting that crit fishing with the big weapons will make every possible +2 to attack look a lot more appealing than we would think about in PF1.
In that regard, I wonder if the MC feats could give options for the people that take them instead of granting a big pile of everything. Maybe MC Rogue could offer suprise strike as an option for some characters that would never be able to make a SA with a finesse weapon.
I am not as good at the maths as a lot of the folks here, but I am guessing a +2 to attack is worth a lot more to a 2hander with a D12+4 damaging weapon than adding a +1d6. And letting that 2 hander get both is probably game breaking, where as letting the agile/finesse user that is only doing 1d6+4 have both is probably more balancing.
I will still advocate for SA being an accuracy booster than a flat damage bonus, but I am hesitant about seeing SA become the mandatory "striker-class" build.
(Since it scales with level, a feat that grants it would become far too obvious the damage build it if can be applied to any weapon). The rogue would cease to be the best character to exploit it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, they really started pushing this in 4th Ed, and 5th Ed has carried the torch, and then some: Str is the premier dump stat.So one of my favorite things about PF1 was that it was completely feasible to make a strength based rogue rather than a dexterity based one. I found it fun to work against the assumption and play a burly half-orc rogue with a greatsword and power attack, sneak attacking their foes.
However, it seems PF2 is sorta doing away with this concept or at least discouraging it.
The enworld iconic character sheet preview for Merisiel lists sneak attack as only working on agile and finesse weapons and a redditpost from someone who had played a demo mentioned a class feat that expanded it to work for clubs as well.
I for one am incredibly sad that now you are pushed towards being a typical dex based rogue who uses lighter weapons if you want to be able to use one of the class's most iconic abilities. At best it seems you'll have to pay a feat tax in order to be able to use sneak attack with other weapons, but it seems likely that many won't be possible to use with it at all.
I'm just hoping this will change in the playtest so that strength based rogues don't simply become a thing of the past.
You are incorrect. DEX/STR Rogues were the most popular Rogue build in 4e, adding both STR and DEX modifiers to damage. Moreover, Rogues had STR-based class features since the very first PHB.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am more worried about the fate of dex based rogues then str.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am more worried about the fate of dex based rogues then str.
*nods* And dex based character in general.
I am more worried about the fate of dex based rogues then str.
Really? Why? merisial looks like one of the better pregens, with lots of options and good numbers.
It's kind of a shame that rapiers look like they'll be required choices again for Dex based characters (which is a personal bugbear, I really hate them as adventuring equipment. Fine for a salon, bad for practicality), but that's the only real problem I noticed.
Beyond the looming specter of Not A Spellcaster, of course. But we haven't seen much of feats and class abilities beyond level 1
|
It's kind of a shame that rapiers look like they'll be required choices again for Dex based characters (which is a personal bugbear, I really hate them as adventuring equipment. Fine for a salon, bad for practicality), but that's the only real problem I noticed.
Eh. Short Swords are probably d6 Finesse, and Agile. Unless you want to do Disarm a lot, that's probably right on par with a Rapier this edition, the Agile making up for the loss of Deadly for the most part.
Best guesses the playtest concerning the classic roguish stronk man, though...
Hmmm...Movie: Fighter with Rogue feats
Comics: Barbarian with Rogue feats
OG: Fighter with Rogue, Ranger, and Barbarian featsThose are just guesses, though. Why isn't it Thursday yet?
Another interesting way to do it is say he is a level 20 barbarian and his level to skills allows him to do everything at a superhuman level as most of his opponents are low level.