|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think an easy change would be to choose either Dex or Str at lvl one. If Dex you can only sneak attack with agile and finesse weapons and you get finesse striker. If Str you can sneak attack with any one handed weapon. Or somethung aimilar to that.
:^(
Considering how magic weapon damage scales in PF2, adding Sneak Attack to a greatsword hit MAY be a bit to much, not sure. Still, if Finesse Striker doesn't make it trought playtest, for wathever reason, high Str one handed or Twf Rogues would still be pretty viable, but the weapon restriction would stay, at least being limited to d8 weapons maximum.
I read somehere in the forum about a Rogue using maces to Sneak Attack in a stream o podcast or something.
.
.
.
i don't remember... :/
Let's just have hope in the archetypes for rogue. Or at least a prestige class to fit the role.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An elf character can have 14 str, 18 dex, 12 con, a human one can have 16 str, 18 dex, 12 con.
Strenth rogues are viable even without sacrifising high dex
|
|
An elf character can have 14 str, 18 dex, 12 con, a human one can have 16 str, 18 dex, 12 con.
Strenth rogues are viable even without sacrifising high dex
That's not what I meant by a strength rogue; that's a dex rogue with some strength.
I meant a character whose primary attribute is strength. And it's moreso about Sneak Attack which is THE most iconic rogue attribute not supporting traditional strength based weapons like the greatsword.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agile and finesse weapons, so lets say I multiclass with a spellcaster - no spell sneak attack?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
.... Why would it need to? Greatswords are already high damage dealing weapons, and don't really fit the "finesse" style of things like sneak attack.
.... Why would it need to? Greatswords are already high damage dealing weapons, and don't really fit the "finesse" style of things like sneak attack.
Fool, a character whose Stealth abilities are Legendary would be able to make any kind of attack very sneaky. Whether with a wood splinter or a giant tree! (We'll call it "Da Big Sappa")
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think what the OP wants is the following two characters to be equally and differently viable under the Rogue chassis:
ST 14, DX 18
DX 18, ST 14
Honestly this kind of rolls into the discussion about making ST a competitive secondary stat for any character. (For example the suggestion to have ST reduce ACP somehow).
I like the idea of Strength reducing ACP!
In PF1, Strength often limits what one can carry, but it depends on people actually tracking their encumbrance. I am not convinced everyone pays attention to that and it can be very fiddly trying to do so.
I don't have enough experience with Starfinder Bulk to say if it is easier to survive on a low strength. Even if it isn't, it is quite likely you could use one of your attribute upgrades to improve it when it starts becoming a problem. I mention Starfinder Bulk because I know that PF2 intends to use Bulk and if that is the case I hope the systems are the same.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like the idea of Strength reducing ACP!
I'm also a big fan of this idea. Adding 1-2 to most ACP penalties and then allowing Str to subtract is a very cool idea that I think helps Str without unduly punishing Dex-focused people.
In PF1, Strength often limits what one can carry, but it depends on people actually tracking their encumbrance. I am not convinced everyone pays attention to that and it can be very fiddly trying to do so.
I don't have enough experience with Starfinder Bulk to say if it is easier to survive on a low strength. Even if it isn't, it is quite likely you could use one of your attribute upgrades to improve it when it starts becoming a problem. I mention Starfinder Bulk because I know that PF2 intends to use Bulk and if that is the case I hope the systems are the same.
Bulk helps solve the 'people don't use it' problem Encumbrance often has, but doesn't seem to actually change the amount carried in most cases.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
.... Why would it need to? Greatswords are already high damage dealing weapons, and don't really fit the "finesse" style of things like sneak attack.
I feel like if you get to wind up and really whack someone with a greatsword, when that person is not expecting it and thus not protecting themselves, it's going to hurt real, real bad.
I played a character named Shrike, once. He was a STR based elf rogue/barbarian that used lances. Delightfully terrifying.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd strongly prefer it if every martial were viable for every fighting style. Whether that's bows, weapon+shield, twohanded, reach, two-weapon, freehand, unarmed, thrown, crossbows, etc, or any dex- or str-based variation of those. Classes being intentionally worse at a martial style than another style is bad game design as it limits player choice and options.
|
|
There may very well be two-handed Agile Weapons that would key off of Strength. I'd wait to see the full weapons list before making any judgments about the Strength Rogue being dead.
This is fair. A two-handed Agile weapon would actually be very good mechanically (if it did decent damage), and an excellent choice for a Str Rogue (and could not be used with Dex, or add Dex-to-damage).
|
There may very well be two-handed Agile Weapons that would key off of Strength. I'd wait to see the full weapons list before making any judgments about the Strength Rogue being dead.This is fair. A two-handed Agile weapon would actually be very good mechanically (if it did decent damage), and an excellent choice for a Str Rogue (and could not be used with Dex, or add Dex-to-damage).
Elven curve blade.
|
|
Elven curve blade.There may very well be two-handed Agile Weapons that would key off of Strength. I'd wait to see the full weapons list before making any judgments about the Strength Rogue being dead.This is fair. A two-handed Agile weapon would actually be very good mechanically (if it did decent damage), and an excellent choice for a Str Rogue (and could not be used with Dex, or add Dex-to-damage).
That might be Finesse rather than Agile, which would be great for a Dex/Str build (and should work with Sneak Attack), but an Agile one (with or without Finesse) would be better for a pure Str build.
|
|
.... Why would it need to? Greatswords are already high damage dealing weapons, and don't really fit the "finesse" style of things like sneak attack.
Because I might want to play an assassin type rogue whose preferred weapon is a halberd and not getting sneak attack because it's not a typical rogue weapon is really underwhelming.
There appear to be Rogue Feats that expand what weapons you can Sneak Attack with, potentially making a Str Rogue a very viable option, depending on weapon choice. We'll see how it looks mechanically when the book comes out.
My issue is partially that I hate to see it reduced to a feat tax to use a core class feature, but moreso that the existing class feat we've seen that does this only did it for 3 pre-chosen weapons. So extrapolating from that we're either going to have a ton of feats that just expand sneak attack to other weapons, or it'll only be expanded to a choice few.
This also means that any time new weapons are released we'd need accompanying rogue feats to expand sneak attack to them.
As far as rogues that use non-agile and finesse weapons, especially if you are looking for 2-handed weapon rogues, will probably have to wait and come as some kind of Universal Archetype that replaces Finesse strike and Sneak attack with something geared more towards making the Conan as rogue type of build. I can already tell you that part of the issue is that giving someone class feats that help them treat their opponents as flat-footed is going to make hitting them with a two-handed weapon incredibly powerful. I could see this working really well as a fighter archetype that focuses on light armors and gets enough extra damage from the accuracy of hitting flat-footed opponents that the extra D6 from Sneak attack isn't really necessary.
Not being able to make Conan out of the gate wouldn't really be... uh... great.
It's kind of something that came up in a conversation I had with some friends about multiclassing, but that's a subject for another thread.
Basically, we agreed that we would attempt to build a few classic fantasy characters as part of the playtest.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not being able to make Conan out of the gate wouldn't really be... uh... great.
It's kind of something that came up in a conversation I had with some friends about multiclassing, but that's a subject for another thread.
Basically, we agreed that we would attempt to build a few classic fantasy characters as part of the playtest.
Hmm. I think this is going to be highly subjective, depending on how seriously you take <common word> = <class> (And if you think literature or film characters can/should be translated into D&D straight jackets). Conan can absolutely be a thief without being a rogue. He's good at climbing walls, disposing of guards and muscling things open. He isn't much of a lock picker, trap disarmer or any D&D rogue exclusives.
That goes to the thread topic too. Are you concerned about strength rogues, or members of other classes that happen to be criminals?
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 finesse
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 finesse
I think this is the crux of the issue. The word rogue can have many different meanings, and its "iconic" build has changed over time and in the literature. For some people, the word is far more related to the character being a scoundrel than having a specific fighting style. I personally subscribe to this view, but the reality is that the gaming (both TTRPGs and video game) industry has really run with the idea that a character's class identity should primarily focus on their combat fighting style. For the sake of balance, I am sure that makes a lot of sense, but it does mean that some old character types are going to require different classes than they used to.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
.... Why would it need to? Greatswords are already high damage dealing weapons, and don't really fit the "finesse" style of things like sneak attack.
Because when I'm picking Rogue, there are several things the class offers that I might be picking the class for, and I don't want my choice of "Hey, I want to be the skills guy" to somehow dictate "So of course, I only want to be using a dagger". Yes, with the way weapon damage dice go up, Sneak Attack with heavier weapons might need to be tweaked (half SA dice on non-finesse or non-agile weapons, or reduced SA dice, or both, or some other kind of tweak to keep the math working), but I still want to be able to inflict whatever kind of not-damage debilitating conditions come along with SA (which would not require a math tweak). Mostly I just don't want to see "I'm the skills guy, so of course you can predict what hyperspecific list of weapons I'm capable of using" like in 4E, 5E, and the Operative in Starfinder.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess it depends on the feat.
Personally I don't think it sounds like too much of a feat tax to ask for a feat to sneak attack with something as hideously dangerous as a greatsword.
Still, it's the sort of thing I'd be fine with existing in a build with a few class feats devoted to it, it's roughly equal to being a little bit ahead with your sneak attack.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think this is going to be highly subjective
Aye, indeed it is. Conan is not the only subject, too, which makes the subject of all the more subjective. One of the characters we joked about building was Drizzt, but in all seriousness I'll probably give him a go right along side both book and movie Gandalf. It's less a mechanical test that we were looking for, since that's covered pretty well by running the standard playtest. More, we were thinking that doing so would be a good way to feel out the system to see if it was compatible with fantasy tropes that we enjoy. It'll probably pass, I'm seeing most of the building blocks we'll need and we're pretty good at translating feels to rules and vise versa.
That goes to the thread topic too. Are you concerned about strength rogues, or members of other classes that happen to be criminals?
I played a character named Shrike, once. He was a STR based elf rogue/barbarian that used lances. Delightfully terrifying.
There's the thing, the multiclassing system has a lot of things I'll probably be frustrated by, but it'll also patch over some missing character design space. But even ignoring it, I've played a B&E, traps, and dungeoneering specialist rogue that carried a sledge and a prybar. It would just be a shame if I couldn't splatter a troglodyte's brain all over the floor after he tripped on a rope tied low across a door.
Well, not that much of a shame. Once that gunk has time to sink in, it doesn't wash out of your boots without magic.
I think this is going to be highly subjectiveAye, indeed it is. Conan is not the only subject, too, which makes the subject of all the more subjective. One of the characters we joked about building was Drizzt, but in all seriousness I'll probably give him a go right along side both book and movie Gandalf. It's less a mechanical test that we were looking for, since that's covered pretty well by running the standard playtest. More, we were thinking that doing so would be a good way to feel out the system to see if it was compatible with fantasy tropes that we enjoy. It'll probably pass, I'm seeing most of the building blocks we'll need and we're pretty good at translating feels to rules and vise versa.
That goes to the thread topic too. Are you concerned about strength rogues, or members of other classes that happen to be criminals?I played a character named Shrike, once. He was a STR based elf rogue/barbarian that used lances. Delightfully terrifying.There's the thing, the multiclassing system has a lot of things I'll probably be frustrated by, but it'll also patch over some missing character design space. But even ignoring it, I've played a B&E, traps, and dungeoneering specialist rogue that carried a sledge and a prybar. It would just be a shame if I couldn't splatter a troglodyte's brain all over the floor after he tripped on a rope tied low across a door.
Well, not that much of a shame. Once that gunk has time to sink in, it doesn't wash out of your boots without magic.
That last example you gave mace me think snares, which obviously lends itself to Ranger. Which looks like it will be the closest thing to a rogue other than a rogue, but obviously doesn't help if what you want is sneak attack with two handed weapons.
I'd strongly prefer it if every martial were viable for every fighting style. Whether that's bows, weapon+shield, twohanded, reach, two-weapon, freehand, unarmed, thrown, crossbows, etc, or any dex- or str-based variation of those. Classes being intentionally worse at a martial style than another style is bad game design as it limits player choice and options.
Limiting options/choice isn't bad game design. It is simply A game design. It may not be one you enjoy, but that doesn't make it bad.
It is meaningless to talk about game design without the context of the design goals.
Aye, I'm kind of happy the snare feat's available to anyone. It would be weird if rogues couldn't master traps, what with that being their thing and all.
Honestly, the limitation just looks like an inflexibility that was added to patch over other problems. Like a brace holding up a weak joint.
But hey, that's why we're going to playtest right? Can't get out of that brace without a little physical therapy.
I think that all of these options will be something that eventually becomes possible, but I think that the class design that the developers have chosen for PF2 will mean that each basic class has a couple of expected combat styles, and variants on those styles are going to have to come from archetypes that limit general access to intrinsic class features.
Demanding that every martial class can excel at every combat style regardless of class features, probably means that class features can't really be geared towards combat styles. In other words, combat styles would have to be entirely the domain of general and class feats. I think a lot of classes would end up looking very similar to each other in combat if that were the case and whether it could work or not, it would be a massive overhaul of the game at this point to go that direction. An overhaul that the developers clearly opted to avoid/go in the completely opposite direction.
I do think most options will be reintroduced in some form, but it will take time and I think the developers want to make sure that those options are not easily dispersed through multi-classing.
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.
I mean in 5e unless you're fighting mind flayers then Int is probably the best dump stat.
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.
Totally disagree
INT is the premier dump stat in 5ed, it isn't even close. Few classes care about it and its only other use is skills.
STR is still required by high armour characters and those that care about encumbrance.
Edit: and those that use it to attack with, which I was also implying with high AV characters.
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.
Totally disagree
INT is the premier dump stat in 5ed, it isn't even close. Few classes care about it and its only other use is skills.
STR is still required by high armour characters and those that care about encumbrance.
Edit: and those that use it to attack with, which I was also implying with high AV characters.
There are a small number of saves (feeblemind, mind flayer attacks, psychic scream, synaptic static). Almost all against save or suck, save or die, or extremely debilitating conditions. But it still doesn't really compare. Other than that and wizards int is sadly not really needed (for efficient usage eldritch knights and to a lesser degree arcane tricksters can sort of ignore it).
Str is used for grappling, escaping grappling, weaker saves but the sort you would expect to be more prevalent, and the highest damage melee builds. Athletics, though in some cases weaker than acrobatics, is a frequently used and consistently useful skill.
I think expertise is more of the problem in 5e since it breaks the bounds of bounded accuracy. I don't think tying combat maneuvers to athletics is necessarily bad, I am actually excited to see if it works out in PF2. Maybe if it's good enough it could help a Str rogue be viable.
I don't think Sneak Attack with 2-handed weapons would be overpowered or anything. The weapons Rogue can use right now are already the most optimal ones where he can add DEX to hit and damage besides being able to sneak attack with them. Using a GreatAxe, for example, might lead to bigger damage dice but just because it is a STR weapon it's gonna be a lot less optimized automatically. Having to build lower DEX is gonna affect the skills you use to get sneak attacks in the first place, as well.
I don't think Sneak Attack with 2-handed weapons would be overpowered or anything. The weapons Rogue can use right now are already the most optimal ones where he can add DEX to hit and damage besides being able to sneak attack with them. Using a GreatAxe, for example, might lead to bigger damage dice but just because it is a STR weapon it's gonna be a lot less optimized automatically. Having to build lower DEX is gonna affect the skills you use to get sneak attacks in the first place, as well.
A lot of this depends on whether sneak attack is the ability multi-class rogues can get. A Barbarian with a great axe, tagging on feats that improve sneak attack and granting flat-footed conditions to her enemies could be the ultimate one-shot killer in the whole game, pretty easily.
However, it seems PF2 is sorta doing away with this concept or at least discouraging it.
Unchained did that, so the writing was on the wall.
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 suspect you'll need feats to expand your sneak attack.
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.
Well, that's sort of been the default for a while now. Myself, I'm more worried that the only dex based character is going to be the rogue instead of the only rogue will be a dex based one.
|
|
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 finesse
In 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.
One of my favorite character I ever made was a Rogue (Bandit)/Barbarian; utilizing Intimidate, 2-handed weapons, Sneak Attack, and Rage to great effect. Multiclassing aside, I would definitely be sad if this style was left to the wayside in PF2. Even being able to make it work, albeit needing to jump through hoops to make it work would be a shame.