Disagree pretty strongly with calling it a mistake. Wizards having less proficiencies for weapons than even other casters sounds about right for the thematic base.
I think they may deserve a bit more in other places to make up for the disadvantage, but just giving them the same proficiencies as other casters sounds like a boring way to solve that.
How is the current implementation less boring, honestly?
That's not rhetorical by the way I can't wrap my head around why charging Wizards an extra general feat for weapon proficiency if you want to do that thing is ostensibly exciting or fun for anyone.
Didn't say it was less boring. Just said that giving all wizards simple weapon proficiency seems more boring than some hypothetical other boost.
Something like being better at writing spells down or spell research or some other classic wizardly thing rather than rushing in with longspears and muskets. I like how wizards are pushed towards taking staves and daggers, and that they have the option to take something like a dedication/general feat/ancestry feat if they want more than that.
No bombs for baseline rogues does feel like a miss.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Something like being better at writing spells down or spell research or some other classic wizardly thing rather than rushing in with longspears and muskets. I like how wizards are pushed towards taking staves and daggers, and that they have the option to take something like a dedication/general feat/ancestry feat if they want more than that.
While I’m not opposed to the idea in general, there is no world in which Paizo just give wizards a new class feature 3 years after launch.
Errataing in a single word is much more probable.
For sure, which is why my original suggestion was a level 1 class feat like they had in the original printing. And further why it may be best for them to change nothing at all.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not that homebrew means jack all in a discussion about RAW, but I do have a patch for the wizard using weapons are my table.
My Arcane Warrior Thesis changes arcane bond so that it must be a simple or martial weapon. They use their wizard weapon proficiency for that weapon. Once per turn, as a free action, they can substitute their normal weapon attack roll with a spell attack for a strike, as long as they casted a spell from spell slots.
It was a design choice. House rule it if it offends you, otherwise move on.This can be said of almost everything in the game. Might as well just close the forums!
But, seriously, I get that’s it’s a design choice, but it’s a design concept they are evidently abandoned pretty quickly. It also, uniquely, feat tax’s one particular class and no other in spite of similar design space.
At this point it’s just a mistake they made. Thankfully errata exist to fix such things!
Errata exists to fix things that are broken, unbalanced, or are unclear. I don't see that this request fits any of those catagories. Maybe it is a very minor balance issue. You are asking for a change.
Why do you say they abandoned it as a design concept? I mean other clases have specific abilities on a restricted list. A Rogue has quite an odd list. A Magus has some very staff specific powers. Then there is a gunslinger. All those ancestral weapon familiarirties.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
It was a design choice. House rule it if it offends you, otherwise move on.This can be said of almost everything in the game. Might as well just close the forums!
But, seriously, I get that’s it’s a design choice, but it’s a design concept they are evidently abandoned pretty quickly. It also, uniquely, feat tax’s one particular class and no other in spite of similar design space.
At this point it’s just a mistake they made. Thankfully errata exist to fix such things!
Errata exists to fix things that are broken, unbalanced, or are unclear. I don't see that this request fits any of those catagories. Maybe it is a very minor balance issue. You are asking for a change.
Why do you say they abandoned it as a design concept? I mean other clases have specific abilities on a restricted list. A Rogue has quite an odd list. A Magus has some very staff specific powers. Then there is a gunslinger. All those ancestral weapon familiarirties.
Balance changes have happened before. Mutagenist got an entirely new ability.
Balance changes have happened before. Mutagenist got an entirely new ability.
It is not really fair to suggest that these are of similar value as a balance issue. This one is trivial. There are thousands of issues in the game at this level. Most more important than this.
Balance at this level just destroys flavour.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Balance changes have happened before. Mutagenist got an entirely new ability.It is not really fair to suggest that these are of similar value as a balance issue. This one is trivial. There are thousands of issues in the game at this level. Most more important than this.
Balance at this level just destroys flavour.
Is it really flavor for the wizard to know how to hit someone with a stick (club) but not a stick with some metal on the end (light mace)? To know how to punch someone with their fist (unarmed attack proficiency) but not when wearing a glove (gauntlet)? To know how to operate a crossbow and a heavy crossbow, but not the smaller version (the hand crossbow)?
Or are you just leaning on what was always done in the past and calling it flavor?
Now, to be fair I think the rogue getting martial proficiency is more important than the wizard getting simple... but there's just no argument I've heard that convinces me that the wizards shouldn't get simple while they're at it.
Or are you just leaning on what was always done in the past and calling it flavor?
D&D 1st ed had these. Silly little rules and exceptions built into other rules and spells. PF2 has very much continued that tradition. There are lots of odd little corners in the game. The skill to play the game is simple, but mastery is hard as there are all sorts of edge cases.
PF2 have gone out of their way to do this. There are lots of templates, but there is very little in the way of standardised templates that are actually applied universally. There are always exceptions. Further the exceptions are different from each other in different ways.
I can only conclude this was another design choice.
Now, to be fair I think the rogue getting martial proficiency is more important than the wizard getting simple...
I've often wondered about does sneak attack apply with this weapon? Personally I think it was done to make sure a good range of weapons have users.
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
This whole discussion reminds me of the "Self-Defence Against Fresh Fruit" skit by Monty Python's Flying Circus.
One of the soldiers keeps insisting that the training sergeant should teach the soldiers how to defend themselves against anyone who attacks with a pointed stick, and the sergeant replies:
"Ooh, ooh, ooh; we want to learn how to defend ourselves against pointed sticks, do we? Getting all high and mighty, eh? Fresh fruit not good enough for you, eh? Well, let me tell you something, my lad! When you're walking home tonight and some great homicidal maniac comes after YOU with a bunch of loganberries, don't come cryin' to me!"
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Balance at this level just destroys flavour.
Bull? No flavor is destroyed by letting someone play a wizard with a sling without jumping through a comical number of hoops.
Balance at this level just destroys flavour.Bull? No flavor is destroyed by letting someone play a wizard with a sling without jumping through a comical number of hoops.
Paizo designers just aren't gonna do it.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Balance at this level just destroys flavour.Bull? No flavor is destroyed by letting someone play a wizard with a sling without jumping through a comical number of hoops.
Even AD&D Wizards could use slings. Paizo wizards are actually less flavorful than their earlier edition versions!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My compromise suggestion is still to allow wizards to get simple weapons of 1 weapon group of their choice; bards get all simple and martial weapons of 1 group, and rogues get all simple and the martial weapons of 2 weapon groups (though not opposed to just allowing rogues to get all martial).
Builds on an existing mechanic that allows for future expansion and retains some of the original flavor of this design choice without overly constraining build choices.
|
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are zero balance changes with Wizards getting access to simple weapons. This isn’t a question of balance. There is no formula that demanded Wizards lose simple weapons or else they would be OP. It’s simply not a balance issue.
If it was, we would see classes like the Sorcerer and the Witch, hell, the Druid, would have similar restrictions. But we don’t.
It was simply a design choice, as others have said, but a bad one. They’ve clearly abandoned the idea in every other part of the game, keeping it here for the sake of it is just dumb and stubborn.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo designers just aren't gonna do it.Balance at this level just destroys flavour.Bull? No flavor is destroyed by letting someone play a wizard with a sling without jumping through a comical number of hoops.
Do you have a link or something I can reference? I want to know who I have to throw these hands at.
Do you have a link or something I can reference? I want to know who I have to throw these hands at.Paizo designers just aren't gonna do it.Balance at this level just destroys flavour.Bull? No flavor is destroyed by letting someone play a wizard with a sling without jumping through a comical number of hoops.
Buhlman is some kind of lead development manager? And of course James Jacobs has been at Paizo for ages.
If they thought this change was needed, it would have been done by now. I think people are stuck house ruling it.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
1: Given streamlining the game was a stated design goal of the new edition, and a streamined system is a promotional tool for the game the bespoke proficiencies are not only archaic but also anathematic to those goals/promotions.
As a poster upthread pointed out, ticking a simple box is much easier and ergonomic than outlier frames with edge cases cluttering up the system. And, as I asked in the current Magus thread, what is the danger this edge case prevents?
2: Pathfinder and Paizo have come a long way in their portrayal of: ancestries over race; evil no longer as an ancestral auto da fe; ableism, diversity, gender etc. But somehow we still, in 2021, almost 50 years after the hobby started, labor under the anachronisms of non-metal wearing druids and wizards incapable of swinging slightly sharper sticks without a feat tax.
There is hope. For years, IIRC, James Jacobs decried non-evil undead as a concept. Now we are going to see Book of the Dead with playable skeletons etc… Maybe as PF2e closes out its edition run we will see Enchained! [New rules from Druidic chain armor! Wizards wielding spiked chains!!! A removal of AoOs for Magus with only 17 feat chains…]
3: My final thought is entirely flavor based. At its core, Pathfinder is a roleplaying games. Yet the rules support a LOT of warfare adjacent themes. Combat. Damage. Death. So these… adventurers, let’s call them, often slay monsters. So the prancing, preening vaudeville flautist makes the stabbity stab with the sharp metal skewer. The cunning trapsmith whomps beasts with steel and stealth. The cloistered cleric…isn’t seen much because they are too busy flagellating themselves in a monkish cell for failing to adequately equidistantiate their tonsure. The inventor invents…weapons of much destruction. The witch can kill as well as curse.
Sure you can play the non-violent direct actor, and your pacifistic leanings will garner you much roleplaying kudos; and there are backgrounds, feats and archetypes to help you lean in - but really there are an overwhelmingly large number of battle, war, combat and pure bloodspattery-adjacent options to slake your ardour for violent victory.
War wizards? Battle bards? Fighty…fighters? It’s all smoke and mirrors. The wizard can fight. Should fight. Probably wants to fight. If they are big and strong and belligerent then give ‘em a bloody greatsword already. Ok. Maybe a bridge too far for some of you. But streamlining the game, removing decades old anomalies and granting simple wizards simple weapons is not.
|
|
Do you have a link or something I can reference? I want to know who I have to throw these hands at.Paizo designers just aren't gonna do it.Balance at this level just destroys flavour.Bull? No flavor is destroyed by letting someone play a wizard with a sling without jumping through a comical number of hoops.Buhlman is some kind of lead development manager? And of course James Jacobs has been at Paizo for ages.
If they thought this change was needed, it would have been done by now. I think people are stuck house ruling it.
From another comment upthread it sounded like you were referencing/alluding to an actual statement from someone, I was just trying to get at what that was.
Trying to divine intent based on just that’s in the rules is why we need half the rules clarifications we do.
Besides, this request is more of a “Patch” style errata like with the Alchemist.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or are you just leaning on what was always done in the past and calling it flavor?
D&D 1st ed had these. Silly little rules and exceptions built into other rules and spells. PF2 has very much continued that tradition. There are lots of odd little corners in the game. The skill to play the game is simple, but mastery is hard as there are all sorts of edge cases.
PF2 have gone out of their way to do this. There are lots of templates, but there is very little in the way of standardised templates that are actually applied universally. There are always exceptions. Further the exceptions are different from each other in different ways.
I can only conclude this was another design choice.
And I think it was a poor design choice based on keeping those silly little rules and exceptions. In this case it does nothing more than complicate the system for no benefit.
I've often wondered about does sneak attack apply with this weapon? Personally I think it was done to make sure a good range of weapons have users.
Now, to be fair I think the rogue getting martial proficiency is more important than the wizard getting simple...
It's mostly that there have been a few thematic martial finesse weapons printed after the CRB, and none of those weapons have something like a 'rogue' tag to add them to the rogue's proficiencies. So they're just stuck with simple + 4, when they should probably be proficient in things like a sword cane, or a dagger pistol. Giving them martial proficiency just happens to be the simplest change to fix that.
And I think it was a poor design choice based on keeping those silly little rules and exceptions. In this case it does nothing more than complicate the system for no benefit.PF2 have gone out of their way to do this. ...
I can only conclude this was another design choice.
Perhaps. Just like other historical features like Vancian magic, the value of it is quite dubious. I just know that if the game was too simple it wouldn't hold my interest for long.
It's mostly that there have been a few thematic martial finesse weapons printed after the CRB, and none of those weapons have something like a 'rogue' tag to add them to the rogue's proficiencies. So they're just stuck with simple + 4, when they should probably be proficient in things like a sword cane, or a dagger pistol. Giving them martial proficiency just happens to be the simplest change to fix that.
The issue with Rogue is they really don't need any help. It's one of the strongest classes.
And even though thematically I think a Rogue using a gun makes sense, Guns are ranged weapons and opening Rogues up to any martial gun would be a pretty decent boost for them at no cost.
Like I'm pretty happy Paizo went the other way on Rogue in PF2 because they were so bad in PF1, but Thief is like a S tier martial class to the point where it's been nerfed twice and it's still at the top of its game. I doubt Rogue gets a look if we're being honest.
Wizard should get it just so there's a realistic floor for every class at Simple Weapons, but I don't see Rogue getting any love.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's mostly that there have been a few thematic martial finesse weapons printed after the CRB, and none of those weapons have something like a 'rogue' tag to add them to the rogue's proficiencies. So they're just stuck with simple + 4, when they should probably be proficient in things like a sword cane, or a dagger pistol. Giving them martial proficiency just happens to be the simplest change to fix that.The issue with Rogue is they really don't need any help. It's one of the strongest classes.
And even though thematically I think a Rogue using a gun makes sense, Guns are ranged weapons and opening Rogues up to any martial gun would be a pretty decent boost for them at no cost.
Like I'm pretty happy Paizo went the other way on Rogue in PF2 because they were so bad in PF1, but Thief is like a S tier martial class to the point where it's been nerfed twice and it's still at the top of its game. I doubt Rogue gets a look if we're being honest.
Wizard should get it just so there's a realistic floor for every class at Simple Weapons, but I don't see Rogue getting any love.
Rogue already get shortbows, which are actually stronger for rogues than most guns are most of the time because sneak attacking with ranged weapons typically requires an action to set up flat-footed, which makes fitting in a reload harder. Guns and crossbows with magazines are already balanced against bows and are typically comparative in power, so the argument that it's a buff falls flat; it just opens up more concepts
Rogue already get shortbows, which are actually stronger for rogues than most guns are most of the time because sneak attacking with ranged weapons typically requires an action to set up flat-footed, which makes fitting in a reload harder. Guns and crossbows with magazines are already balanced against bows and are typically comparative in power, so the argument that it's a buff falls flat; it just opens up more concepts
We're going to have to agree to disagree. Rogues have a few ways to get FF with ranged weapons and a Shortbow absolutely pales in comparison to a Dueling Pistol.
A rogue only needs to use the gun once and crit fish with Fatal, which is not that difficult to do if you can get the target flat-footed. No reload necessary.
In fact, with Quickdraw, theoretically you could just keep pulling out other guns and firing.
You may not consider it a large boost in power, and it might not be, but it would be incredibly easy for a Rogue to cheese this with Surprise Attack for a one-shot opener.
A class that's already amazing doesn't exactly need that "one shot the encounter immediately" option.
And with a concealable d10 fatal weapon, you can pull 23 damage at level 1 on average and can potentially do 42. A shortbow crit only pulls 17 and caps at 30. And if no criticals come into play and you just fire 1 shot, the Shortbow and Dueling Pistol are even.
That's just a cursory look at what options we have available with little to no effort in exploiting it as much as possible.
So I'll stand by what I said, Rogue's don't really need martial. If they got it, not sure it would really add much to the game anyways, because as others have mentioned it would only open up a handful of finesse weapons.
Rogue already get shortbows, which are actually stronger for rogues than most guns are most of the time because sneak attacking with ranged weapons typically requires an action to set up flat-footed, which makes fitting in a reload harder. Guns and crossbows with magazines are already balanced against bows and are typically comparative in power, so the argument that it's a buff falls flat; it just opens up more concepts
We're going to have to agree to disagree. Rogues have a few ways to get FF with ranged weapons and a Shortbow absolutely pales in comparison to a Dueling Pistol.
A rogue only needs to use the gun once and crit fish with Fatal, which is not that difficult to do if you can get the target flat-footed. No reload necessary.
In fact, with Quickdraw, theoretically you could just keep pulling out other guns and firing.
You may not consider it a large boost in power, and it might not be, but it would be incredibly easy for a Rogue to cheese this with Surprise Attack for a one-shot opener.
A class that's already amazing doesn't exactly need that "one shot the encounter immediately" option.
And with a concealable d10 fatal weapon, you can pull 20 damage at level 1 on average and can potentially do 36. A shortbow crit only pulls 14 and caps at 24. And if no criticals come into play and you just fire 1 shot, the Shortbow and Dueling Pistol are even.
That's just a cursory look at what options we have available with little to no effort in exploiting it as much as possible.
So I'll stand by what I said, Rogue's don't really need martial. If they got it, not sure it would really add much to the game anyways, because as others have mentioned it would only open up a handful of finesse weapons.
A lot of this though us why my recommendation is a rogue racket to grant bombs and martial guns. I dont buy the quick draw argument at higher levels; even with ABD, you still need to property rune each of the guns, without ABD, you wont be able to afford enough guns to make it worth it. Dueling Pistol might have a nicer crit, but a non crit is the same damage, but with a reload between each shot.
Rogue does have a few ways to ff at range, but, like I said before, it's more action hungry. You base option is hiding or creating a diversion, both of which eat an action. There's also dread striker, but demoralize takes an action. Conpare to melee where literally any teammate can just stride once and give you flanking for an action.
Enemy AC is generally high enough where even with ff, you aren't going to be cranking out crits all the time, so making a baseline assumption that it's an assured thing is disingenuous
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dueling Pistol might have a nicer crit, but a non crit is the same damage, but with a reload between each shot.
Yeah but I'm not talking about sustained usage throughout a combat, which a Rogue doesn't even typically use a Shortbow for.
We're talking about opening a Surprise Attack with a single shot, which is a pretty noninvasive action economy to basically potentially end a CR 2 encounter immediately.
You're thinking about it like Rogue saying "I want to use guns as my thing", which indeed, wouldn't be that bad.
But a Rogue that opens every combat with Surprise Attack and a Dueling Pistol and then switchs to Shortsword melee?
That's something that's going to annoy the heck out of a GM.
It's the same reason that Thrown Melee weapon nerf happened and Rogue's lost their god-tier reach whip Trip level 2 nonsense.
The "upper levels" don't matter.
We can't just measure the overall when it comes to exploitations, coloring outside the expected lines at any level can make a game unfun, and if a Rogue was regularly critting to start rounds off (and FF makes Critting easier), then it doesn't really matter that it falls off at level 5-7 ish.
Enemy AC is generally high enough where even with ff, you aren't going to be cranking out crits all the time, so making a baseline assumption that it's an assured thing is disingenuous
I never said it was a sure thing, I said it was on the table. Just because something isn't the standard doesn't mean it doesn't need to be accounted for.
A level 1 Rogue will have a +7 to hit, a Gnoll Hunter (CL 2) has an AC of 18. FF means the AC is 16, putting the percentage at 10%. That's a 10% chance to potentially end an above level encounter solo.
And let's be honest, it doesn't even have to end the encounter. Dealing that amount of damage to a CL3 might not drop the creature immediately, but it certainly takes the encounter into trivial territory and that's a 5% chance regardless.
If that's inconsequential to your games, that's fine, but it would not be inconsequential to mine.
Bombs I don't really have an issue with, but Guns could get problematic due to Fatal and all Ranged weapons being allowed.
I think we are closer in agreement than we might think. Dedicating a racket to get guns disincentivies shooting and tossing as a universal tactic, and even if thats how the majority of Black Powder rogues fight, well... is it really an issue if they trade away dex to damage or a few extra options to apply FF for a single powerful opening volley?
I do understand you issue with it at lower levels, but this kind of stuff happens increasingly less and less the higher level you go because hp scales faster than damage. You can't really discard mid to high play; the system goes from levels 1 to 20, and it should consider all of them when making design choices. It's also worth noting that your sample combat is also just something you should generally avoid; a party vs a single enemy is always liable to fall flat through sheer luck. That problem would not be present against, say, 4 cr -1 mooks
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, if the only thing the Racket gave you was Gun proficiency, it'd be a reasonable trade considering how good rackets are.
But if we're talking about just upgrading baseline Rogue to Martial, I'm not really in favor.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would personally like rogue to get all martial agile and finesse melee weapons (mostly for future proofing), then give it a black powder/gun/whatever racket to give gun and bomb proficiency; that way, they can also make black powder racket feats to facilitate a rogue that uaes guns as their main thing.
Imo, theres definitely a class fantasy for a gun wielding rogue, but not every rogue needs a gun to feel like a rogue, which makes it a perfect choice for a racket.
I would actually much favor options like this sthat gives classes an "in house" way to open up access to new weapons than just patching these gaps with archetypes like archer, drow shootist, etc
Even AD&D Wizards could use slings. Paizo wizards are actually less flavorful than their earlier edition versions!Balance at this level just destroys flavour.Bull? No flavor is destroyed by letting someone play a wizard with a sling without jumping through a comical number of hoops.
The inability of wizards to use slings is a strange D&D 3rd edition change that Paizo inherited.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Probably the most balanced solution for the rogue would be to tag weapons with the rogue tag indicating that rogues are proficient with this weapon or some such thing.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I personally find the idea of these booksmart superscholars struggling hard to use a sword (different types of intelligence/aptitude/hand-eye coordination, etc.) quite a funny/amusing mental image, it doesn't really fit the tiered system of proficiency that the rest of 2e embraces and should be normalized. This sets a solid foundation of The least martially adept classes start here for the rest of the system and hardly impacts balance beyond flavor. This won't move the Wizards suck at using weapons needle much in the opposite direction, if at all.
For Rogues the "upgrade" is not as expansive as it might seem at first, seeing as they already have built-in flavor/power limitations (Sneak Attack requirements); the argument for keeping the funky proficiencies also became weaker when the closest class to it (Investigator) has access to the full martial list but is still limited to certain weapons to use their main damage-enhancing feature (as this hypothetical "buffed" Rogue would function).
The tagging solution suggested above seems like an adequate middle ground since there's some flavor value for Rogues to have less formal training than other martial classes and instead excel in straightforward weaponry fitter for those that rely on dirtier tactics to "get the job done" (like Monastic Weaponry involves a certain group of weapons thematically aligned with the class), but this solution involves a much wider reprinting effort of all weapons wherever they appeared to include these tags (while the martial upgrade would be a single change in the CRB), and still wouldn't solve issues such as thematically appropriate weapons (bombs or sword-canes) wether existent or yet-to-be-printed possibly not being included under the tag (since this classification is so subjective), but I digress.
The Bard is also tricky; with their reputation for versatility downgrading them to simple weapons wouldn't be a good option, and a full upgrade to martial would make the already middle-of-the-road Warrior Muse redundant while also pushing ahead of the other casters; for them specially the tagging solution seems like the most sensible choice.
tl;dr: I believe upgrading Wizard to Simple and Rogue to Martial would be fine and increase consistency while barely changing much in the balance end; but the Bard is a weirdo is making me consider another solution.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would personally like rogue to get all martial agile and finesse melee weapons (mostly for future proofing), then give it a black powder/gun/whatever racket to give gun and bomb proficiency; that way, they can also make black powder racket feats to facilitate a rogue that uaes guns as their main thing.
Imo, theres definitely a class fantasy for a gun wielding rogue, but not every rogue needs a gun to feel like a rogue, which makes it a perfect choice for a racket.
I would actually much favor options like this sthat gives classes an "in house" way to open up access to new weapons than just patching these gaps with archetypes like archer, drow shootist, etc
Yeah, it's really the Agile and Finesse melee weapons that I'd like to see the rogue get. It feels weird that a rogue can't use a sword cane because, what, it's slightly the wrong shape or something? I still don't know how to grant a rogue full proficiency with non-standard class weapons, either.
I've also run into this problem again thanks to the Grand Bazaar's probing cane. This feels especially jarring given that I myself use one of these canes on a daily basis, and presents this strange barrier to entry playing as a white cane-using rogue, which sort of runs counter to the idea of including the probing cane as a weapon in the first place.On a related note, according to PF2E, it is actually easier for people to use throwing knives than it is to handle my cane in a combat situation.
I find this endlessly gratifying and amusing.
Heck, we even have recent literary examples of cane using rogues; Kaz Brekar from the Grieshaverse novels uses a cane and is the definition of a mastermind rogue. I never realized until just now that rogue can't use sword canes, despite hidden weapons being very on point for the class
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The investigator counter point is definitely a good one. It'd be easier to exploit with DaS than Rogue even, so perhaps the precedent has already been set.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would point out that doubling rings (and the higher level version) would make rotating through dueling pistols a very easy thing to do.Doubling rings only work for melee weapons, or am I miss something?
blazons of shared power, G&G pg# 183
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would point out that doubling rings (and the higher level version) would make rotating through dueling pistols a very easy thing to do.
Doubling rings don’t work on ranged weapons so they’re a non starter for dueling pistols. They don’t work on thrown weapons either for the same reason.
Blazons of power only apply to two specific weapons, so the hypothetical shortsword+pistol rogue is only ever good for one shot before they either have to reload (stowing or dropping the sword) or never use the gun again that combat.
Ending a CR2 encounter immediately with sneak attack and fatal is more a problem of fatal and low level hp than it is rogues with guns. It doesn’t scale very well past there, and even then the shortbow’s damage is very similar - losing only 4 average damage relative to the pistol (4d6+1d10 crit vs 3d10+2d6).
So yes, I fail to see gun rogue being a huge problem. Rogue should get all martial, or failing that it should get proficiency in all martial weapons of two groups of your choice.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tagging weapons for rogues seems needlessly complicated, would require an overhaul of all books and is prone to future mistakes. Forgetting to add that trait would definitely happen in some book at some point.
How about giving rogues proficiency in all one-handed martial weapons? That should cover the most common weapon choices.
Two-handen weapons are rarely used by rogues and if you really want to use one, Mauler Dedication has you covered.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What are you saying right now? Blave's statement reads perfectly clear to me and makes perfect sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would giving rogues proficiency in martial weapons not devalue feats like Fighter Dedication?