Why doesn't RAW allow a Rouge to use a Main-Gauche as a class proficient weapon?


Rules Discussion

51 to 89 of 89 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

What's confusing? The writers gave everyone a route to use advanced weapons they're not designed for if they super-duper rilly-dilly want to, but they'll still be at a disadvantage unless they can get them as martial for proficiency purposes


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Baarogue wrote:
What's confusing? The writers gave everyone a route to use advanced weapons they're not designed for if they super-duper rilly-dilly want to, but they'll still be at a disadvantage unless they can get them as martial for proficiency purposes

The issue is monks have 0 access to advanced monk weapons. A level 6 feat like fighters and gunslingers have to gain access would be appropriate because right now, the monk trait is hardly even a suggestion on them. A simple gate like that is fine with me but otherwise, you need to be a multiclass fighter and wait until 12th level to be able to use them in any decent capacity. except for butterfly blades but those still require 2 general feats to meet the prerequisite for a monk. It's just inelegant.


aobst128 wrote:
Baarogue wrote:
What's confusing? The writers gave everyone a route to use advanced weapons they're not designed for if they super-duper rilly-dilly want to, but they'll still be at a disadvantage unless they can get them as martial for proficiency purposes
The issue is monks have 0 access to advanced monk weapons. A level 6 feat like fighters and gunslingers have to gain access would be appropriate because right now, the monk trait is hardly even a suggestion on them. A simple gate like that is fine with me but otherwise, you need to be a multiclass fighter and wait until 12th level to be able to use them in any decent capacity. except for butterfly blades but those still require 2 general feats to meet the prerequisite for a monk. It's just inelegant.

You can get them way sooner. Level 1 if you're human, a little later for other ancestries. Remember, you can choose your ancestry feats in any order during character creation to qualify for them

-monk gives trained in simple weapons
-level 1 monk feat > Monastic Weaponry gives trained in all simple and martial monk weapons
-Versatile Human > because you're trained in all simple weapons the Weapon Proficiency general feat gives trained in all martial weapons
-level 1 human ancestry feat > since you are trained in all martial weapons Unconventional Weaponry gives access to one advanced weapon of an ancestry or culture of your choice (like Tian Xia) and it counts as a martial weapon for proficiency purposes


Baarogue wrote:
aobst128 wrote:
Baarogue wrote:
What's confusing? The writers gave everyone a route to use advanced weapons they're not designed for if they super-duper rilly-dilly want to, but they'll still be at a disadvantage unless they can get them as martial for proficiency purposes
The issue is monks have 0 access to advanced monk weapons. A level 6 feat like fighters and gunslingers have to gain access would be appropriate because right now, the monk trait is hardly even a suggestion on them. A simple gate like that is fine with me but otherwise, you need to be a multiclass fighter and wait until 12th level to be able to use them in any decent capacity. except for butterfly blades but those still require 2 general feats to meet the prerequisite for a monk. It's just inelegant.

You can get them way sooner. Level 1 if you're human, a little later for other ancestries. Remember, you can choose your ancestry feats in any order during character creation to qualify for them

-monk gives trained in simple weapons
-level 1 monk feat > Monastic Weaponry gives trained in all simple and martial monk weapons
-Versatile Human > because you're trained in all simple weapons the Weapon Proficiency general feat gives trained in all martial weapons
-level 1 human ancestry feat > since you are trained in all martial weapons Unconventional Weaponry gives access to one advanced weapon of an ancestry or culture of your choice (like Tian Xia) and it counts as a martial weapon for proficiency purposes

Humans are the exception but aren't a great example. Unconventional weaponry shouldn't be the only means of gaining access early. It would be 7th level for anyone who isn't human if you're going that route and it eats all of your general and ancestry feats up to that point. Simply too much investment.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"They are balanced that is why you need to spend 3 feats and be a specific ancestry with a specific heritage to get access to them at level 1 or just spend 3 feats and wait till level 7." All just to get an extra trait or damage dice in your weapon.


¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Horizon Hunters

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Treasure Vault is right around the corner, and I'm sure they will put new feats or rules in that will expand access to weapons. After all, it would suck if old classes couldn't use all those shiny new weapons now would it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

As elegant as many aspects of PF2 are, weapon proficiencies just are not quite there. It is very unintuitive to use any weapon that isn’t a part of your class or granted through a weapon centric archetype. The variance on how different weapons work is just big enough for this to result in a bit of a strange “system mastery” space, but also small enough (and usually possible enough with the right hoops) that it often feels questionably necessary.

Weapon selections tie into class is something many of the developers felt was necessary enough to make it this way. Some weapons just will never get used by certain classes or by most PCs, unless a specific archetype or class gets built for them.


I have high hopes for treasure vault. Monk weapons are among them. It's funny that currently it's easier to get good use out of guns on a monk than certain weapons with the monk trait. I'm hoping the bullet dancer gets some more options too. Always wanted to try one but it's so painful looking at low levels.


I agree. Rogues should definitely have scaling proficiency in martial, and probably advanced weapons as well. It's no big deal because they are just differently shaped pieces of metal. It's totally not a balance issue to have the larger die sizes and extra traits.

Of course, fighters, barbarians, swashbucklers, and champions should definitely get sneak attack damage though. I mean that's just stabbing someone in the back, honestly how hard is that? Any skilled combatant naturally takes advantage of distractions and finds weak points, no idea why they restricted it to only the rogue class...

Obviously being a little sarcastic above, but really, Rogues are already awesome. It's one of the best classes out there! it doesn't need martial weapons and is not meant to model stand-up fighters.

The Thieves, Scoundrels, Thugs, and Tricksters of Golarion, who have spent their time developing their skills (double skill increases!) instead of martial abilities, should prefer to fight from the shadows. They should be using basic weapons that any untrained street kid can find, and making up for poor martial skills with unsportsmanlike sneak attacks.

Perhaps that concept of a highly practiced, two-weapon fighter in black, a subtle and dexterous blademaster capable of holding his/her own in a face-to-face duel...is really a Fighter or Swashbuckler class? Just max Stealth and Thievery skills, or add Rogue or Assassin archetype, to complete the picture.


Hmm, yes, rapiers, the basic weapon that any untrained street kid could find.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I mean any rogue can get full scaling proficiency in a spiked chain or an elven curve blade starting at level 2 with one class feat (mauler dedication), but to use a main gauche, the most you can really get is to expert, and waaaay too late level wise for that to be valuable, if you go the more obvious fighter MC route. Meanwhile you could get hatchet proficiency as a rogue (a great weapon for a STR rogue, but only with 3 feats and having to be a Viking?

Is that for a clearly logical mechanical balance reason?

Overall, it doesn’t bother me to have a game where weapons are fairly class gated, but a piece meal, arbitrary system for sometimes ignoring that with very convoluted, but identifiably better path to proficiency, just doesn’t feel like it was the best of either worlds : class-based weapon proficiencies or a more open ended system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've messaged mark seifter and he did say that there's no issue with giving Rogue full martial prof. So I do believe that the limited weapon selection for Rogue is just a holdover from back in the day

Edit:

BloodandDust wrote:

I agree. Rogues should definitely have scaling proficiency in martial, and probably advanced weapons as well. It's no big deal because they are just differently shaped pieces of metal. It's totally not a balance issue to have the larger die sizes and extra traits.

Of course, fighters, barbarians, swashbucklers, and champions should definitely get sneak attack damage though. I mean that's just stabbing someone in the back, honestly how hard is that? Any skilled combatant naturally takes advantage of distractions and finds weak points, no idea why they restricted it to only the rogue class...

Obviously being a little sarcastic above, but really, Rogues are already awesome. It's one of the best classes out there! it doesn't need martial weapons and is not meant to model stand-up fighters.

The Thieves, Scoundrels, Thugs, and Tricksters of Golarion, who have spent their time developing their skills (double skill increases!) instead of martial abilities, should prefer to fight from the shadows. They should be using basic weapons that any untrained street kid can find, and making up for poor martial skills with unsportsmanlike sneak attacks.

Perhaps that concept of a highly practiced, two-weapon fighter in black, a subtle and dexterous blademaster capable of holding his/her own in a face-to-face duel...is really a Fighter or Swashbuckler class? Just max Stealth and Thievery skills, or add Rogue or Assassin archetype, to complete the picture.

This is actually a bad example because

1. What kind of street thug uses a rapier?

2. Fighters and Champs actually do get to have sneak attack but Rogues require a lot more buy-in to get them


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:

I mean any rogue can get full scaling proficiency in a spiked chain or an elven curve blade starting at level 2 with one class feat (mauler dedication), but to use a main gauche, the most you can really get is to expert, and waaaay too late level wise for that to be valuable, if you go the more obvious fighter MC route. Meanwhile you could get hatchet proficiency as a rogue (a great weapon for a STR rogue, but only with 3 feats and having to be a Viking?

Is that for a clearly logical mechanical balance reason?

Overall, it doesn’t bother me to have a game where weapons are fairly class gated, but a piece meal, arbitrary system for sometimes ignoring that with very convoluted, but identifiably better path to proficiency, just doesn’t feel like it was the best of either worlds : class-based weapon proficiencies or a more open ended system.

Yeah, I wouldn't mind if the gates were more straight forward. Mauler and archer give a great variety of weapon access to anyone who simply takes the level 2 dedication. One handed weapons are left with these obscure and annoying means of access. It makes weapon availability lopsided. It's easier for a wizard to start using a greatsword than a shortsword.


It's mainly a problem for rogues which has a reasonable houserule fix as people have stated. I also have some issues with alchemist too. Naturally, alchemists would favor one handed weapons so they can use their items but I find it very difficult to gain proficiency with martial ones. My toxicologist concepts are all human or tengu because of it. Tengu has the most powerful weapon familiarity feat for some reason. It's only swords but you can pick any 2 that will scale.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Rogue weapon proficiencies are the same as wizard proficiencies - a weird holdover from earlier editions that screws over anyone wanting to do a non-standard build.


Maybe the right path then is to add Dueling weapon proficiencies into the Duellist archetype... to match the way that Mauler and Archer work.

For the "What kind of street thug uses a rapier?" questions above, I agree, but for a different reason. I do not think Rogue class should include Rapier proficiency. IMO the class-included proficiency should purely be "Simple Weapons". Frankly, including rapier, the one 'off brand' weapon is what started this debate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
aobst128 wrote:
Unicore wrote:

I mean any rogue can get full scaling proficiency in a spiked chain or an elven curve blade starting at level 2 with one class feat (mauler dedication), but to use a main gauche, the most you can really get is to expert, and waaaay too late level wise for that to be valuable, if you go the more obvious fighter MC route. Meanwhile you could get hatchet proficiency as a rogue (a great weapon for a STR rogue, but only with 3 feats and having to be a Viking?

Is that for a clearly logical mechanical balance reason?

Overall, it doesn’t bother me to have a game where weapons are fairly class gated, but a piece meal, arbitrary system for sometimes ignoring that with very convoluted, but identifiably better path to proficiency, just doesn’t feel like it was the best of either worlds : class-based weapon proficiencies or a more open ended system.

Yeah, I wouldn't mind if the gates were more straight forward. Mauler and archer give a great variety of weapon access to anyone who simply takes the level 2 dedication. One handed weapons are left with these obscure and annoying means of access. It makes weapon availability lopsided. It's easier for a wizard to start using a greatsword than a shortsword.

It is even weirder because the wizard also gains proficiency in the bastard sword and the katana (and every other martial weapon with the two handed trait).

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BloodandDust wrote:

Maybe the right path then is to add Dueling weapon proficiencies into the Duellist archetype... to match the way that Mauler and Archer work.

For the "What kind of street thug uses a rapier?" questions above, I agree, but for a different reason. I do not think Rogue class should include Rapier proficiency. IMO the class-included proficiency should purely be "Simple Weapons". Frankly, including rapier, the one 'off brand' weapon is what started this debate.

Shortswords are also too complicated to use, I guess?

If there were an easy way to pick up scaling proficiency with a martial weapon, then it wouldn't matter so much.

If we accept the basic premise that martial weapons are supposed to be balanced against each other (I know, there are exceptions where that doesn't work), then having access to one martial weapon means having access to others shouldn't break things. We have unofficial previous designer support for this idea. If something does break, then maybe the issue is with that weapon, and not the class.

Rogues already have something built in to prevent getting sneak attack with a larger die melee weapon. It has to be an agile or finesse weapon. Even Ruffian only expands that to include simple weapons. Thief Rogues can't get Dex to damage unless it's finesse, so they are even more restricted.

What kind of street thug uses a rapier? Well, that depends on the setting. Golarion has a wide range of fantasy settings within the same world. Anything based more around 15th - 16th century or later instead of Middle Ages might make sense, which I assume is why it was included (beyond being a legacy weapon, why it might have become part of the legacy weapons in the first place).

I'm not opposed to Duelist adding dueling weapons, though since that isn't a trait on weapons, it still means a static list that might need updated at some point. I'd rather see things simplified and just give Rogues martial weapons and Wizards simple weapons, because it isn't going to break anything to do so.


Mark Seifter mentioned this a while ago (after he quit Paizo though)

Mark Seifter wrote:

Some of the old classics like bespoke Simple minus for wizards or bespoke simple + a few for rogues and bards (or druids balancing around only nonmetal options which are weaker in terms of shields and restrict your high AC armor options), are a little odd. It might have been better to just have wizards and bards go simple, rogues go martial, and druids use metal, from a streamlining gameplay perspective. But sometimes people value the tradition. Designers tend to be the ones who are willing to reexamine tradition and propose radical new ideas, so I'd definitely propose it again!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Cordell Kintner wrote:
Treasure Vault is right around the corner, and I'm sure they will put new feats or rules in that will expand access to weapons. After all, it would suck if old classes couldn't use all those shiny new weapons now would it?

While that would be nice, we haven't seen anything (yet) to imply that will be the case. We can hope, but it seems very optimistic to me.


Ferious Thune wrote:
What kind of street thug uses a rapier? Well, that depends on the setting. Golarion has a wide range of fantasy settings within the same world. Anything based more around 15th - 16th century or later instead of Middle Ages might make sense, which I assume is why it was included (beyond being a legacy weapon, why it might have become part of the legacy weapons in the first place).

A setting is not a problem at all. The problem is, clubs and knives are much cheaper, easier to conceal and use in pretty much every setting. At least it's how I understand the remark.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Errenor wrote:
Ferious Thune wrote:
What kind of street thug uses a rapier? Well, that depends on the setting. Golarion has a wide range of fantasy settings within the same world. Anything based more around 15th - 16th century or later instead of Middle Ages might make sense, which I assume is why it was included (beyond being a legacy weapon, why it might have become part of the legacy weapons in the first place).
A setting is not a problem at all. The problem is, clubs and knives are much cheaper, easier to conceal and use in pretty much every setting. At least it's how I understand the remark.

But that also relegates Rogues to only people who can’t afford a decent weapon. That’s not really what the classes are. Especially when NPCs don’t even typically have classes anymore. Rogues are highly trained or self-taught. They have more skill increases than any class except Investigators, and more flexibility in their skill training than Investigators. A 20th level Rogue with enough gold to buy out a small nation can’t get scaling proficiency in main gauche. Player Characters with class levels aren’t “street thugs” to begin with (and the term carries some derogatory connotations), unless that’s their concept, and then they have plenty of weapons to choose from. But there are also plenty of examples where the rapier is the most common weapon seen, and plenty of enemies have them who might also be considered “Rogues” without the class levels.

As for the easily concealable part, locking Rogues out of martial weapons also means they can’t use effectively things like war razors:

Quote:
A war razor is an exaggerated version of the barbers’ tool. It is a brittle but extremely sharp weapon that is very easy to slip into a pocket or sleeve.

Or fang wires, or fighting fans, or sword canes… I’m sure there are other items designed to be concealed that are also martial. If your highly trained sneaky character that is good at concealing things can’t use those, then it feels like something is off.

EDIT: I guess Fangwire is a Kobold weapon, so it's possible for Kobolds to get scaling proficiency. I left Dogslicer off the list for a similar reason, so it's fair to strike fangwire.


"Shortswords are also too complicated to use"
>> Well, if you mean fighting effectively with a sword, then yes, takes a lot more training to be good with a sword than a club. If it's a machete... basically a chopping sword, then no. Not sure what they had in mind making shortswords martial. As I said, I'd leave Rogues with only simple weapons though.

"relegates Rogues to only people who can’t afford a decent weapon"
>> No, that is a misreading. Character starting class and income are not correlated in game... if anything a Rogue might have more money than the average barbarian or fighter (thievery skill after all). It's about class focus. Rogues as a base class are not, or at least shouldn't be, stand-up fighters. They don't spend hours training in martial weapon technique, they spend it on skills. The current base class design essentially provides that. Rogues that *do* want to be more-martial-than-rogue should probably make an investment to do so... spend a class feat on the Mauler or Archer archetype (or Duelist, if it included rapier, main gauche, sword cane, etc.).

Basically: Rogues are not stealthy martials! Stealthy Fighters are stealthy martials. Rogues are skills focused opportunists.

Granting rogues free martial weapon expertise just feels like basic goal-post moving / power creep. Five minutes after that gets approved we'll have this same thread again with "why can't rogues do sneak attack damage with a greatsword, it's so unfair. Backstabbing with a giant thing is the same as with a smaller thing, it's not complicated".

Just my current opinion / preference though, not a hill to die on.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

A Rouge can't use Main-Gauches because Rouge is a color, not a class, and so doesn't have any weapon proficiencies to speak of.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
BloodandDust wrote:

"Shortswords are also too complicated to use"

>> Well, if you mean fighting effectively with a sword, then yes, takes a lot more training to be good with a sword than a club. If it's a machete... basically a chopping sword, then no. Not sure what they had in mind making shortswords martial. As I said, I'd leave Rogues with only simple weapons though.

Just clarifying that, aside maybe dagger, *the* prototypical Rogue weapon is too complicated for a Rogue to use.

BloodandDust wrote:

"relegates Rogues to only people who can’t afford a decent weapon"

>> No, that is a misreading. Character starting class and income are not correlated in game... if anything a Rogue might have more money than the average barbarian or fighter (thievery skill after all). It's about class focus. Rogues as a base class are not, or at least shouldn't be, stand-up fighters. They don't spend hours training in martial weapon technique, they spend it on skills. The current base class design essentially provides that. Rogues that *do* want to be more-martial-than-rogue should probably make an investment to do so... spend a class feat on the Mauler or Archer archetype (or Duelist, if it included rapier, main gauche, sword cane, etc.).

Rogue does not equal "street thug" was my point. But also, I guess Investigators are stand up fighters? The only implication in the class they spend any more time training for combat than a Rogue is... that they have Martial weapon proficiency.

Thaumaturge is described as: "You use your implements and diverse arsenal of mystic tools and tricks to assist in combat, always presenting the right bane to exploit enemies' weaknesses or shield your allies against the supernatural." I guess that makes them stand up fighters?

BloodandDust wrote:
Basically: Rogues are not stealthy martials! Stealthy Fighters are stealthy martials. Rogues are skills focused opportunists.

Rogue, meantime, is described as, "You move about stealthily so you can catch foes unawares. You’re a precision instrument, more useful against a tough boss or distant spellcaster than against rank-and-file soldiers." Sounds like a stealthy martial to me.

BloodandDust wrote:

Granting rogues free martial weapon expertise just feels like basic goal-post moving / power creep. Five minutes after that gets approved we'll have this same thread again with "why can't rogues do sneak attack damage with a greatsword, it's so unfair. Backstabbing with a giant thing is the same as with a smaller thing, it's not complicated".

Just my current opinion / preference though, not a hill to die on.

Again, giving Rogues martial weapons isn't power creep, if all martial weapons are balanced against each other. It didn't break the Investigator. I haven't heard of it making the Thaumaturge broken. The limiter on Rogues is agile or finesse. They aren't going to be sneak attacking with a greatsword, because it's not agile or finesse.

Duelist granting dueling weapons makes sense, but it isn't going to solve the Rogue issue, because many of the martial weapons that make sense for a Rogue aren't dueling weapons.

If you want to limit it, then give Rogues all Agile or Finesse Martial weapons. That both keeps them from getting free Greatsword proficiency and avoids the issue of them either being shut out of weapons that are thematic to the class (again, war razor, sword cane, main gauche, etc.) without needing additional text with each new weapon published. That would put them on par with Alchemists, who are limited to a type of martial weapon (alchemical bombs) that can be defined without listing specific weapons.


Ferious Thune wrote:
Errenor wrote:
Ferious Thune wrote:
What kind of street thug uses a rapier? Well, that depends on the setting. Golarion has a wide range of fantasy settings within the same world. Anything based more around 15th - 16th century or later instead of Middle Ages might make sense, which I assume is why it was included (beyond being a legacy weapon, why it might have become part of the legacy weapons in the first place).
A setting is not a problem at all. The problem is, clubs and knives are much cheaper, easier to conceal and use in pretty much every setting. At least it's how I understand the remark.
But that also relegates Rogues to only people...

I only commented on 'street thugs', settings and rapiers, not rogues in general. I don't consider rogues only street thugs or untrained street kids. And don't think martial weapons should be prohibited for them.

But I still think that rapier is an uncharacteristic weapon for a street thug. Unless literally everyone has them, which is even stranger.

Scarab Sages

It's easy to imagine rapier being the weapon of choice somewhere like Galt or even Taldor, but as long as we're in agreement that Rogue does not equal street thug, that's fine. It was the earlier poster's implication that Rogues shouldn't have rapiers, because they are street thugs that was the issue.


Thug (ruffian) was only one of the examples mentioned ("the Thieves, Scoundrels, Thugs, and Tricksters of Golarian..."), so if that is what is bothering you then we agree... Rogue encompasses many more concepts than that.

However! My basic contention was/is that Rogue is not meant for martial-first concepts. It is a skills-focused class meant for more nuanced concepts. "Sneaky fighter" in PF2e can be built on a Fighter or Swash chassis, if they are meant to jump into face-to-face combat, or on the Rogue chassis, if they are meant to lean on sneak attacks.

Rogues already compete with fighters for DPR using their limited weapon set, while still having a hand free for a shield/maneuvers/etc, and the double skills. Bumping up Rogue to be good at literally everything just unbalances the class.

I would agree with you on Investigator, BTW, except that Investigator can only use DAS once per round, which is already limiting (good chassis for assassin concepts though).

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Name a martial finesse weapon that would be unbalanced on a Rogue and why. I maintain my contention that if there is one, it’s probably the weapon that is the issue, not a Rogue using it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ferious Thune wrote:
Name a martial finesse weapon that would be unbalanced on a Rogue and why. I maintain my contention that if there is one, it’s probably the weapon that is the issue, not a Rogue using it.

If anything is out of bounds, it's a xyloshi kashrishi with Puncturing Horn so you start at 1st level with a 1d8 piercing damage finesse unarmed attack. No melee weapon matches that no-hand unarmed attack.

Scarab Sages

Fair, but also not a martial weapon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ferious Thune wrote:
Fair, but also not a martial weapon.

That WAS my point: I can get a 1b8 finesse unarmed attack but I can manage a 1d4 or 1d6 martial weapon? Lame.


I feel like that kashrishi horn is meant to loose the finesse trait like the d8 jaw option does on the razortooth goblin. It's very out of the ordinary for an unarmed attack.


aobst128 wrote:
I feel like that kashrishi horn is meant to loose the finesse trait like the d8 jaw option does on the razortooth goblin. It's very out of the ordinary for an unarmed attack.

I assume it traded finesse for persistent bleed on crit while the horn in Brawling [fort or slowed]: also, there's a feat to boost the horn even more by adding two of the following weapon traits: disarm, grapple, shove, and trip. So a 5th, it could be a 1d8 finesse, grapple and trip weapon.


So instead of buffing things to meet the max, nerf the max because "it must be wrong"?

The game is already challenging enough as it is and there really isn't anything making a 1d8 finesse more broken than a 1d6 finesse. Besides the issue is that there is this clearly intricate weapon system that is shut down to most of the classes by literal feat taxes. While people support those feat taxes because "it would be broken" yet the devs themselves say it wouldn't be broken.

Rogue and to a lesser extent Monk highlight the issue because they are supposed to be good with some advanced weapons. Or is anyone going to say that Rogues shouldn't use Sawtooth Blades, Butterfly Blades, Spiral Rapiers, Kerambits, etc.?


Temperans wrote:

So instead of buffing things to meet the max, nerf the max because "it must be wrong"?

The game is already challenging enough as it is and there really isn't anything making a 1d8 finesse more broken than a 1d6 finesse. Besides the issue is that there is this clearly intricate weapon system that is shut down to most of the classes by literal feat taxes. While people support those feat taxes because "it would be broken" yet the devs themselves say it wouldn't be broken.

Rogue and to a lesser extent Monk highlight the issue because they are supposed to be good with some advanced weapons. Or is anyone going to say that Rogues shouldn't use Sawtooth Blades or Starknifes?

I agree that rogues should have martial proficiency. I was just making a point that the kashrishi horn is weird. Winds up better than any advanced finesse weapon with all the traits it can get while the usual trend for ancestry unarmed attacks are simple or martial tier. It breaks the mold so I just wonder if that was the intention.


graystone wrote:
Ferious Thune wrote:
Name a martial finesse weapon that would be unbalanced on a Rogue and why. I maintain my contention that if there is one, it’s probably the weapon that is the issue, not a Rogue using it.
If anything is out of bounds, it's a xyloshi kashrishi with Puncturing Horn so you start at 1st level with a 1d8 piercing damage finesse unarmed attack. No melee weapon matches that no-hand unarmed attack.

The Puncturing Horn requires investment so I don't mind it. There is a build there.

Paizo have balanced the weapons well. Everything better than d6 finesse or d6 agile is either two handed or advanced.


BloodandDust wrote:

Thug (ruffian) was only one of the examples mentioned ("the Thieves, Scoundrels, Thugs, and Tricksters of Golarian..."), so if that is what is bothering you then we agree... Rogue encompasses many more concepts than that.

However! My basic contention was/is that Rogue is not meant for martial-first concepts. It is a skills-focused class meant for more nuanced concepts. "Sneaky fighter" in PF2e can be built on a Fighter or Swash chassis, if they are meant to jump into face-to-face combat, or on the Rogue chassis, if they are meant to lean on sneak attacks.

Rogues already compete with fighters for DPR using their limited weapon set, while still having a hand free for a shield/maneuvers/etc, and the double skills. Bumping up Rogue to be good at literally everything just unbalances the class.

I would agree with you on Investigator, BTW, except that Investigator can only use DAS once per round, which is already limiting (good chassis for assassin concepts though).

And I disagree that it unbalances the class, considering other skill classes(Investigator and Thaum) weapon restriction only applies to their specific mechanic/damage booster.... which is the same with rogue's sneak attack.

Nothing is stopping a Thaum to use a Meteor Hammer but esoterica requires a 1h weapon. DaS can only apply to finesse/agile plues a restricted amount of weapon *just like rogues should do*

I literally have evidence that devs don't consider the Rogues weapon restriction any kind of overpowered.

51 to 89 of 89 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Why doesn't RAW allow a Rouge to use a Main-Gauche as a class proficient weapon? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.