Errata Suggestion - Wizard and Rogue Weapon Proficiency

[CaffeinatedNinja]

So, wizards and rogues don't get simple/martial weapon proficiency. Just a selection of weapons. Everyone seems to agree this is simply a 1e legacy move.

Given that we have SO many weapons now, and we want people to use them, maybe slide in an errata just giving wizards simple weapon proficiency and rogue martial?

Zero balance concerns, just would let people use some of these cool new weapons.

That is all.

[Captain Morgan]

It is a minor buff (you'd see a lot more rogues using two handers instead of rapiers) but not enough of one to matter in my opinion. I'm all for the change.

[graystone]

Yeah, I'm all for it. Heck, I'd even take a 1st or 2nd level feat to do that if they don't want to alter the original proficiencies.

[Grankless]

It's shocking they haven't yet.

[keftiu]

Emphatically co-signed.

[CaffeinatedNinja]

Just a quality of life thing. Like if I want my wizard to have a gun cause it is cool... why not? Not any better than a crossbow lol.

[Perpdepog]

Yes. Let wizards use guns; I want to be a shootymancer.

And giving rogues all martial weapons would open up so many new options; at minimum it'd make it easier to play a rogue from a culture where rapiers aren't a thing and stop them from having to jump through extra hoops to use their cultural stabbing implement of choice.

[graystone]

CaffeinatedNinja wrote:

Just a quality of life thing. Like if I want my wizard to have a gun cause it is cool... why not? Not any better than a crossbow lol.

I blame harry potter! If he was packing heat instead of a wand, more people would be clambering for gun fu mages. ;)

[Ascalaphus]

Yes please.

[Arachnofiend]

I genuinely wonder who was so attached to the "legacy" of wizard and rogue proficiencies. I remember some people fought tooth and nail to keep Paladin as an LG-only class but I can't imagine anyone being so concerned about Rogues being locked to effectively core-weapons-only.

[CaffeinatedNinja]

Perpdepog wrote:

Yes. Let wizards use guns; I want to be a shootymancer.

And giving rogues all martial weapons would open up so many new options; at minimum it'd make it easier to play a rogue from a culture where rapiers aren't a thing and stop them from having to jump through extra hoops to use their cultural stabbing implement of choice.

Hah, shootymancer, I love that.

[Ascalaphus]

Arachnofiend wrote:

I genuinely wonder who was so attached to the "legacy" of wizard and rogue proficiencies. I remember some people fought tooth and nail to keep Paladin as an LG-only class but I can't imagine anyone being so concerned about Rogues being locked to effectively core-weapons-only.

I think with paladins we ended up with an excellent compromise. On the one hand keeping the LG brand name alive, on the other hand opening up the class to more possibilities. And with a saner anathema system too.

It makes wizard and rogue weapon restrictions look weirdly old-fashioned and unnecessary. Look at the swashbuckler. They could use a maul or greataxe, but they probably won't because it doesn't let them use their tricks. That approach would work fine for the rogue too.

[graystone]

Ascalaphus wrote:

Look at the swashbuckler. They could use a maul or greataxe, but they probably won't because it doesn't let them use their tricks. That approach would work fine for the rogue too.

They could do something like the gunslinger: give a limited version of martial access like Martial Ranged and Agile or Finesse Melee and it'd be an improvement that allows the rogue to use some of the nifty new items that would otherwise work well with their sneak attacks.

[shepsquared]

Yes, wizards should have simple weapon proficiency. It's hard enough to qualify for Hellknight Signifer with armour proficiency, it's nonsensical that I have to spend even more general feats on weapons.

And I assume you get similar annoying chains when looking at other atypical archetype choices.

[Sanityfaerie]

So... it does seem like this could be a meaningful buff to the rogue.

- it gives access to d8 weapons.
- it removes the ancestry feat cost from things like the curve blade, the branched spear and the dogslicer... unless your GM and/or PFS demands that you spend a feat as the price of getting access to the physical object, and that's kind of feelsbad, you know?
- it gives easy access to bombs. Now, personally I think this could be kind of awesome for certain builds I might be inclined to put together, but it's clearly a buff.

Moreover, it's worth considering what it would mean for the preferred rogue weapons. In many cases, it would mean spears. I think ti's reasonable to not put rogue players in the position of deciding between being suboptimal on the one side or weilding a spear on the other. Spears aren't really a "classic rogue image" thing.

So it's a buff... and it might lean rogue characters in odd directions. Do rogues need a buff? I hadn't really heard anyone complaining that they were particularly weak.

[graystone]

Sanityfaerie wrote:

- it gives access to d8 weapons.

To UNCOMMON 1d8 weapons.

Sanityfaerie wrote:

- it removes the ancestry feat cost from things like the curve blade, the branched spear and the dogslicer... unless your GM and/or PFS demands that you spend a feat as the price of getting access to the physical object, and that's kind of feelsbad, you know?

It gives access to advanced weapons with the feat, like a kobold with a Flying Talon.

Sanityfaerie wrote:

- it gives easy access to bombs. Now, personally I think this could be kind of awesome for certain builds I might be inclined to put together, but it's clearly a buff.

*shrug*

Sanityfaerie wrote:

Moreover, it's worth considering what it would mean for the preferred rogue weapons. In many cases, it would mean spears. I think ti's reasonable to not put rogue players in the position of deciding between being suboptimal on the one side or weilding a spear on the other. Spears aren't really a "classic rogue image" thing.

I mean, who cares about the "classic rogue image"? I mean, if that's the case, they'd be restricted to daggers... :P

[CaffeinatedNinja]

Sanityfaerie wrote:

So... it does seem like this could be a meaningful buff to the rogue.

- it gives access to d8 weapons.
- it removes the ancestry feat cost from things like the curve blade, the branched spear and the dogslicer... unless your GM and/or PFS demands that you spend a feat as the price of getting access to the physical object, and that's kind of feelsbad, you know?
- it gives easy access to bombs. Now, personally I think this could be kind of awesome for certain builds I might be inclined to put together, but it's clearly a buff.

Moreover, it's worth considering what it would mean for the preferred rogue weapons. In many cases, it would mean spears. I think ti's reasonable to not put rogue players in the position of deciding between being suboptimal on the one side or weilding a spear on the other. Spears aren't really a "classic rogue image" thing.

So it's a buff... and it might lean rogue characters in odd directions. Do rogues need a buff? I hadn't really heard anyone complaining that they were particularly weak.

All the finesse weapons I am aware of that are d8 are 2 handed. So going from d6 deadly d8 (rapier) to a spear is a damage boost (but small, half a die bump maybe) for using 2 hands isn’t a buff. Martial weapons usually go 2 full damage bumps for going 2 handed.

And right now the right ancestries can use them for a lvl 1 ancestry feat which is about as cheap as it gets.

[breithauptclan]

As far as I can see, neither Swashbuckler or Investigator have any problems with using d8 agile or finesse weapons.

So I guess the only balance point to consider is that Rogue could use them and get the added precision damage faster and/or more reliably?

[Rysky]

Arachnofiend wrote:

I genuinely wonder who was so attached to the "legacy" of wizard and rogue proficiencies. I remember some people fought tooth and nail to keep Paladin as an LG-only class but I can't imagine anyone being so concerned about Rogues being locked to effectively core-weapons-only.

”NOOOOOOOO, THE ROGUE IS USING A GARROTE, MY IMMERSION IS RUINED!”

[Red Griffyn]

YES PLEASE. Then we can stop having the same thread topic come up like once a month on Paizo's forms and reddit. Just give he damn people what they want! The 'finesse' weapon class should get to use the finesse weapons.

Also maybe while we're at it can we consider giving thief rogues dex to damage for unarmed strikes as well?

[Sanityfaerie]

graystone wrote:

Sanityfaerie wrote:

- it gives access to d8 weapons.

To UNCOMMON 1d8 weapons.

Yes? Your point?

graystone wrote:

Sanityfaerie wrote:

- it removes the ancestry feat cost from things like the curve blade, the branched spear and the dogslicer... unless your GM and/or PFS demands that you spend a feat as the price of getting access to the physical object, and that's kind of feelsbad, you know?

It gives access to advanced weapons with the feat, like a kobold with a Flying Talon.

This is true... and it's a further buff. I'm just speaking from the perspective of someone who, with a goblin rogue, might well be inclined to spend those feats on the dogslicer.

graystone wrote:

Sanityfaerie wrote:

Moreover, it's worth considering what it would mean for the preferred rogue weapons. In many cases, it would mean spears. I think ti's reasonable to not put rogue players in the position of deciding between being suboptimal on the one side or weilding a spear on the other. Spears aren't really a "classic rogue image" thing.

I mean, who cares about the "classic rogue image"? I mean, if that's the case, they'd be restricted to daggers... :P

Well... I do. The whole thing about rogues is supposed to be sneaking around, dirty tricks, underhanded techniques, and hitting them while they're down. Spears... don't really fit into that image particularly well. Classes are supposed to be both crunch and flavor, right? It'd be like all of those paladins being raised in gnomish orphanages all over again.

Past that, do you think that rogues need the buff? I think it's pretty clear that for them, this *is* a meaningful buff.

[Squiggit]

Sanityfaerie wrote:

The whole thing about rogues is supposed to be sneaking around, dirty tricks, underhanded techniques, and hitting them while they're down. Spears... don't really fit into that image particularly well. Classes are supposed to be both crunch and flavor, right? It'd be like all of those paladins being raised in gnomish orphanages all over again.

Isn't that essentially just policing the way someone else plays the game for no other reason that it not being the way you'd play the same character?

And I mean, your last sentence undermines your main point. We have paladins (and other non-LG champions, gasp) who can use chain swords, rangers can equip nunchaku, barbarians can use polytools, and many other examples of characters who can wield items that don't fit the most reductionist and simplistic caricature of the character's design and the sky has not fallen.

So it's so strange to then draw the line at a wizard holding a mace instead of a club, or a rogue with a kris or main gauche instead of a dagger or shortsword. Why are those the uncrossable red line?

Besides, if the goal was purely protectionism, the jig is already up because daggers aren't the premiere rogue weapon as they should™ be. Weirdly enough that one Paizo actually addressed before with a hypothetical example about giving dagger rogues deadly simplicity style feat support, though it ended up never happening.

Quote:

Past that, do you think that rogues need the buff? I think it's pretty clear that for them, this *is* a meaningful buff.

Eh, not really.

[Deriven Firelion]

If wizards had some kind of clearly better casting ability, I'd be ok leaving them as they are. But they don't, so not giving them simple weapons just unnecessarily limits their build options.

Rogue is fine, but I also don't think it would change much if they received martial weapon proficiency other than to expand rogue build options.

[Arcaian]

Sanityfaerie wrote:

The whole thing about rogues is supposed to be sneaking around, dirty tricks, underhanded techniques, and hitting them while they're down. Spears... don't really fit into that image particularly well. Classes are supposed to be both crunch and flavor, right? It'd be like all of those paladins being raised in gnomish orphanages all over again.

Past that, do you think that rogues need the buff? I think it's pretty clear that for them, this *is* a meaningful buff.

I don't think it's a super meaningful buff, to be honest - rapiers and shortswords are likely to still be the most optimal choice for most rogues that are using 1-handed weapons. It opens up 2-handed weapons as an option, but that shouldn't be much of a buff - you're giving up a free hand, paying the same cost everyone else does. I like the idea of an elven rogue with an elven curved blade that I've been thinking about at the moment, but I don't think I'm getting a much more optimized character from using the curved blade. Certainly in comparison to picking up something like Stumbling Stance from a monk/martial artist archetype it compares pretty unfavourably.

I also don't think that spears can't fit into a rogue's narrative fighting style. I don't agree with you that a rogue's fighting style involves necessarily being underhanded. Two quotes from the CRB:

CRB pg 178 wrote:

You are skilled and opportunistic. Using your sharp wits and quick reactions, you take advantage of your opponents’ missteps and strike where it hurts most.

CRB pg 178 wrote:

During Combat Encounters...

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.

The focus is on precision, skill, and being opportunistic. A spear can entirely fit into that style - it's a precise weapon by definition, is good for feinting and other forms of misdirection, and taking advantages of weak points and opportunities can be easier from a safer distance. For an instance from pop culture, this fight scene from s4 of Game of Thrones between Oberyn Martell and The Mountain seems a relevant example of someone using a rogue-like combat style with a spear.

[graystone]

Sanityfaerie wrote:

Yes? Your point?

The point is that if someone, like yourself, doesn't want a 1d8 damage weapon then you could just say no to their access as they aren't automatically available.

Sanityfaerie wrote:

This is true... and it's a further buff. I'm just speaking from the perspective of someone who, with a goblin rogue, might well be inclined to spend those feats on the dogslicer.

So you have a problem saving a feat or getting automatic access? Isn't your complaint the same one a fighter would have with the feat? Why would it be special for the rogue or wizard?

Sanityfaerie wrote:

Well... I do. The whole thing about rogues is supposed to be sneaking around, dirty tricks, underhanded techniques, and hitting them while they're down. Spears... don't really fit into that image particularly well. Classes are supposed to be both crunch and flavor, right? It'd be like all of those paladins being raised in gnomish orphanages all over again.

LOL Well no one would be stopping YOU from having any flavor you wished for YOUR rogues. However, I don't see how you can't be all of those things with a different weapon. If it's flavorful to stab someone with a long pointy sword [rapier], how do you lose flavor by stabbing someone with a long pointy stick [spear]? Right now we can use a forked bipod, light mace, a poi, a bayonet, gauntlet and wheel spikes: if the fantasy can survive a rogue using a chain, metal fist, a blade on a stick [bayonet on a gun, totally different from a spear *rolls eyes*] and wheelchair wheelies, I don't see it getting destroyed by martial weapons.

[Sanityfaerie]

Squiggit wrote:

Sanityfaerie wrote:

The whole thing about rogues is supposed to be sneaking around, dirty tricks, underhanded techniques, and hitting them while they're down. Spears... don't really fit into that image particularly well. Classes are supposed to be both crunch and flavor, right? It'd be like all of those paladins being raised in gnomish orphanages all over again.

Isn't that essentially just policing the way someone else plays the game for no other reason that it not being the way you'd play the same character?

And I mean, your last sentence undermines your main point. We have paladins (and other non-LG champions, gasp) who can use chain swords, rangers can equip nunchaku, barbarians can use polytools, and many other examples of characters who can wield items that don't fit the most reductionist and simplistic caricature of the character's design and the sky has not fallen.

No. There's a difference here. I'm not saying that people shouldn't be allowed to play that way. I'm saying that it should not be the obvious correct choice from a charOp standpoint to play that way. We have an image (in general) of what a rogue is and does. They sneak around, and generally use relatively short/small/light bladed weapons, or saps, or small bows - compact weapons that are easy to carry when clambering about, and relatively easy to sneak in under your cloak or whatever. It's an iconic image. Unfortunately, PF2 doesn't really ahve the mechanics that they'd need to incentivise rogues to use roguelike weapons, so instead they have hard limiters. I'll admit that it isn't great as a solution, but it is a solution to an actual concern.

Now, there are characters who go outside of the iconic image. Even now, it's possible to play a viable ruffian rogue with a longspear. That's fine. The problem is when you start getting the rogue handbooks all saying "well, obviously you should be using a spear because X/Y/Z." That's not so great. That's why it's like the paladin issue. certain niche rules come together and produce very odd tendencies among PCs, and it's a bit immersion-breaking. If you're going to do something weird, it should be because you've chosen to do something weird.

Quote:

So it's so strange to then draw the line at a wizard holding a mace instead of a club, or a rogue with a kris or main gauche instead of a dagger or shortsword. Why are those the uncrossable red line?

I don't really care about wizards. Wizards with weapons are weird to begin with, and gandalf swung a longsword. The standard wizard is going to carry a staff because it's got spells in it, and having low-level wizards make do with whatever weapons they can scrounge up is fine as far as I'm concerned. Rogues... it was basically a crude flavor patch. Admittedly, I'm not actually sure why Main Gauche didn't make the list. Perhaps they were trying to keep it deliberately very short. Kris didn't make ti because Kris wasn't in the core rulebook, and they didn't spend the space to future-proof it.

Quote:

Besides, if the goal was purely protectionism, the jig is already up because daggers aren't the premiere rogue weapon as they should™ be. Weirdly enough that one Paizo actually addressed before with a hypothetical example about giving dagger rogues deadly simplicity style feat support, though it ended up never happening.

I admit, I think it would have been cool if thief rogues had also had some sort of "and daggers are particularly effective in your hands" baked in.

[Narxiso]

Who cares about all the d8 weapons and the reach spears? I am here for the knives... I want all the knives for my rogues, and I am glad that the flyssa was added, but dang is it difficult to get full proficiency in as a rogue despite it being my favorite irl weapon and thematic for a knifey boy rogue.

[Squiggit]

Sanityfaerie wrote:

I'm saying that it should not be the obvious correct choice from a charOp standpoint to play that way.

Short swords, rapiers, and shortbows remain top tier choices regardless of what you do with proficiency.

The aforementioned kris is almost always a bad choice, and not really athematic either if we're still doing the "no true rogue" thing.

Quote:

but it is a solution to an actual concern.

I just fundamentally disagree that policing how someone else plays is a concern worthy of attention.

Quote:

If you're going to do something weird, it should be because you've chosen to do something weird.

The problem is right now people don't get to make that choice at all.

And the ironic thing about putting up reach weapons and curve blades as things to be afraid of is that those are the ones most easily accessible right now, anyone can pick it up for a feat or two, while common martial options are functionally impossible to use.

[Lightning Raven]

Rogues already have incredibly stacked base chassis. They're probably the best in the game in this aspect along with Fighters. They don't need any more free buffs.

Unless it's in the form of a 1st level class feat or something. That seems like a decent improvement.

Wizards could well use the "buff", though. Unlike Rogues, this restriction is unnecessarily punishing for them.

[Sanityfaerie]

Squiggit wrote:

Seems like a win for everyone involved, since you can keep using short swords and someone who really wants to use a kris, kukri, sword cane, fighting fan, nunchaku, sai, starknife, wakisazhi or any other insufficiently roguish weapon can just do so and probably be worse than you because short swords are just plain better than most of those anyways.

You really do like trying to put arguments into my mouth that I didn't make, while ignoring the ones that I did, don't you?

Okay. How's this? Rogues get simples and martials for proficiency, but they're limited further in sneak attack - melee weapons have to be one-handed. Ranged weapons have to be one-handed, simple, or shortbows, and if they're thrown melee weapons, they have to be finesse or agile. Would that satisfy you?

...and yeah, it's true that it's a shame that rogues can't use pistols, given that the things started out mostly as assassination weapons.

[CaffeinatedNinja]

I don't see how it is a buff. As Squiggit pointed out the weapons rogues get now are top tier.

Sanityfaerie, if a rogue wants to use a 2hander, why not? I honestly don't see it as a buff here. You give up a free hand to go from 1d6 deadly d8 to 1d8? That is like half a die size for a free hand.

I had another thought too. This actually makes rogues/wizards from other cultures harder to use, and Paizo has always been very inclusive about that.

Like if I want to make my rogue a ninja, he can't use a Wakizashi. If he is from the impossible lands he can't use a Kukri. If my rogue likes to play damsel in distress before stabbing people, she can't use a Corset Knife. If my rogue is from Walkena he can't use a Lion Scythe.

If my wizard is a halfling he can't hit people with a frying pan!

None of these are balance issues. The default weapons are probably the best ones. But they do restrict builds, and kind of force your characters into a "western" model for gear.

[Squiggit]

Sanityfaerie wrote:

You really do like trying to put arguments into my mouth that I didn't make, while ignoring the ones that I did, don't you?

You said the restriction helps ensure rogues use roguelike weapons. I rattled off a bunch of weapons that rogues are barred from using.

Quote:

Okay. How's this? Rogues get simples and martials for proficiency, but they're limited further in sneak attack - melee weapons have to be one-handed. Ranged weapons have to be one-handed, simple, or shortbows, and if they're thrown melee weapons, they have to be finesse or agile. Would that satisfy you?

Again, the sort of strange thing here is the weapons you're most worried about here are the ones that rogues can already, as the game exists right now, pick up trivially.

But eh, seems kind of pointless, and mostly targeted at elf rogues? Don't get the hate for them specifically here, so no.

[Sanityfaerie]

Squiggit wrote:

Sanityfaerie wrote:

You really do like trying to put arguments into my mouth that I didn't make, while ignoring the ones that I did, don't you?

You said the restriction helps ensure rogues use roguelike weapons. I rattled off a bunch of weapons that rogues are barred from using.

I never said that the restriction they had was amazing and perfect and beautiful in every way. It's not. I was trying to provide explanations for why they put it in place in the first place, and why they might be resistant to just throwing it out. Let's look at what your'e actually doing here. You're asking for a buff, to a class that's on the strong side, that will make them behave in less flavor-appropriate ways. That's a pretty big ask, don't you think?

Quote:

Quote:

Okay. How's this? Rogues get simples and martials for proficiency, but they're limited further in sneak attack - melee weapons have to be one-handed. Ranged weapons have to be one-handed, simple, or shortbows, and if they're thrown melee weapons, they have to be finesse or agile. Would that satisfy you?

Again, the sort of strange thing here is the weapons you're most worried about here are the ones that rogues can already, as the game exists right now, pick up trivially.

But eh, seems kind of pointless, and mostly targeted at elf rogues? Don't get the hate for them specifically here, so no.

It's not just elf rogues, though. These weapons are martial. *anyone* can use them, as long as they can actually get one to rune up for themselves.

The pertinent two-handed weapons I'd see as being both weird and potentially tempting: dancer's Spear, dueling spear, elven branched spear, elven curve blade, spiked chain.

Really, I was trying to put together something that Paizo might actually accept - remove a lot of the jank, keep the buffs largely under control, and keep the rogue flavor working like it's supposed to. If you just want to sit here and scream that Rogues have it so terribly hard and really need an unmitigated chassis improvement... you know what? Fine. You do you.

[Captain Morgan]

Arcaian wrote:

It opens up 2-handed weapons as an option, but that shouldn't be much of a buff - you're giving up a free hand, paying the same cost everyone else does.

That's not exactly true. Not all classes have equal use for a second hand. The average finesse Rogues lack:

-Shield Block like champions.
-Good two weapon fighting support like rangers.
-Elixirs to chug like alchemists.
-The strength to use Athletics maneuvers like monks or barbarians.
-Lots of free hand feat options like fighters.
-3 action spells like a caster.
-Incentive to stay ranged like investigators.

Other classes have more opportunity cost to losing that second hand. They have much more compelling reasons to keep that hand free, where the rogue would basically be nerfing themselves for the sake of flavor most of the time. (One counter argument: rogues only get to jump one die size for that trade, where buff bois get two.)

I still think we should make the change, but I think you need to think holistically to gauge the impact.

[Thaliak]

I'd love it if rogues got martial proficiency by default or through a Level 1 feat, but I think I understand Sanityfaerie's concern. I play a monk in one of my games who occasionally has no way to use his last action. Since he fights with his fists and feet, it's always bugged me that he should be carrying a shield. I've resisted the temptation to do so because it looks ridiculous to me, but only barely.

On the other hand, I'm glad it's possible to build a sword and shield monk to represent a gladiator or a fighter so skilled he doesn't need armor. I'm not sure I have a way to address optimization pulling characters in directions I find unpleasant without barring concepts others find exciting.

As an aside, it's possible rogues have a bespoke list of martial weapons as a signpost for new players. The list includes the rapier, shortsword and shortbow, options that are strong and compatible with Sneak Attack.

The limited list also makes ancestry feats that grant proficiency more interesting. I've considered playing a dwarf, an ancestry I usually dislike, almost entirely for Explosive Expert, a feat that provides access to bombs and guns.

[CaffeinatedNinja]

Captain Morgan wrote:

Arcaian wrote:

It opens up 2-handed weapons as an option, but that shouldn't be much of a buff - you're giving up a free hand, paying the same cost everyone else does.

That's not exactly true. Not all classes have equal use for a second hand. The average finesse Rogues lack:

-Shield Block like champions.
-Good two weapon fighting support like rangers.
-Elixirs to chug like alchemists.
-The strength to use Athletics maneuvers like monks or barbarians.
-Lots of free hand feat options like fighters.
-3 action spells like a caster.
-Incentive to stay ranged like investigators.

Other classes have more opportunity cost to losing that second hand. They have much more compelling reasons to keep that hand free, where the rogue would basically be nerfing themselves for the sake of flavor most of the time. (One counter argument: rogues only get to jump one die size for that trade, where buff bois get two.)

I still think we should make the change, but I think you need to think holistically to gauge the impact.

A fair point. However an open hand is still super valuable. You can open a door. Grab a ledge, activate a worn magic item (most require an interact) draw a potion, etc etc. Not to mention use a shield for +1/2 AC, or simply use a second agile or thrown weapon.

Personally I wouldn’t give up a hand to go from d6 deadly d8 to d8. But to each their own.

And there are already easy ways to get these weapons at some levels, depending on your race or archetype. And I have literally never heard anyone complain 2h rogue is too strong.

[CaffeinatedNinja]

Thaliak wrote:

The limited list also makes ancestry feats that grant proficiency more interesting. I've considered playing a dwarf, an ancestry I usually dislike, almost entirely for Explosive Expert, a feat that provides access to bombs and guns.

Sadly though it won’t scale to expert at lvl. 5. At lvl 13 the second part of that feat will make it scale, so you will be good at bombs lvl. 1-4 and 13-20.

[breithauptclan]

Sanityfaerie wrote:

No. There's a difference here. I'm not saying that people shouldn't be allowed to play that way. I'm saying that it should not be the obvious correct choice from a charOp standpoint to play that way. We have an image (in general) of what a rogue is and does.

That's the fundamental point of this whole debate that I don't agree with.

You have that particular vision of what a Rogue should be.

Some of the rest of us don't feel the same way.

[Thaliak]

CaffeinatedNinja, that's true. The scaling on ancestry proficiency feats is strange. In this case, the campaign was starting at a high enough level that I wasn't too worried. If it started at 1, I would have been less interested in trying a dwarf.

[Arachnofiend]

Sanityfaerie wrote:

It's not just elf rogues, though. These weapons are martial. *anyone* can use them, as long as they can actually get one to rune up for themselves.

The pertinent two-handed weapons I'd see as being both weird and potentially tempting: dancer's Spear, dueling spear, elven branched spear, elven curve blade, spiked chain.

The dueling spear not being appropriate to Rogues is such a strange take to me. The longspear is already the most popular choice for a Ruffian.

[pixierose]

Rogues can also aesthetically feel so many niches.

Rogues can be magical tricksters( Via stuff like minor magic but also eldritch trickster), brutes(ruffian and feats that support athletic maneuvers, fencer esque characters, and knowledgeable masterminds( Not just the actual mastermind racket but also various feats that support the playstyle), as well as the classic rogue tropes. (and probably more.... like I actually like the idea of a runway princess that's a rogue. skill increases and skill feats representing noble training and all that kind of stuff)

Most weapons that can be used with the class features of the class fit pretty nicely into the aesthetics and combat styles that are supported by the class feats.

[Sanityfaerie]

Arachnofiend wrote:

The dueling spear not being appropriate to Rogues is such a strange take to me. The longspear is already the most popular choice for a Ruffian.

I'm quite sure it is, and I even know why. I looked through the ruffian options in the Core Rulebook recently as part of helping someone build a character. Longspear had the best available stats by a fair margin.

I think that's a bit sad, really.

"Of course it's in-theme. Everyone is doing it." is not actually a strong argument to counter the concern that the rules might encourage behavior that was not in-theme.

[Arachnofiend]

Sanityfaerie wrote:

Arachnofiend wrote:

The dueling spear not being appropriate to Rogues is such a strange take to me. The longspear is already the most popular choice for a Ruffian.

I'm quite sure it is, and I even know why. I looked through the ruffian options in the Core Rulebook recently as part of helping someone build a character. Longspear had the best available stats by a fair margin.

I think that's a bit sad, really.

"Of course it's in-theme. Everyone is doing it." is not actually a strong argument to counter the concern that the rules might encourage behavior that was not in-theme.

I'm not sure what about the longspear is out of theme for the Ruffian. Not that that seems to matter you; if I were to think of the most on-theme weapon available for the subclass, it'd certainly be the knuckle dagger but apparently Rogues shouldn't get those.

[Karmagator]

Yes, technically this would be a buff. However, the buff is pretty minor in terms of power, if anything. As Squiggit correctly pointed out, the current selection already features a lot of the best weapons. First and foremost, it aims at removing unnecessary restrictions to character choices, which is always a good thing.

[Lucerious]

Agreed!

[Sanityfaerie]

Arachnofiend wrote:

I'm not sure what about the longspear is out of theme for the Ruffian. Not that that seems to matter you; if I were to think of the most on-theme weapon available for the subclass, it'd certainly be the knuckle dagger but apparently Rogues shouldn't get those.

...and since when is the knuckle dagger two-handed?

Sanityfaerie wrote:

Okay. How's this? Rogues get simples and martials for proficiency, but they're limited further in sneak attack - melee weapons have to be one-handed. Ranged weapons have to be one-handed, simple, or shortbows, and if they're thrown melee weapons, they have to be finesse or agile. Would that satisfy you?

I made that as a serious suggestion. I really do think that would be an improvement on the current state.

[Lollerabe]

I'd like to see more restrictions lifted in general. As long as it doesn't throw off the balance to much.

I don't see the need for ruffians to only be able to use simple weapons either. It's capped at a d8. Let my dwarf ruffian use a long hammer if I can get proficient.

Same with monk weapons. Just allow whatever weapon, but put a clause in that says; if wielded as a monk weapon, it's damage is a d8 if the weapon is normally a d8 or higher.

You wanna swing around a big maul as a monk ? Have at it. It's a d8 maul tho.

It seems like Paizo is trying to remove many legacy restrictions and allow for a broad range of concepts, so the few that are left just seem off.

I don't like rapiers and swords. I do however like rogues tho, throw a dog a bone.. or better yet a flail

[dmerceless]

Some things need a compromise. This is not one of those things. Seriously, just make the change. Investigator, the even less combat focused Rogue, has proficiency in all martial weapons. I think any argument for why Rogue shouldn't get them that doesn't boil down to "because I don't want them to and everyone needs to be forced to play my way" died the day that class got released.

[Onkonk]

I saw bombs being mentioned and all I can say is "yes, please". Paizo love using swarms in early level APs and rogues can do nothing to them except grab a coffee and wait for the others to deal with it. Precision Immunity is a whole other issue but being able to use bombs would actually make it so rogues can participate.

[WatersLethe]

Wizards and rogues should absolutely be upped to Simple and Martial proficiency respectively, and it should happen yesterday.