Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder Rogue's spell-casting abilities

[BryonD]

Well, there are those crazy designers and developers from Wizards of the Coast, those certainly have the expertise...

Are they working on it? I'd love to see something that looked like a good solution from them.
All I've seen is that 4e, err, stuff.

Otherwise, I am not really sure if the Rogue needs the ability to cast a few spells - I mean, what's his Use Magic Device skill for? But on the other hand, it probably doesn't hurt that much, and it's certainly forced upon anyone, unlike Ranger or Paladin spells...

Need?

 

[Treebore]

UMD is as far as I want to go with thieves casting spells. Works pretty awesomely, in fact. I don't see a need to go further with that, so I wouldn't allow this feature.

 

[BryonD]

UMD is as far as I want to go with thieves casting spells. Works pretty awesomely, in fact. I don't see a need to go further with that, so I wouldn't allow this feature.

Perfectly reasonable.
There are certainly more than plenty alternatives still available.

Though for me a rogue using a 1st level spell 2/day is a whole lot less flashy than a rogue with a wand of fireball. So I don't see the big deal as long as a story basis for the spell-like ability is included. And that is easy enough to provide.

People seem to think this means: "They are making Rogues into spell casters". This is less true than it would be to say that WotC made 3E fighters into gnomish hook hammer fighters. The options are there to make that build if it appeals to you, but there are really much more potent options available. And the hook hammer guy could at least advance further with his selection.

 

[Klaus]

I'd rather see a system that fixes the multiclass caster problem rather than offer band-aid fixes (which also looks like what 4E is doing with multiclass casters).

Overall, my impression of the Pathfinder is that it's a great resource for class options but it's essentially avoiding most of the significant core problems.

I offered advice at the Pathfinder boards of addind a Magic Rating (like the one in UA) to all classes. That way it can add up just like BAB.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I offered advice at the Pathfinder boards of addind a Magic Rating (like the one in UA) to all classes. That way it can add up just like BAB.

Yep, that sounds like a good start.
My biggest problem in trying to make something like this work was that casters have different spells per day advancements, and I think you need those stacking, too. It's okay for buffing to rely on lower level spells, but attack spells need to advance with levels, since you need the higher damage and DCs they offer.

 

[Hairfoot]

I really like them as options.
There are a ton of options available, and you could make a hundred great rogues without ever touching these choices.
But if you want to make a dabbler-rogue, then that option is there as well.
If the DM doesn't want them, just say so up front.

My thoughts, too.

 

[Aus_Snow]

On second thoughts, although I can still see the argument for it, I don't much like it at all.

This is - to me - exactly the kind of thing multiclassing (or 'class dipping' in this instance) is for.

Unless they are removing or further restricting doing that, which at this stage doesn't appear to be the case, then I would recommend that they don't give Rogues splashes of Wizard abilities, even as options. Assuming the Wizard class will still be there, that is.

And I don't think there's any doubt about that.

 

[Kaisoku]

Dipping in another class gives way too much added baggage. Wizard levels give you Schools of magic, far more casting than you wanted/needed with the one level, and class features that weren't wanted (familiar or bonded item). Saves and BAB are also affected..

It's like saying "I want to learn how to cook spaghetti and maybe lasagna", and then going to a cooking school to become a Chef, instead of just watching an Italian cuisine TV cooking show for pointers...


As feats (because that's what they basically are), they are fine. They are balanced for the games that want dabbling in the smallest way without changing class, and can be banned alongside UMD for those campaign worlds that don't like non-spellcaster magic.

There's suggestions to open up some of the talents for Rogues to be full blown feats, kind of like how Fighter bonus feats are just combat feats. This would mean anyone can be a Dabbler without class change, the Rogue just gets extra feat choices to choose them if he wants.

 

[Kheti sa-Menik]

I'd rather see a system that fixes the multiclass caster problem rather than offer band-aid fixes (which also looks like what 4E is doing with multiclass casters).

<snip>.

Casters under 3.5 needed to be nerfed heavily anyway. I don't see that there is a "multiclass caster" problem. You surrender some spellcasting to enter another class. As you should have to. So in my opinion and a lot of other folks' opinions, that isn't the problem that should be addressed. I think there needs to be a focus on NOT giving out magical abilities like candy. The rogue should IN NO WAY get spells in any way as even an option.

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

I think there needs to be a focus on NOT giving out magical abilities like candy. The rogue should IN NO WAY get spells in any way as even an option.

Yep.

I disliked the spell-casting versions of the Ranger (and, to a lesser extent, the pally) for the same reasons.

I see this as an unfortunate design turn by PF. While I understand many of the PF changes seem to be geared toward making 3E more like 4E, this is one area where I wish they would not have gone that route. The "powers" of every class in 4E worries me if the atmosphere it portrays is "everyone's a caster", just by switching "spell" with "power."

Only time - and gaming sessions - will tell.

Wis