Rogue Design and Trapfinding: What do you think of these design choices?

[Celtavian]

I have two goals with the following changes:

1. Expand the options for parties to incorporate trapfinding without being pigeon-holed into playing a rogue. Allows players to maybe try an Inquisitor, Ranger, Bard, or Monk as a trapfinding class.

2. Make the rogue competitive with the other medium BAB secondary melee classes, so that people want to play them to level 20 and don't feel like they are not on par. Every medium BAB class usually gets a ton of very effective abilities, while the rogue relies on talents that are marginally effective compared to their medium BAB counterparts.


New Feat:

Trapfinding [General]: You gain Disable Device as a class skill. You can use Disable Device to disarm magical traps.


Changes to Rogue Class:

Good fort save.

Assassin's Accuracy: At 5th level rogues gain a +1 bonus on attack rolls when in position to sneak attack. This bonus increases by +1 every four levels past 5th. Increase range at which you can sneak attack by 10 feet per bonus increase.

Improved Evasion: Rogues gain improved evasion at 11th level.

Rogues gain Trapfinding feat as bonus feat at 1st level.

Trap Supremacy: At 1st level rogues add half their level to Perception checks to find traps and Disable Device checks.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

It's decent, I still think they could use more skill help. They have enough skill points, the problem is PF's system prevents them from becoming very good at a skill compared to other classes. Unless it's a dex skill, it's likely that another class wil surpass them at any given skill, even if said class doesn't get the +3 class skill bonus, by sheer ability score modifier alone (Rogues are MAD). In 3E, for example, Use Magic Device as a class skill really felt like a unique class feature. Even if the sorcerer maxed his ranks in it to levy his huge charisma, he'd be paying double (and barring human or a high int actually blowing ALL of his skill points into it) and his bonus would be half what rogue got from ranks, so eventully rogue would still surpass him. Nevermind in PF that is is a class skill for a sorc, even a Paladin w/o it as one will easily surpass the rogue at it.

I get that people thought the old class skill system was too punitive and such, and I do mostly like PF's changes to it. But don't try to tell me that it wasn't also a massive stealth nerf to Rogue (and Bard and Ranger).

So I'd say give them bonuses on selected skills. Maybe keep it simple and give a free Skill Focus every couple of levels. Just something...

EDIT: The part in sneak attack that says any sort of concealment prevents you from using it also needs to go. Only inability to see the target or total concealment should be enough. I saw Paizo designers say they'd support such a change. And then...instead of fixing the 3E system like PF was supposed to and issuing a simple eratta...they put it as a feat patch in the APG, which to add insult to injury has a BAB +1 requirement preventing rogues from taking it at level 1. Cause I feel like such a sneaky badass when my class doesn't function in a dark alley.

 

[Ryltar]

The houserule our group uses is just to switch out a 'minor' ability of the character in question for Trapfinding. For example, with all races that get an automatic check to search for secret doors, we replace that ability (e.g. Stonecunning) with Trapfinding if the group is in need of a rogue but no one wants to play one. In terms of power level, it's a minor buff, but the group appreciates having a trap-finding character, and so everyone is fine with it. Also, no one likes that auto-check thing; it's very counterintuitive.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Trapfinding as a feat is no problem and doesn't unbalance the game at all. I don't see trapfinding as being important unless you're playing a pretty specialized type of game, ad if you are, the DM should let the party have access to ways of dealing with traps.

As far as powering up the rogue I don't see much of a problem with those changes either, though I for my custom rogue class went for more of a crit-based route.

 

[MortonStromgal]

I always made trapfinding an available feat for people with 5 or more ranks in search and disable device. Tracking is a feat after all, trapfinding should be to.

 

[Volaran]

Tracking isn't a feat anymore in Pathfinder. It is a built-in function of the survival skill.

 

[Celtavian]

re

Talked to my players. I guess it is not offensive ineffectiveness that makes the rogue unattractive.

It's the following:

1. Abilities aren't interesting (aka powerful enough) compared to other classes.

2. Sneak attack is too situational and takes too long to set up. From their and my experience, by the time the rogue moves into position to flank so they can sneak attack, the monsters are already dead. The melee types do so much damage that the things they fight die so quickly even a round or two to set up often leaves the rogue unable to get off more than one sneak attack.

Throw in things like difficult terrain which further hampers movement and positioning, and you have a class that rarely gets to shine with their best ability.

I guess that is what turns my players off to the rogue. I'll have to think about how to correct that.

 

[Ryltar]

With regard to 1., well, to each his own I guess. I've never had a problem with the Rogue's abilities.

Regarding 2., I think that this is just part of the class design. If you want to go the way of the combat-effective rogue, the one who goes for all sneak attack, all the time, then you will have to design your character under the following premises:

a) maximum mobility. 30 ft. movement is the least you need to have when going for melee; less is okay when building a ranged attacker.
b) no fancy three-weapon-fighting stuff; just go for one weapon (because it has to hit in order to deal damage).
c) player must be willing to play tactically.

In my experience, many players have a misinformed view of what the Rogue actually is (as a class), which is at least in part influenced by their depiction in various video games. The rogue is NOT a two-weapon fighter that can hold his own (and throw some sneak attack in the mix). The rogue, as written, is not even necessarily a class focused on combat. He is a support character, pure and simple, and he can work as long as there is another character that draws enemies so the Rogue can flank around and harass them. I've seen more than one player get killed because they used their rogues to charge into the enemy's midst, then getting hacked to pieces while waiting for the 20-ft-movement fighter in heavy plate to catch up.

Finally, regarding the view that SA is too situational, I feel that Paizo did a good job expanding the scope of sneak attacks so that the rogue isn't as automatically useless as he was in 3.5e sometimes.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

A rogue supports in what sense? Any other melee class can provide support in melee just as well or better than him. With Pathfinder's skill system, a party can get by without a dedicated skill monkey, and individual specialized team members are even likely to have higher skill mods than a single more versatile skill monkey could manage anyway. What's something the Rogue can do for an adventuring party that some other class couldn't do as well or better?

Sorry, "being an extra action per combat round" doesn't count, anyone can fill that quota.

 

[Celtavian]

re

Ryltar,

What do you mean the rogue is a support class? What do they do that supports a party besides find traps?

The scouting can be equally well done by a ranger, bard, monk, or inquisitor with more combat efficiency?

Are you going to bring up sense motive or perception? The monk's focus on wisdom usually gives them a higher perception. And most of the other classes listed have perceptions equally as high or higher due to stat focus and special abilities that better boost perception along with stealth.

And bards and inquisitors with spells and special abilities to boost groups far exceed the rogue as a support class. And there isn't much better scouting than letting an Inquisitor concentrate on a room and detect alignment locating all sources of alignment aka creatures and noting where they are. And a monk can stealth a lot faster than a rogue and has a sick AC usually and great saves, so if they get spotted they can get back faster and have a far better chance of surviving.

I don't see the rogue as much of a support class compared to other classes with comparable combat ability. Especially as is with the low saves.

Why wouldn't you play a different class if you wanted to be support that has much better abilities than the rogue as well as two good saves?

If the rogue is a support class versus a damage dealer, it's one of the poorest designed support classes in the game that offers the least amount of benefit compared to other support classes.

And if it's a combat class, then it's also a pretty poorly designed combat class.

All in all the rogue doesn't have much to offer when you look at how much the game designers gave the other classes competing for playing time with the rogue. The sole benefit of a rogue is trapfinding. That is the only thing a rogue is far superior at to other classes by virtue of its design.