Stop the 1st level Rogue

[Darklone]

I had the same problem some time ago and that's why:
- My PCs start with an NPC class ...
- Skillpoints for the first two levels are doubled.

I changed feat aquisition and attribute increases as well, but that's another point. The big advantage of starting as NPC class: Style. Wizards e.g. are usually apprentices (Experts with high alchemy and knowledge stuff) or adepts (some curative magic).

The PCs do get less skillpoints (I could double the skillpoints for the third level as well), but since they get an extra talent feat at level 1, it's not bad

Feats that change BAB: Big nono.

 

[Vlos]

Now is this for a first level toon or a higher starting level?

If the later, then background may be reason enough. For example, why would a high mage bother or even have the ability to learn rogue skills? But if a rogue stole a book, and learned how to read it then become a mage.

Now also a Rogue becoming a mage may not be looked on by other mages as a "true" mage or a lessor being. Where as a Mage, secretly learning the rogue skills, would be considered an equal by other mages, as long as they didn't learn of his shady ties.

Also a Lord type toon(probably fighter based) starting as a Rogue? Probably not.

So it could be just a matter of the characters goals. ALso as Steffen sort of pointed to, just not a spell book, but access to schools or sources of magic training. Again not a big issue starting above first, but could add some adventures or make it more difficult for them if they acquire it later on in life.

As Darklone stated I have also run a campaign with PCs starting with a basic NPC class. I liked the flavor of it, but causes problems sometimes when toons get to Epic levels and BAB and such.

 

[jerichothebard]

I think one major balancing factor is that rogues don't get the +1 BAB at first level, which will limit their feat choice. They will not be able to pick up power attack until 2nd level at the earliest.

 

[Malin Genie]

Rather then give extra powers, try my method (oh god, I'm a commercial!)

....at 1st level, you get x2 the normal # of skill points.
....and do the same at 2nd and 3rd level.
...so at 3rd level you have x6 skill points - the same you would have gotten if you had followed the core x4 at 1st and x1 at 2nd and 3rd.

Advantage: you do not cash in at 1st level for high skill points.
Disadvantage: you do not cash in at 1st level for high skill points.


BB

I've used (and recommended on these very boards!) exactly the same method, and feel it works well.

 

[Liolel]

Edit: Deleted as I misunderstood the topic.

 

[Darklone]

Liolel, you're missing that he mentioned any multiclass combination with rogue would be stupid not to start with rogue.

Though I've seen some bbn2/rogues who started with barbarian levels for the initial hitpoint boost.

 

[Liolel]

Dah. I guess I need to read more carefully next time. Sorry about that.

 

[ARandomGod]

In general, you're right, you get shafted if you start with anything but rogue and you wanted to have any levels of rogue. Then again, you also get a big one the wrong way if you never plan on taking rogue but want your fighter to sprinkle in a few ranger levels. Should've thought of that at first!


Actually, IMC we already have a very simple house rule that completely takes care of this issue. At first level you get 4x the skill points you'd normally get in a class. This is normal. Now, whenever you multiclass, look at all other classes you've ever taken. If this new multiclass has more base skillpoints than any previous class levels, you get skill points for that level minus the difference, and then four times the difference.

IE, start as a fighter, 2 base for a total of 8
Multiclass into barb, 4 base, for a total of 2 + (2x4), or 10
Multiclass into cleric (why? For illustrative reasons only) 2 base for a total of 2
Multiclass into rogue. 8 base, for a total of 4+ (4*4), or 20.

Using this relatively simple house rule you always get the maximum number of skill points that you would have gotten, and makes you less likely to simply throw away the fighter who later wants some rogue skills. Under RAW you might as well do just that. Under this house rule, there are even reasons you might want to start rogue later.

 

[Majere]

No your all missing the point
The balance is coming from the fact that skills are basically useless for guilds not rougues.

Example:
Spellcaster X/Rougue 1
The spell caster gives up a spell caster level and ever other level is level of spells behind. A mages/cleric/druid with the spell progression of a sorcerer !! Gah and for what ? An extra hp or two ? Sure you get a bazillion skill points but what are they going to be spent on ? You only need spellcraft,concentration and a couple of knowledge skills.

Example
Fighter X/ Rogue 1
Your now 1 BAB behind and one feat behind, given that weapon focus is +1 BAB you are two feats behind in effect. In return you have a bazillionpoints.. to spend on what ? Your a fighter, you hit things. You might want a bit of climb, or swim but n the end are the skill points really worth two feats ? No not really.

I could go on.
The point is that only 2/3 classess use more than 1/2 skills. Namely rogue,ranger and monk. For other classess skill points simply are not as usefull as actual levels in the class.

Majere

 

[ARandomGod]

No your all missing the point
The balance is coming from the fact that skills are basically useless for guilds not rougues.

Example:
Spellcaster X/Rougue 1
The spell caster gives up a spell caster level and ever other level is level of spells behind. A mages/cleric/druid with the spell progression of a sorcerer !! Gah and for what ? An extra hp or two ? Sure you get a bazillion skill points but what are they going to be spent on ? You only need spellcraft,concentration and a couple of knowledge skills.

Example
Fighter X/ Rogue 1
Your now 1 BAB behind and one feat behind, given that weapon focus is +1 BAB you are two feats behind in effect. In return you have a bazillionpoints.. to spend on what ? Your a fighter, you hit things. You might want a bit of climb, or swim but n the end are the skill points really worth two feats ? No not really.

I could go on.
The point is that only 2/3 classess use more than 1/2 skills. Namely rogue,ranger and monk. For other classess skill points simply are not as usefull as actual levels in the class.

Majere

Perhaps, perhaps... perhaps.
Of course, I believe that this post was written from the perspective of someone who was planning on taking rogue at some time in his build. Therefore the skills do matter. Sure, a fighter X rogue 1 is missing some bab. But a Fighter4 Ranger 7 Barb 5 Rogue 4 is only missing one BAB. And he's gotten some nice class skills for that sacrifice. And he'd be screwed if he wanted ... for roleplaying reasons, to start the build as a fighter.
Now, sure, there are arguements saying starting as a barb for the HP boost would be the way to go. But if you do want skills...

And many campaigns are very skill driven

If you want and like skills, if they're encouraged and rewarded in the game you're in, we'll, you're royally screwed if you don't start as a rogue at level one. And you're sill using the levels either way. But... well, I personally don't see why it should be so very harmful to start out as a fighter, and pick up rogue skills later. Why is the later rogue hurt so much more than the later fighter?

And sure, many non-rogue buildsd don't care. But then, by definition a build with a rogue in it does care. And this penalty for not starting out as a rogue, where skills are more than 1/2 the class, is tantamount to saying that you don't get the first bonus fighter feat unless you start a fighter at first level. Or you don't get your first rage if you don't start as a barbarian. Etc.