Magical Rogues? [Rogue Alteration]

[NineThePuma]

So, my DM poked me (since I'm the most mechanically fluent in the game) about giving Rogues a small boost by basically copying Ranger/Paladin casting over to the Rogue, making it Int Based, and having it draw from the Assassin spell list. I opened my mouth thought for a second, and then said that I'd have to do some looking into the assassin spell list before I could comment.

What're the playground's thoughts?

[Zaq]

I do assume you're already familiar with this (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20040723b) little beauty?

[NineThePuma]

I am, but I don't want to bias my DM for it based on "ZOMG, PSIONICS!!!!<3~" because, frankly, if he could kill spell casting and replace it legitimately, he would.

The question is more because our local rogues have had a bit of trouble getting themselves into a position to use Sneak Attack properly, I think. I've not really been paying too much attention to their DPS.

[Coidzor]

Well, I believe there's a primer about how to get the enemy flat-footed in order to sneak attack them floating around these boards if you can get them to look at a specific link.

Otherwise.. Assassin's spell list does have a lot of what a rogue would be interested in, yes.

Really though, if you added in a little bit of utility and mostly went for mobility with a smattering of things to do in order to provide support/get off sneak attack/improve sneak attack you'd probably get the magic that a rogue'd want. Well, other than GMW or Holy/Unholy/Anarchic/Axiomatic Weapon for TWF purposes or things like that which I can't decide upon a good term to describe...

[NineThePuma]

What kind of utility?

[Curmudgeon]

It seems like a pretty straightforward change. The Assassin spell list is mostly what Rogues want, and you'd just be slowing down the progression to 3 spells per day each at spell levels 1-4 by 20th Rogue level instead of 10th Assassin level. The are three issues that I can see needing attention:

How do you do the Spells Known class feature? Rangers have access to the full range of spells, and that's probably too strong. You can stretch out the Assassin table to learn new spells of the next level at the same time they can cast spells at that level on the Ranger table (levels 4, 8, 11, 14), so the new table would be something like:

Spells Known
{table=head] Level | 1st | 2nd | 3rd | 4th
1 | ─ | ─ | ─ | ─
2 | ─ | ─ | ─ | ─
3 | ─ | ─ | ─ | ─
4 | 2 | ─ | ─ | ─
5 | 2 | ─ | ─ | ─
6 | 3 | ─ | ─ | ─
7 | 3 | ─ | ─ | ─
8 | 3 | 2 | ─ | ─
9 | 3 | 3 | ─ | ─
10 | 4 | 3 | ─ | ─
11 | 4 | 3 | 2 | ─
12 | 4 | 3 | 3 | ─
13 | 4 | 4 | 3 | -
14 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2
15 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2
16 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3
17 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3
18 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3
19 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4
20 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 [/table]

What to do if you have Rogue + Assassin levels, because the spell list would be the same but the progression would happen at a different rate. The options are to track the spells separately for each class (easy, but perhaps too powerful), or use Rogue + (Assassin x 2) to determine the new effective Rogue level for spellcasting only.
What, if anything, does the Rogue give up to gain this spellcasting? There are only two abilities that progress throughout the Rogue levels: sneak attack and trap sense. The Psychic Rogue (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20040723b) approach is to reduce sneak attack (a strong ability) by 30%. Since that's been done, if you're going to trade something for Rogue spellcasting, I would recommend trap sense. Trading trap sense for spells would mean you couldn't take the Penetrating Strike or Death's Ruin ACFs, so it would indirectly impair your sneak attack capability.

[NineThePuma]

This is looking to be a straight buff of the rogue, rather than an ACF.

I'd honestly go with the Ranger casting method, personally, as that fits better for the Rogue IMHO.

[Manateee]

It's not going to be all that different from the Spellthief, except with bigger numbers and a couple ACFs.

[TroubleBrewing]

That and 8+Int mod skills, and Rogue special abilities.

[Psyren]

This is looking to be a straight buff of the rogue, rather than an ACF.

Is that so bad though? It's T4. People are straight-buffing Warlocks, Dragon Shamans and Truenamers too.

[Amoren]

I'm all for making rogues stronger! :D

Although I'd also like giving them that skill trick that allows sleight of hand checks to avoid attacks of opportunity for spellcasting, though. Conserve four skill points and get extra mileage out of Sleight of Hand!

[Urpriest]

The Assassin list is about as broad as the Ranger list, so I don't see a problem with giving the Rogue full-list casting of it.

[Dalek-K]

I hate to be that guy... but go get Tome of Battle and give your rogue the swordsage maneuvers know, manuevers readied and stances known. You will not have to get rid of any rogue stuff and you won't go over tier 3.

I just picked up ToB with a friend and it really makes melee shine without much work.

[Curmudgeon]

I hate to be that guy... but go get Tome of Battle and give your rogue the swordsage maneuvers know, manuevers readied and stances known. You will not have to get rid of any rogue stuff and you won't go over tier 3.
I'd appreciate it if you could explain the rationale for your suggestion. The Rogue isn't well suited to melee combat (low HP, weak armor) without an unusual build emphasis (and consequent decrease in the class's skillful characteristics ─ generally speaking, much of what distinguishes Rogues from other classes). Rogues are better for ranged work and attacking from hiding. Assassin's spells don't particularly emphasize melee combat. So why would you recommend a change that (a) doesn't mesh well with the class, and (b) isn't anywhere close to accomplishing what the OP's class alteration would? :smallconfused:

[NineThePuma]

Further, ToB is actually on the table already; this is to help get them on equal footing with the superior in almost every way swordsages.

[Cieyrin]

My question is why alter the Rogue when you could just point at Spellthief and say: "It's already been done." You just take from certain schools off the wizard list instead of off the assassin list.

On the other hand, making a magic Psionic Rogue does open the door for Master Spellthief shenanigans, which is...interesting as well.

[NineThePuma]

Cause we don't have complete adventurer handy?

[Hiro Protagonest]

Cause we don't have complete adventurer handy?

And because spellthief is still tier 4.

[NineThePuma]

And its mechanics are a bit odd anyway.

[deuxhero]

Cause we don't have complete adventurer handy?

It's in an excerpt or preview (forget).

[NineThePuma]

Hey, I'm not the one who voiced it, and I'm trying to get opinions on its balance. Spellthief isn't a class we have hard copy of, so we can't use it (and we don't really want to use it anyway, because clearly there's an option we can find (Int-based Ranger casting from Assassin spell list) that does not require us to grab an additional source.

[Urpriest]

Hey, I'm not the one who voiced it, and I'm trying to get opinions on its balance. Spellthief isn't a class we have hard copy of, so we can't use it (and we don't really want to use it anyway, because clearly there's an option we can find (Int-based Ranger casting from Assassin spell list) that does not require us to grab an additional source.

Plus, Spelltheif would be weaker and more frustrating than what you're proposing anyway.

[Psyren]

Hey, I'm not the one who voiced it, and I'm trying to get opinions on its balance. Spellthief isn't a class we have hard copy of, so we can't use it (and we don't really want to use it anyway, because clearly there's an option we can find (Int-based Ranger casting from Assassin spell list) that does not require us to grab an additional source.

That's fair, but in case you were curious or might want to change your mind, Spellthief is online too. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20050107a)

[Cieyrin]

And because spellthief is still tier 4.

Last I checked, so is Rogue and Psychic Rogue. I don't see what bringing that up does for us here.


Hey, I'm not the one who voiced it, and I'm trying to get opinions on its balance. Spellthief isn't a class we have hard copy of, so we can't use it (and we don't really want to use it anyway, because clearly there's an option we can find (Int-based Ranger casting from Assassin spell list) that does not require us to grab an additional source.

Fair enough. Just putting that out there, wasn't aware you didn't have access.

[Urpriest]

Last I checked, so is Rogue and Psychic Rogue. I don't see what bringing that up does for us here.


Psyrogue is Tier 3, Lurk is the one that's Tier 4.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Last I checked, so is Rogue and Psychic Rogue. I don't see what bringing that up does for us here.

Um, the point is to bring rogue up to the level of swordsage.


Further, ToB is actually on the table already; this is to help get them on equal footing with the superior in almost every way swordsages.

[Lonely Tylenol]

I would just give the Rogue Spellthief casting (which is to say, 1-4th casting of sorcerer/wizard spells from the abjuration, divination, enchantment, illusion, and transmutation schools, with Paladin progression). Whether you make it CHA-based or INT-based is up to you.

EDIT: And use the Spellthief "Spells Known" chart, which is basically Curmudgeon's, save for the following (in bold):


Spells Known
{table=head] Level | 1st | 2nd | 3rd | 4th
1 | ─ | ─ | ─ | ─
2 | ─ | ─ | ─ | ─
3 | ─ | ─ | ─ | ─
4 | 2 | ─ | ─ | ─
5 | 2 | ─ | ─ | ─
6 | 3 | ─ | ─ | ─
7 | 3 | ─ | ─ | ─
8 | 4 | 2 | ─ | ─
9 | 4 | 2 | ─ | ─
10 | 4 | 3 | ─ | ─
11 | 4 | 3 | 2 | ─
12 | 4 | 4 | 3 | ─
13 | 4 | 4 | 3 | -
14 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2
15 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3
16 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3
17 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4
18 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4
19 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4
20 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 [/table]

[Cieyrin]

Psyrogue is Tier 3, Lurk is the one that's Tier 4.

Is there a more recent list of the Tier system that I'm not aware of? The latest one I can find is this one (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=658.0) and neither Psyrogue or Lurk is listed. :smallconfused:

[Urpriest]

Is there a more recent list of the Tier system that I'm not aware of? The latest one I can find is this one (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=658.0) and neither Psyrogue or Lurk is listed. :smallconfused:

Sorry I intended to say "is commonly regarded as", they aren't in the official Tier System, but most discussions I've seen end up pegging them there.

[Cieyrin]

Sorry I intended to say "is commonly regarded as", they aren't in the official Tier System, but most discussions I've seen end up pegging them there.

Fair enough. JaronK hasn't seem to have updated the list in the last 3 years, it seems like, anyways.

[Coidzor]

Plus, Spelltheif would be weaker and more frustrating than what you're proposing anyway.

I must admit, I was wondering about that, I'd always thought Spellthieves had like, really crap casting.

[Urpriest]

I must admit, I was wondering about that, I'd always thought Spellthieves had like, really crap casting.

Oh well that's true, but it's still Rangeresque. It's just that the Ranger is a full-list caster with spells set to a lower level than they would be for others, while the Spellthief is spontaneous and draws from Wiz/Sorc spells, which are generally at a level calibrated around access at Wizard casting levels. The proposed fix nicely sidesteps these two weaknesses.

[JackRackham]

I think giving them access to the Assassin list would work. Maybe throw in grease as well (I don't think that's on the list as-is). Maybe Glibness, too? An alternative would be leaving the class as-is, but giving them access to the shadow hand school and basing the DCs off INT.

[Chronos]

Another thing most variant rogues (Spellthief, Psychic Rogue, Assassin, etc.) give up is some skill points: Rogues get 8, but almost all other skillful classes get 6. Yeah, you can still get most of the skills you want (especially if you have extra incentive to pump Int), but it still gives the rogue something to call its own.

[Thurbane]

It might do a little to fix the disparity between Rogues, and their replacements (Beguiler, Factotum).