Looking for something Bilbo-ish for hobbits to be.

Idea: Start with Rogue

REMOVE: Sneak Attack, Special Abilities

ADD: Camouflage, Hide in Plain Sight (at fixed levels)

QUESTION: Would having all three saves be 'good' balance out here? Or is that too much compensation for losing the two SA's?

QUESTION 2: If it is too much, if you also dropped it to 6+INT skills, would that even up for 3 good saves?

I await the replies of 3.5 heads.

Removing SA fucks the rogue very badly above about 5th or 6th level. Removing Special Abilities removes Improved Evasion, their primary defensive advantage at mid to high levels. This character is dead meat in mid-level combat and higher as written, and won't be very effective at low level combat unless the DM makes sure to fudge things for them.

I would just add Hide in Plain Sight and Camouflage to the Special Abilities list (try the Wilderness Rogue variant from Unearthed Arcana, which does just that) rather than removing anything. I would not get rid of sneak attack, but if I did, the Rogue should get some sort of major bonus to compensate - you've removed not only their main combat option, but most of the feat chains intended to be used by Rogues.

I can't see why anyone would choose the variant, even with three good saves, unless there was almost no combat in your game.  Hiding for rogues is only powerful if you combine it with sneak attack. A hobbit rogue sniping without sneak attack might as well not bother. If you're not planning to attack, just scouting, you can simulate all the hiding abilities with invisibility.

If I wanted to play that, I'd just play a Monk, which is way better anyhow.

Who would like to play Bilbo when you can play The Mouser? That's right. Perverts.

Are you sure you don't want to play Rules Cyclopedia D&D?  

Without SA, the rogue will have some empty levels -- and suck in combat. This class will be rather defensive, more so than any other core class. I'd suggest something less drastic.

Hide in Plain Sight isn't as good as it looks, especially for a rogue who can get by with good application of bluff or magical help. It's almost as bad as Mobility.

A simple version would be the feat rogue from UA (gets fighter feat access, loses SA). Use your normal feats for Iron Will and Great Fortitude and you're half-way there, especially at lower levels.

Other than that, I'd say that 6 skill points and a slight loss of abilities would suffice. I'd say change the sneak attack to the Ninja's "Sudden Strike" ability, i.e. just like a sneak attack, but flanking doesn't qualifiy anymore.

I came to a similar conclusion last night - even if technically 'balanced' with three good saves, a character like this would not be any fun to play.

I'm dealing with a level progression capped at 12, so what I'm thinking is putting in Camouflage at 5 and Hide in Plain Sight at 10 in place of the special ability at 10, maybe slight changes in the skill list along the lines of the Wilderness Rogue. The WR makes you take both of those as separate feats.

Although, hm, Improved Evasion is a big deal and almost everyone takes it at 10. And it fits a halfling. So I could just go btb and be done with it.

One thought did come out of this....how to do Bard's shot on Smaug? Maybe it's a feat of Bilbo's....

Describe Weakness
Prerequisite: Sneak Attack
Effect: A Rogue with Describe Weakness who makes an Aid Another roll in combat may transfer his Sneak Attack bonus to the attacker in question for that attack only.

(Have to figure out whether this stacks or substitutes for the regular +2, etc. Of course we've still got the problem that Smaug was more than 30' away, but it's a start.)

There's really no way to do Bard's shot in D&D without a very powerful arrow. All the sneak attack in the world won't drop an ancient dragon in one shot. A death attack with a rolled 1 on the fortitude check is the most likely result.

And the feat is way to good. The usual scenario will have a rogue and figher flanking, with the fighter having a much higher chance of actually hitting.

Sosthenes,

Good point about the flanking. Rogue's giving up the attack to do the Aid Another though, it's a standard action.

Here are some restrictions that might make it work better:

- only transfers the SA bonus for one attack (I was assuming this before, but best make it explicit)

- Rogue has to be adjacent to character he's aiding this way (whispering in his ear, etc.) - that deals with your flanking problem

- The Aid Another adds the SA damage instead of the regular +2, not in addition to it.

Now at high level you're still going to get a much higher plus with the rogue helping the fighter, but you're also giving up a round of rogue attacks to get it, so I don't think that's actually very unbalanced at all.

Quote from: Calithena- only transfers the SA bonus for one attack (I was assuming this before, but best make it explicit)
- Rogue has to be adjacent to character he's aiding this way (whispering in his ear, etc.) - that deals with your flanking problem
- The Aid Another adds the SA damage instead of the regular +2, not in addition to it.

This makes it rather useless. There aren't many cases where this actually helps the characters. Surprise and flat-footed would qualify. I'm not sure this was the case in Bard's shot.

And in normal situations, it really wouldn't be worth it. Fighters don't usually surprise as often as rogue's do, and both being high enough in initative so that the rogue acts before the fighter who acts before the enemy won't occur often enough to make the feat worthwile.

With a single attack and allowing flanking, it's actually not too bad. This would be rather neat for the less fighting-optimized Kender/halfling character. Even without flanking, he could do a bluff (to taunt the enemy) who then gets eligible for being sneak attacked. Actually a rather nice combo action.

Full attacks might be possible, if the fighter takes a similar feat. One has to calculate some things whether this would be too powerful or not.