|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
It seems to be a good diference. BEsides the Skills digference (wich was terrible desing), I think fighter and barbarians where more or less balanced against each other in Core. The strongerst martial was probably the paladin.
K177Y C47 wrote:
At the low levels? I doubt it. And some enemies can die, they can still be other enemies.
waves of enemies are hte better against spellcasters, single enemies waiting to be balsted into oblivion do not work in PF. And that is asumming the wizard won the initiative and did not get surprise of course.
Yes, full BAB and D10 make rogues stronger but I heavily disagree about it.
In my experience as a player and as a DM most people do not play rogues to be a fighter.
I think rangers and in the furutre salyers will cover that niche pretty well.
What the rogue need are more roguish things. Rogues need to do amazing things with his skills, in and out of combat plus other nice things.
Why is that? it would be like the easiest errate ever. They have errated bigger things in the past.
Loosing half the paizo customers? really?. "look, they give the fighter better skills, damn paizo, I will never buy any other of their books".
There are several reason actually.
1) Magic, perhaps I do not want it.
Are you saying that rangers are actually better than fighters, and that that is a good thing that nobody should complain or something?
The thug ability to shaken/sickening their targets, I believe.
IMHO, the sad thing is that Rogue DPR is basically fine. their DPR is what is supposed to be, mediocre but situationally good.
The problems is that rogue doe snot really have more combat options. Rogues are supposed to be clever combatants but they always flank + sneak attack, always (unless you are scout, but then charge + sneak attack)
The bard can attack, the bard can use performance, the bard can cast spells (every one is a unique in combat option) "Do I cast haste or I cast something else?"
Player: I am playing a rogue to be a smart combatant, that prefer his wit over his brawn.
It is very disconcerting to be reading the forums and see that there is a culture that seems to despise what people are calling "traditional" play when the traditional playstyle seems to be the only thing I've experienced outside the forums.
You misunderstood like everything. People do not react to your playstyle, people react to your high horse of cailling it the "normal" and good style while the others are the powergamesn number crunching bad roleplayers.
Not particulary the best option. There is a ioun stone and wayfinder for that.
I really dislike the standard suprestition chain + invulnerable rager + beast totem + come and get me build
Seriously dislike it.
It is just by far the strongest build. You try to build a barbarian without those and you end to be MASSIVELY inferior to the standard barbarian.
I dislike such imbalance among options.
Leonardo Trancoso wrote:
How this is suppsoed to be reconciliated with the "I am the master of scouting?"
The ranger can scout and fight 1x1 if need, does the rogeu beyond the sneak attack surprise round?
Karl Hammarhand wrote:
Why would someone choose an RPG with thousands of pages of rules and mechanical options, if not to play with that material?
Prince of Knives wrote:
This. Lets face it. THis is a game heavily on rules. It is understanfdable that people will use those rules.
And, I agree with prince of knives, there are a lot of ways a character can fail, and I mean FAIL from its creation, PF is filled with horrible horrible options and a good portion of system mastery is to avoid them.
I once saw a 12 str, 14 dex monk who have weapon finesse as his chosen feat, the other feat was the awful scorpion style. I Suppose it was very thematically. But then that monk was out DPR by my crossbow wielding sorcerer and the bow/rapier user bard.
The guy was sad with his character. What I was supposed to tell him, "dude, be a normal player and just have fun"?.
I would be more or less happy if the existence of the rogue do not make the investigaror and the slayer bad classes.
It was just a playtest but what happened to the investigator was not good.
Inquisitors. Rangers . alchemist.
Actually, there is a good rogue build. It is Str Thugh/Scout (of course) that have a couple of levels as a fighter for armor and weapon proficiencies and a couple of feats.
Then that silly feat/(trait?) that let you use blugoening weapon to deal non lethal damage and the sap master/sap adept. Cornugon smash for considerably more fun.
It have good DPR and AC, and the usal skill points of rogue.
That is the only really mechanically superior rogue build I have seen. it is absurly silly fluffwise though.
Enter the ranger, see the situation, the ranger start laughing.
Remy Balster wrote:
They only suck if your games revolve entirely around combat.
COnsidering that the inquisitor and bards are flat out better out of combat, I would say that "yes". Rogues sucks.
I even would say more. Paizo do not care about rogues, purporsely or not they have been putting nails in the rogue coffing book after book.
It is somewhat funny how any of the3 problematic classes stop any improvement in the others 2.
Fighters can not have more skill points because rogue.
Rogues and monk can not have more in combat usefulness because fighters.
meanwhile a ranger, paladin and barbarian fan have been slipping then powercreep in every book since core.