Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Ultimate Combat: The Ninja


Paizo Products

251 to 300 of 313 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Ooo, another nuance to the rogue HiPS ability. Its an (Ex) ability, rather than the (Su) shadow dancer/assassin version. That means its not detectable by detect magic and not susceptible to anti-magic or dead magic zones.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
seekerofshadowlight wrote:


I really do not see how this does anything but boost the rogue.

Nerfing the ninja does not equal boosting the rogue. The core rogue (or do you call them vanilla rogue?) won't gain any new powers or skills just because you split the ninja in two ' archetypes'. The core rogue won't be more powerful vs. the rest of the classes just because you decided the ninja is too powerful and needs a nerf.

I would keep the Ninja as it is and spend some time adding new stuff to the rogue, but that's me.

Some day, when I have the time and energy, I will create new thread where I will go into details why I think rogue archetypes, or any archetype, doesn't add versatility/ variation to a core class. But so far people seems to like archetypes so I guess I'm a minority. I'm just a bit sad Paizo don't spend more energy tweaking, boosting or fixing the core classes.

When someone wants more out of the rogue (or any class) and Pazio's answer is, "hey you can play another class instead. We call them archetypes", is not want all of us want.

When a class has a flaw, weakness or an ability that doesn't do what people wants it to do, we get archetypes instead of a fix. If we got the fix and the archetypes it would be something else.
Archetype is just a word. remove some features and add some new. The ninja might just as well be called a rogue archetype. An urban ranger might also be played as a rogue. I know the urban ranger isn't a rogue, but for some it might actually be closer to a rogue than some of the rogue archetypes. A rogue archetype doesn't fix the core rogue it's just an option playing something resembling a rouge with other features.
That's what I feel your solution is. More archetypes without fixing the core problem and the problem is the rogue, the core rogue.

Archetypes doesn't give the core rogue (or any core class) a broader palled it just gives the player another pallet. Most people seems to like it, so I guess Paizo will go with this tactic. I'm also guessing I won't be able to change your mind.

Osirion

Zark wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:


I really do not see how this does anything but boost the rogue.

Nerfing the ninja does not equal boosting the rogue. The core rogue (or do you call them vanilla rogue?) won't gain any new powers or skills just because you split the ninja in two ' archetypes'. The core rogue won't be more powerful vs. the rest of the classes just because you decided the ninja is too powerful and needs a nerf.

How is what I said I was doing Nerfing the Ninja? You can still make the book version. Take my Ninja archetype and the Mystic archetype and then select the Rogue talents you want. Looks just like the written version.

The only diffidence would be any archetype could then take the ki pool and light steps. Your Ninja would not have to,if you only wanted Poison use and no trace and not the ki pool then you would not have to take it.

All I am doing is getting rid of a pointless wall between talents and allowing the ki pool to be used by all rogue archetypes.


Zark wrote:


Some day, when I have the time and energy, I will create new thread where I will go into details why I think rogue archetypes, or any archetype, doesn't add versatility/ variation to a core class. But so far people seems to like archetypes so I guess I'm a minority. I'm just a bit sad Paizo don't spend more energy tweaking, boosting or fixing the core classes.

When someone wants more out of the rogue (or any class) and Pazio's answer is, "hey you can play another class instead. We call them archetypes", is not want all of us want.

The archetypes thing is ok, it's the alternate class pill I'm not swallowing. Their proposed point was to give "new" classes without duplicating the identifying features of existing classes. Despite the fact that that is what archetypes keep doing. Just make a new damn class and not hamstring your class development to make it fit in a template derived from an existing class.


meh, why reinvent the wheel when you can just swap out a few spokes instead?


seekerofshadowlight wrote:


[...] and allowing the ki pool to be used by all rogue archetypes.

Including the core rogue?

So is the ki pool for a rogue + wis mod + 1/2 rogue level?


Anburaid wrote:
meh, why reinvent the wheel when you can just swap out a few spokes instead?

some like to choose which spokes to swap out and some think the spoke are fine but want more spokes or more spokes.

Osirion

Zark wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:


[...] and allowing the ki pool to be used by all rogue archetypes.

Including the core rogue?

So is the ki pool for a rogue + wis mod + 1/2 rogue level?

If he trades out evasion for the ki pool and light steps then yes. However it would be the Cha based ki pool, just as written.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Zark wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:


[...] and allowing the ki pool to be used by all rogue archetypes.

Including the core rogue?

So is the ki pool for a rogue + wis mod + 1/2 rogue level?
If he trades out evasion for the ki pool and light steps then yes. However it would be the Cha based ki pool, just as written.

OK. I get it now.

Sounds like a rogue I would like to play. It's still a archetype so the core rogue still needs a fix. But to me your rogue sounds just great.
I never been a big fan of evasion anyway.

Osirion

Cool, well archetypes it has to be as they are not gonna rewrite any classes. heh people seem to think I hate the ninja, when I simply hate the execution of the ninja "alt class" not the idea behind it.


Oh, I am just thankful that the Ninja is now written down in the book and won't be changed drastically anymore to appease some people. Thank you for that, Paizo.


Zark wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Zark wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:


[...] and allowing the ki pool to be used by all rogue archetypes.

Including the core rogue?

So is the ki pool for a rogue + wis mod + 1/2 rogue level?
If he trades out evasion for the ki pool and light steps then yes. However it would be the Cha based ki pool, just as written.

OK. I get it now.

Sounds like a rogue I would like to play. It's still a archetype so the core rogue still needs a fix. But to me your rogue sounds just great.
I never been a big fan of evasion anyway.

*Nukes Zark with a Quickened Fireball and an Persistent Elemental Spell[acid] Fireball, out of a +5 arcane gun*

MAGIC-USAH, BABE, WAHHHHHHT?


Cartigan wrote:
Zark wrote:


Some day, when I have the time and energy, I will create new thread where I will go into details why I think rogue archetypes, or any archetype, doesn't add versatility/ variation to a core class. But so far people seems to like archetypes so I guess I'm a minority. I'm just a bit sad Paizo don't spend more energy tweaking, boosting or fixing the core classes.

When someone wants more out of the rogue (or any class) and Pazio's answer is, "hey you can play another class instead. We call them archetypes", is not want all of us want.

The archetypes thing is ok, it's the alternate class pill I'm not swallowing. Their proposed point was to give "new" classes without duplicating the identifying features of existing classes. Despite the fact that that is what archetypes keep doing. Just make a new damn class and not hamstring your class development to make it fit in a template derived from an existing class.

I don't mind archetypes Per se. What I do mind is that Paizo seems to have been giving up on the core versions of the classes. They don't tweak what needs to be tweaked they just give us a one more archetype. Why block some powers? It's a bit like saying, we remove power attack as a feat and just create one archetype that get access to this ability.

I'm not saying all classes should be able to do everything, but some stuff is just hard to understand.

As for your view on alternate classes, could you explain it again? I'm not sure I understand why you dislike the alternate class pill and like the archetype pil. I'm not being e jerk. I think it's my bad English so if you could explain it one more time I would be glad. I got a hunch we agree on the alternate classes.
The samurai BTW is a good example of a 'Cavalier fix' that wasn't fixed. The need to have a mount.

Osirion

Zark wrote:
The samurai BTW is a good example of a 'Cavalier fix' that wasn't fixed. The need to have a mount.

Samurai were mounted warriors first and foremost, so it being a cavalier archetype fits. Replacing the Mount to me is a perfect example of things an archetype should do. I would love to see archetypes that only swap the mount and/or mount related ablilites . I really feel the Hound master should have been in UC

Shadow Lodge

Quote:
I guess two things make the difference for me. Firstly the real rogue does not use magic, mysticism or other crazy sources of power. He uses his intelligence, dexterity and charisma to outsmart, out-speak and come out on top in a variety of situations.

That's the theme. It wasn't working simply because the mechanics didn't support the characters. You acknowledge this when you say the rogue is underpowered.

Intelligence : The ability to do damage, trick people, and seize a combat advantage is mostly a quality of the player's, not the character's, knowledge of the rules and tactical savey . If I'm running a fighter they aren't only built differently from the fighters run by our resident role player they're run differently. They get to the enemy sooner, meat shield for more space, and do more damage. It is VERY hard, if not impossible, to translate this into a usable ability by the character.

Dexterity This is a problem for the rogue, and at the same time the ability closest to working for them. Dex helps their armor class, skills, and with weapon finesse their attack. The problem is that weapon finesse doesn't add to their damage. If it did, dex would be a super stat, and like as not other classes would be raiding enough levels in rogue to grab the ability.

Quote:
He is martial. Bringing in ki-pools and such seems like a violation to me. Its a way of saying that anyone without some type of magic is crap. Rogues where one of the few that used "real world" means to accomplish their goals and it had a certain charm to it.

Don't call it a ki pool then. call it rogue tricks, charm, dirty tricks, dashing abilities, or "I'm just so damned good at hiding it LOOKS like vanish" There are effective mechanics for hiding and backstabbing, set out by spells. There's no point in reinventing the wheel.

That won't run into a problem until you run into anti magic fields on a regular basis.

Quote:
Secondly the old rogue class still exists even if i did decide to rename ninja. The fact that it exists but would not be used seems to me like the taking away of content. And buying a book/resource that's meant to give more content that ends up removing some as well seems very wrong to me.

There's no point in burning your bridges behind you the second you move into new territory. If you don't want to pay for the new books the class will be online somewhere in a week (and probably legally too thanks to the d20 ogl thingy) They're not going to ditch the rogue, but the next time around they may give the rogue limited per day effects using invisibilities rules.

Quote:
I see what they did for monks (like 80% of the new book)and then i see the pitiful effort put towards rogues. That says to me laziness. That or them having simply decided its not worth being a class any more. I find that disturbing.

-Part of the reason they may not be doing more is because people still love the rogue so much that they think its fine.

Quote:
As i said i enjoyed the rogues non magical solutions to problems.

I really don't understand this. What is the big appeal to a non magical solution? In 2.0 magic was the tool of the elite, of the authority, wizards in ivory towers and clerics pandering to their gods. In 3.x the avenue of people winging it on charisma and natural talent emerged, and in pathfinder anyone can dabble in it with minimal effort.

Quote:
He was versatile yet oozed character.

First, characters ooze character. A class does not.

Secondly.. the rogue was not versatile. Traps, social situations and fighting are about it... and he really has trouble maintaining all 3. If you wanted really outside the box solutions you use a wizard. If you want a big toolbox its hard to compete with a wizard or druid loaded up with scrolls.

Quote:
Many rogues that i myself play where highly charismatic rogues who focused on dexterity to be an acrobat of sorts, using stealth, intelligence and quick movement to overcome foes and solve problems. I get that your trying to push me towards the conclusion that a ninja could do all these things just as well if not better but its the supernatural way in which the ninja functions that puts a sour taste in my mouth.

Cross out the SU next to the ninja tricks and write in EX

Hide in plain sight is not the solution you're looking for. Ignore the name. It only lets you hide NEAR cover or concealment. Shadows and darkness are NOT concealment relative to most critters.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
It only lets you hide NEAR cover or concealment. Shadows and darkness are NOT concealment relative to most critters.

This is actually wrong.

Shadow Lodge

Zark wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
It only lets you hide NEAR cover or concealment. Shadows and darkness are NOT concealment relative to most critters.

This is actually wrong.

Hmmm.. did i get it mixed up with the shadow dancer HIPs

this is the ability that the rogue gets right?

Hide in Plain Sight (Ex): While in any of his favored terrains, a ranger of 17th level or higher can use the Stealth skill even while being observed

Here's the problem with this.

Stealth requires that you not be observed

Stealth requires that you have cover or concealment.

Rogues are primarily a melee class.

Rogue in melee usually can't try to hide , even with HIPS , because he does not have cover relative to his opponent.


3 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Zark wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
It only lets you hide NEAR cover or concealment. Shadows and darkness are NOT concealment relative to most critters.

This is actually wrong.

Hmmm.. did i get it mixed up with the shadow dancer HIPs

this is the ability that the rogue gets right?

Hide in Plain Sight (Ex): While in any of his favored terrains, a ranger of 17th level or higher can use the Stealth skill even while being observed.

Here's the problem with this.

Stealth requires that you not be observed

Stealth requires that you have cover or concealment.

Rogues are primarily a melee class.

Rogue in melee usually can't try to hide , even with HIPS , because he does not have cover relative to his opponent.

While in any of his favored terrains, a ranger of 17th level or higher can use the Stealth skill even while being observed.

It's an Ex ability and the rules says nothing of cover or concealmen. He only needs to be in his favored terrain.
True, the rules does not say he can hide without cover or concealmen, but claiming a rogue with HIPS but without the ranger's "Camouflage" can't hide without cover or concealmen would make the ability pointless.
...you could drink a potion of blur, etc.

The rules need errata. Hit the FAQ.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

It's called 'specific trumps general'. Stealth normally requires cover or concealment. Hide in Plain Sight allows you to use Stealth whenever certain conditions are met, thus overriding the general requirements of Stealth.

If your problem with the Ninja is that it takes all these cool tricks away from rogues, then that problem is objectively false--a rogue can get almost everything the Ninja has.

If your problem is that you want non-magical rogue boosts, then A) it's a good thing that the Ninja is a class separate from the rogue, then, isn't it? And B) let's take a look at some of the non-mystical, non-ki related Ninja Tricks that rogues can take for themselves:

* Deadly Range
* Deflect Arrows and Snatch Arrows
* Hidden Weapons
* Flurry of Stars--which I would happily house rule to apply to daggers as well
* Pressure Points--Before now, the Rogue had to wait until he got advanced talents to do Ability damage with sneak attack
* Slow Metabolism
* Unnoticed Sabotage

And I think most rogues will enjoy taking the Assassinate Ninja Trick.

Add in Feats like Two Weapon Feint so the rogue can feint as part of a full attack, the Disengaging Feint line, the Moonlight Stalker line, and Sneaking Precision...plus the Snap Shot line arguably lets you flank with ranged weapons. Rogues got plenty of new non-magical toys to play with.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Revan wrote:


And I think most rogues will enjoy taking the Assassinate Ninja Trick.

Rogues cannot take Assassinate, as it is a Master Trick, not a Ninja Trick. Ninjas can take a rogue Advanced Talent, but rogues cannot take a ninja Master Trick. Because ninjas can be as cool as a rogue but a rogue cannot be as cool as a ninja? :P


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Also missing the part where a 6th-level rogue can walk across 60 feet of water or lava or "even the thinnest tree branches" an unlimited number of times per day. But at least they get that 6th-level rogue ability in its place ... oh, wait, there is no 6th-level rogue ability that replaces. :P

Shadow Lodge

Quote:
It's an Ex ability and the rules says nothing of cover or concealment. He only needs to be in his favored terrain.

-HIPS specifically modifies one aspect of the stealth rules: the requirement to not be observed. The requirement to have cover or concealment remains in effect.

but claiming a rogue with HIPS but without the ranger's "Camouflage" can't hide without cover or concealmen would make the ability pointless.

-The alternate reading that the rogue can hide while being observed no matter what makes him a reverse invisible boy from The mystery men: he can go from observed and hiding with no cover but couldn't go from unobserved and no cover to hiding. It sucks to be a rogue but yes, thats how the rules currently stand.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

Cover and concealment is what prevents someone from being observed.

Shadow Lodge

Revan wrote:
Cover and concealment is what prevents someone from being observed.

Nope, being observed is what makes someone observed.

Tirix the Kobold avenger is going to ambush a party.

He can hide behind some vines (concealment)
The party comes down the road. Its stealth vs perceptions.

Tirix shoots at the party for a surprise round, and wins initiative.

He cannot go back into the vines and hide. While the vines may provide concealment, the party are not toddlers. They can follow the kobold with their eye and remember where he lives.

If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth.

In order for the kobold to hide, he needs concealment AND he needs to not be observed. The Kobold can use bluff to say "look a monkey" and then hide but the cover alone is not sufficient.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Yes the rogue's HiPS requires errata, oh and BigNorseWolf is correct, let's take a look at the shadow sorcerer's "HiPS"

PRD link.
Shadow Well (Sp): At 9th level, you can use the Stealth skill even while being observed [i]and without cover or concealment, as long as you are within 10 feet of a shadow other than your own[/i]. In addition, when within an area of darkness or dim light, as a standard action you may choose to switch places with a willing ally within 60 feet, who must also be in darkness or dim light. At 13th level, you can instead switch the positions of two willing allies, each of whom must be within 60 feet of you. Unless otherwise noted, this travel is identical to dimension door. You may use the ability to switch places once per day at 9th level, plus one additional time per day at 17th level and 20th level.
Emphasis mine.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Revan wrote:
Cover and concealment is what prevents someone from being observed.

Nope, being observed is what makes someone observed.

Tirix the Kobold avenger is going to ambush a party.

He can hide behind some vines (concealment)
The party comes down the road. Its stealth vs perceptions.

Tirix shoots at the party for a surprise round, and wins initiative.

He cannot go back into the vines and hide. While the vines may provide concealment, the party are not toddlers. They can follow the kobold with their eye and remember where he lives.

If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth.

In order for the kobold to hide, he needs concealment AND he needs to not be observed. The Kobold can use bluff to say "look a monkey" and then hide but the cover alone is not sufficient.

The thing that stopped the Kobold from being observed by the party coming up the road was the vines that he was hiding behind. If he had an applicable Hide in Plain Sight, he could have been standing in the middle of the road, and the party would still have had to make Stealth vs. perception.

If there's only one square behind cover/in concealment, then the party knows the kobold has to be there once he ducks back into cover. But if there's a larger space there that the party can't see, and the kobold has enough movement to duck back into any one of those squares, then with a successful Stealth check, the party won't know exactly where the kobold is.

Shadow Lodge

Quote:
The thing that stopped the Kobold from being observed by the party coming up the road was the vines that he was hiding behind. If he had an applicable Hide in Plain Sight, he could have been standing in the middle of the road, and the party would still have had to make Stealth vs. perception.

-That is incorrect. There are TWO things that stop the kobold from being observed

1) he is not STARTING observed.
2) He has cover.

If either of those conditions are not met, then he cannot hide.

Poor Tirix has cover but he is being observed.

If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth.

Cover does not prevent people from seeing you unless its total.

Quote:
If there's only one square behind cover/in concealment, then the party knows the kobold has to be there once he ducks back into cover. But if there's a larger space there that the party can't see, and the kobold has enough movement to duck back into any one of those squares, then with a successful Stealth check, the party won't know exactly where the kobold is.

yes they will, because they can follow him. At no point can he stealth without them being able to follow unless he bluffs and says "look a monkey"


Revan wrote:
Cover and concealment is what prevents someone from being observed.

I hate to say it but by RAW BigNorseWolf is correct.

That's why the ranger first gets "Camouflage" at level 12, then HIPS at level 17.

Camouflage (Ex): A ranger of 12th level or higher can
use the Stealth skill to hide in any of his favored terrains,
even if the terrain doesn’t grant cover or concealment.

Hide in Plain Sight (Ex): While in any of his favored
terrains, a ranger of 17th level or higher can use the Stealth
skill even while being observed.

You can post all you like but by RAW, just HIPS (the ranger version) won't do. I however suspect they mean "while being observed and without cover or concealment", just like the shadow sorcerer's "HiPS" or like the shadowdancer's HIPS:

Hide in Plain Sight (Su): A shadowdancer can use the Stealth
skill even while being observed. As long as she is within 10
feet of an area of dim light, a shadowdancer can hide herself
from view in the open without anything to actually hide
behind
. She cannot, however, hide in her own shadow.

For thouse of you who are good with words, can you post this observation in the ULTIMATE COMBAT ERRATA thread here

Andoran

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
I guess two things make the difference for me. Firstly the real rogue does not use magic, mysticism or other crazy sources of power. He uses his intelligence, dexterity and charisma to outsmart, out-speak and come out on top in a variety of situations.

That's the theme. It wasn't working simply because the mechanics didn't support the characters. You acknowledge this when you say the rogue is underpowered.

Intelligence : The ability to do damage, trick people, and seize a combat advantage is mostly a quality of the player's, not the character's, knowledge of the rules and tactical savey . If I'm running a fighter they aren't only built differently from the fighters run by our resident role player they're run differently. They get to the enemy sooner, meat shield for more space, and do more damage. It is VERY hard, if not impossible, to translate this into a usable ability by the character.

Dexterity This is a problem for the rogue, and at the same time the ability closest to working for them. Dex helps their armor class, skills, and with weapon finesse their attack. The problem is that weapon finesse doesn't add to their damage. If it did, dex would be a super stat, and like as not other classes would be raiding enough levels in rogue to grab the ability.

Quote:
He is martial. Bringing in ki-pools and such seems like a violation to me. Its a way of saying that anyone without some type of magic is crap. Rogues where one of the few that used "real world" means to accomplish their goals and it had a certain charm to it.

Don't call it a ki pool then. call it rogue tricks, charm, dirty tricks, dashing abilities, or "I'm just so damned good at hiding it LOOKS like vanish" There are effective mechanics for hiding and backstabbing, set out by spells. There's no point in reinventing the wheel.

That won't run into a problem until you run into anti magic fields on a regular basis.

Quote:
Secondly the old rogue class still exists even if i did
...

Unfortunately changing the name of ki pool doesn't change the fact that it still lets you do magical things such as create illusionary copies of your self and such. Even indivisibility can't really be said to be just hiding well as it also gives concealment which is obviously magical. I really do understand your point Norse, i really do but changing names constantly to make a new class fit dosen't seem right. I don't like changing the book rules or adding house rules in general because then what was the point of getting the books? i could just write a dnd edition my self how i like it and play that.

As for the big deal about using magic... well if i want magic i will play a wizard and basically be a god. Rogues where always not based in magic and changing that just because its easier seems morally wrong to me. It would be like making the fighter be able to magically hold 5 swords at once, he would become vastly more powerful getting 5 weapons attacking at once so people wouldn't use the old way any more yet infusing him with magic seems very wrong. Its not the POINT of the character, just like its not the POINT of the rogue.

DnD and Pathfinder where always meant to be more about the character and they have always striven to give us plenty of options to allow us to make our characters. Up until now using what they offered me i could make a rogue type character with ease (although there was still problems back then). Simply changing names and shoving in magic as a replacement is not a viable option for me. Its not what i want to play. I just want a viable option for what i want to play is all.

I think non magical means is not the reason the rogue is underpowered. He can be just as powerful as the magical classes it just takes some ingenuity and effort.

Also i would have to politely disagree with you about the class not being versatile and having character of its own. To me its been both for as long as i can remember. For example the fighter does nothing but attack, he is stuck with that, But the rogue can use a large array of skills (variety in its self), he used to be the only one who could deal with traps and was often a charismatic face of the party. Then on top of that UMD could help the party in tricky situations. But i think we might have to agree to disagree on that one :)

i don't believe fixing them is impossible, very hard... sure i will agree with that. But i personally think its worth it. That's why i post, to hopefully give my opinion awareness to those who can fix my problem :)

Shadow Lodge

Quote:
Unfortunately changing the name of ki pool doesn't change the fact that it still lets you do magical things such as create illusionary copies of your self and such. Even indivisibility can't really be said to be just hiding well as it also gives concealment which is obviously magical.

What's obviously magical about it? You're a ROGUE. You dissapear at point A and reappear at point B with your dagger inside someone's kidney. That's your JOB.

The only reason its impossible is because the stealth rules make it virtually impossible. Either change the the stealth rules for everyone or just let the rogue be as good as magic.

Quote:
I really do understand your point Norse, i really do but changing names constantly to make a new class fit dosen't seem right. I don't like changing the book rules or adding house rules in general because then what was the point of getting the books? i could just write a dnd edition my self how i like it and play that.

99% of what i'm advocating is a change in FLAVOR, not rules. Flavor IS what you're supposed to be making.

Quote:
As for the big deal about using magic... well if i want magic i will play a wizard and basically be a god. Rogues where always not based in magic and changing that just because its easier seems morally wrong to me. It would be like making the fighter be able to magically hold 5 swords at once, he would become vastly more powerful getting 5 weapons attacking at once so people wouldn't use the old way any more yet infusing him with magic seems very wrong. Its not the POINT of the character, just like its not the POINT of the rogue.

Ok, so instead of someone attacking with 5 swords you rewrite it so that the attacks from a fighter are so fast and devastating that they simply do that much damage.

Quote:
DnD and Pathfinder where always meant to be more about the character and they have always striven to give us plenty of options to allow us to make our characters. Up until now using what they offered me i could make a rogue type character with ease (although there was still problems back then)

Problems? The 3.5 rogue was completely useless. Everything and its brother in the monster manual was immune to sneak attack. The rogue is still the rogue. Any improvements the ninja is making are improvements that should have been made to the rogue, namely

-someway to bypass the restrictions on stealth
-means of getting sneak attacks more often

Quote:
Simply changing names and shoving in magic as a replacement is not a viable option for me. Its not what i want to play. I just want a viable option for what i want to play is all.

What isn't the rogue doing that you want it to do?

Quote:
I think non magical means is not the reason the rogue is underpowered. He can be just as powerful as the magical classes it just takes some ingenuity and effort.

He can be as powerful as the magical classes... if the magical classes are played without ingenuity or effort. If both are played with ingenuity and effort the rogue is hosed. Your disdain for summoning makes me wonder if you're used to simple blasty wizards.

Quote:
Also i would have to politely disagree with you about the class not being versatile and having character of its own. To me its been both for as long as i can remember. For example the fighter does nothing but attack, he is stuck with that, But the rogue can use a large array of skills (variety in its self), he used to be the only one who could deal with traps and was often a charismatic face of the party. Then on top of that UMD could help the party in tricky situations. But i think we might have to agree to disagree on that one :)

I agree that the rogue is versatile compared to the fighter. But compared to the cleric, druid, or wizard? no.

A cleric can 1) be the party face 2) beat you to death 3) SOD/SOS you to death 4) heal 5) Summon in something to eat you.

A druid can 1) deal with traps (high perception and decent disable device) 2) Shapeshift to meet the situation 3) summon in things to meet the situation 3) Heal 4) SPell you to death (hard to fight when you're a chipmunk) 5) Beat you to death 6) have his animal companion eat you.

UMD doesn't help a party much. You should have a party member capable of using almost anything you come across without faking it.

Quote:
i don't believe fixing them is impossible, very hard... sure i will agree with that. But i personally think its worth it. That's why i post, to hopefully give my opinion awareness to those who can fix my problem :)

Do you see a little bit of a contradiction here? The rogue is at once this dynamic versatile powerful class.... but is at the same time broken beyond redemption. Which is it?


Sigil87 wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

It is an OP class that ripped off the good parts of the rogue then added in more OP stuff for seemingly no other reason than to remove the rogue from existence

-Its NOT overpowered though. Its only overpowered compared to the rogue.
The fact that the ninja sits at "about right" compared to the other classes yet blows the rogue away clearly spells out the problem: rogues were useless. They needed near constant sneak attacks to be relevant but the systems prohibitive stealth rules didn't allow that and they didn't have a mechanism to get it. If you pumped their talents into trap detection they could be the best at that but... so what? Traps aren't as big a deal as they used to be.

That may be 100% true. But as long as the rogue is that far below the ninja it makes rogues 100% useless. That is why i say the ninja is OP. Because it removes a class from the game. That is horrible design.

I see many people defending the ninja by just saying its the rogue that needs work. I agree totally...BUT as long as the rogue doesn't get that work done to it there shouldn't be a ninja. Rogue should of been fixed first before they even came up with the ninja.

And until the rogue is fixed i think many people will continue to hate the ninja, call it OP and various other things that the forums have been full of for ages.

Amazingly though it has a fairly simple solution... paizo needs to fix the rogue. The fact that they haven't and continue to deny there is even a problem with the rogue is like having a blunt object to the head.

THAT is why i am so angry and against the ninja, cause it appears that they have just gone "buy this new shiny book, cause buying more stuff will just replace the old crappy stuff!"

I love the rogue, its fluff, style, ideas are all both legendary and very cool but as long as the rogue is way underpowered and the ninja exists the rogue mays well not exist. And it will be a cold day in hell before i accept that.

You mean like.. oh say... Every monk archtype ever made?


Sigil87 wrote:
i don't believe fixing them is impossible, very hard... sure i will agree with that. But i personally think its worth it. That's why i post, to hopefully give my opinion awareness to those who can fix my problem :)

I agree. Fixing them isn't impossible, but that don't seem to be on the agenda. We got the "Niña" instead, some archetypes and a talent in need of a errata.

I'm pleased with the Ninja. I'm not pleased with the rogue and some of the other core classes. I doubt Paizo will fix what want needs to be fixed. Fighter lobbyists such as houstonderek, Snorter, Kirth Gersen, Sueki Suezo have given up on the fighter a long time ago, you might as well give up on the rogue. Actually It's a bit sad they given up. Especially when UC and APG haven't changed much for the fighter. The fighter is still boring and the rogue is still not good enough.

At lest we now can play the Ninja and pretend it's a rogue.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

I removed a post and the replies to it. That kind of attitude is uncalled for.


The HiPS advanced talent needs that errata, for sure. I assumed when reading it that it meant that it allowed the rogue to hide without concealment, but I see that its definitely not clear.


magnuskn wrote:
Irulesmost wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
magnuskn wrote:

Here, here. The Ninja is fantastic. The Rogue got a huge buff by being able to take Ninja tricks.

Ah yes, the Asian Rogue talents that are better because they are Asian. What you mean is the ninja took all the good rogue talents as if they are so good they must be Asian.
So THAT'S what this is about? Not game balance, or mechanical implications, but ethnocentrism? Grow up.
+1 . The asia hate is growing really thick on these boards.

I have been getting that sense as well. Throw the word anime around any time to try and discredit something.


I posted about this in the general UC forum, but since I think I came up with a pretty elegant solution, I'll summarize my position here:

Ninjas are better versions of one of the core classes. Therefore ninjas are not balanced to the core rules.

Here's why::

Ninja's Katana is a little better than rogue's rapier(Nin 1 Rog 0)

Ninja gets a number of other cool starting proficiencies(Nin 2 Rog 0)

Skills, base attack, hp, saving throws, sneak attack, uncanny dodge, armor proficiency, starting wealth, improved uncanny dodge, and everything else I don't list here are basically identical except for knowledge dungeoneering vs. nobility (Nin 2 Rog 0)

Capstone abilities are about equal (Nin 2 Rog 0)

Evasion isn't as good as ki pool's best default use, making several extra attacks a day(Nin 3 Rog 0)

In addition to extra attacks ki pool grants three other useful abilities and as you level up you get more and more ki, further making evasion less good than ki pool(Nin 4 Rog 0)

Ninja, for the cost of 1 talent/trick, can get full access and make full use of anything on the rogue's talent list except a single talent, improved evasion, which costs him 2. Meanwhile, many ninja tricks require the rogue to spend an extra talent to get a ki pool before you can make use of them.(Nin 5 Rog 0)

If the ninja decides to spend a talent/trick to get what he gave up for his ki pool, namely evasion, he may do so without penalty. If the rogue wants to spend a talent/trick to get what the ninja got in place of his evasion, he gets a watered down version that doesn't allow him to make extra attacks, get a +4 to sneak, or super jump. Further this watered down ki pool doesn't scale as he levels up.(Nin 6 Rog 0)

Ninjas get a good ability called poison use. Rouges get a better ability that allows them to handle 1 kind of non-combat challenge that is very difficult for any other class to cope with. (Ninja 6 Rog 2)

Ninjas get No Trace, a level-scaling set of three bonuses, two of which are situational. One gives the ninja a completely unique capability to evade tracking; another gives a semi-situational bonus to most stealth checks which is a skill ninjas have every incentive to make frequent use of; and another gives a completely non-situational bonus to all disguise checks which is a second rate skill.

Meanwhile, Rogues get trapsense, a situational bonus to defend against something that the rogues other abilities work to prevent from happening(traps going off in their face). Specifically, this bonus counts towards only 2 things: AC versus a small subset of traps that target AC, Reflex saves which the Rogue already has a huge chance of succeeding on. (Nin 7 Rog 2)

Ninjas get Light Steps- a very useful ability that they can use outside of combat to walk over water, lava, tree limbs, etc, or in combat to walk through pesky battlefield control spells like entangle, black tentacles. Further, the ability can help them pass straight through trapped ground, further devaluing the only advantage we've come up with for rogues thus far (trap monkey). In place of this versatile set of abilities, rogues get ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. (Nin 9 Rog 2)

If you believe, as I do, that the ninja should be balanced against the core, vanilla rogue without consideration for archetypes and noncore options, that's the end of the count. Comparing their differences Ninja's clearly come out way ahead. If you disagree, and think that we should consider non core feats and archetypes as a part of the classes suite of goodies, we'll continue:

Rogues get a feat from APG that lets them get take an extra talent/trick. (Nin 9 Rog 3)

Rogues get a large number of archetypes, some of which are pretty good, all of which require giving up class abilities. (Nin 9 Rog 5).

While I think I've been pretty fair about the relative ammount of arbitrary points I'm assigning each class difference, I can accept that a few of these things are debatable as to how big of an advantage they are. That said the sheer number of these advantages to playing a ninja over a rogue seems to be overwhelmingly straightforward.

Here's my solution::

Take away the ninja's equal-skill-monkey-status by changing their skill points per level to 6 instead of 8. Now they do everything they were designed to do, they are still better at combat than the rogue, and they are still absolutely great skill monkeys, but they leave a meaningful niche for the rogue. Plus this forces them to focus a little, fitting their flavor better as specialist assassins who master a handful of difficult skills that are relevant to their function, instead of well-versed generalist vagabonds that pick up a vast array of diverse skills.

Since it may be a valid argument that in the core rules rogues are already too weak compared to other classes, I would also submit that in future editions Rogues get 10 skill points per level, and for Paizo to greatly expand upon the number of useful things each skill can accomplish, as well as giving level-scaling class-skill bonuses and special uses of a skill that can only be done if it is a class skill.


edross wrote:

I posted about this in the general UC forum, but since I think I came up with a pretty elegant solution, I'll summarize my position here:

Ninjas are better versions of one of the core classes. Therefore ninjas are not balanced to the core rules.

** spoiler omitted **...

Every monk archtype ever is better then the monk, so they all need toned down too right?


Shadow_of_death wrote:
edross wrote:

I posted about this in the general UC forum, but since I think I came up with a pretty elegant solution, I'll summarize my position here:

Ninjas are better versions of one of the core classes. Therefore ninjas are not balanced to the core rules.

** spoiler omitted **...

Every monk archtype ever is better then the monk, so they all need toned down too right?

An issue to be discussed in a monk forum probably. The fact that the sink's broken doesn't mean you shouldn't fix the stove.


The book is printed, the class is official. You can houserule whatever you want, but the Ninja is here to stay.


edross wrote:


An issue to be discussed in a monk forum probably. The fact that the sink's broken doesn't mean you shouldn't fix the stove.

Except the rogue is the stove, the ninja is the fix. And if you really believe that then why are you only trying to "fix" the ninja? (regardless of how well balanced it is next to the other classes) Why haven't you made a thread or two about many other things just as bad (Eg. monk) are you just biased against the ninja or do you actually think your helping the game?


Shadow_of_death wrote:
edross wrote:


An issue to be discussed in a monk forum probably. The fact that the sink's broken doesn't mean you shouldn't fix the stove.

Except the rogue is the stove, the ninja is the fix. And if you really believe that then why are you only trying to "fix" the ninja? (regardless of how well balanced it is next to the other classes) Why haven't you made a thread or two about many other things just as bad (Eg. monk) are you just biased against the ninja or do you actually think your helping the game?

Maybe I haven't gotten around to making that thread yet, maybe I don't use monks in my games because they are so weak that they are unusable even with the archetypes, maybe I think Monks are a super broken uber-class and archetypes make them worse; whatever the case I see it as not relevant to the ninja thread. If you wanted to argue the point that the rogue needed fixing and the ninja is that fix, then I'm happy to contend with that point. But I'd rather not follow breadcrumbs down a tangential path.

I agree with you that Rogues are too weak (a little). I think that there are multiple game styles that the rules are properly designed to indulge and there are game styles that the game system shouldn't need to indulge based on how far they are from mainstream. I think that lots of people play a similar gamestyle to my group, which embraces traditional RPG tropes like the rogue, and wants good mechanics to go along with their fluff. For people like us, a ninja isn't a rogue and doesn't give the same play experience by virtue of not being a rogue. I also think that lots of people play a style where fluff isn't entirely important, but good mechanics are. These folks will find that the shiny new ninja is an adequate replacement for the broken rogue. I think both of these play styles are mainstream enough for the rules to accommodate them, but they only chose to accommodate one. If the problem is indeed that the rogue was broken, then the solution is not to replace the rogue, but to fix it. How might this be done? Well I'm not a professional game designer but I humbly offered some ideas in my post:

] Since it may be a valid argument that in the core rules rogues are already too weak compared to other classes, I would also submit that in future editions Rogues get 10 skill points per level, and for Paizo to greatly expand upon the number of useful things each skill can accomplish, as well as giving level-scaling class-skill bonuses and special uses of a skill that can only be done if it is a class skill. [/QUOTE wrote:

magnuskn wrote:
The book is printed, the class is official. You can houserule whatever you want, but the Ninja is here to stay.

True but not relevant to the discussion. Its expected that on the site we will share our reactions to published material, state our case for problems to be fixed in future products, and exchange ideas for house rulings. If you like the ninja and think that we're wrong for disagreeing, fine, convince us.


All I got from that is you dont like the ninja because it isnt called a rogue, seriously just call it a rogue. And the ninja area of the forum is for playtesting for balance, does it do obscene amounts of damage or allow for instant no save encounters? No? Then it isnt unbalanced. Comparing it to other classes has no relevance to balance. Wizards are easily stronger then most classes, do they break the game? Yeah they can but only at high level and only if you built your whole career to do it. The ninja isnt even that strong and yet your advocating he should be toned down.

Silver Crusade

The rogue isn't replaced. It's patched. That's what archetypes and alternate classes do.

1) See the ninja
2) Take a pen
3) Write "Rogue"
4) Chew gum and bang the princess
5) Problem solved.

Grand Lodge

@edross: Forgotten Trick doesn't grant access to ANY Rogue Talents. On the other hand, it does give access to every Combat Feat and Martial Arts feat the Ninja qualifies for and that's a lot of flexibility.


Firstly I think I didn't present my initial standpoint in the best way, because I assumed that I would come in and have people arguing the point that Ninjas aren't better than Rogues. Since no one really seems to hold that standpoint I probably should have focused more on why they shouldn't have made a new class that is a better version of a core class. I see 2 possibilities: Paizo thinks the Rogue isn't gimped, or Paizo thinks the Rogue is gimped. If Paizo thinks the Rogue isn't gimped, then making a new version of the rogue that is more powerful than the rogue is clearly unbalanced nonsense. If Paizo thinks the Rogue is gimped they should fix the Rogue class. If their idea of fixing the rogue class is to replace it with a better version of the Rogue class, then they should do that without forcibly inserting an Eastern element in my game.

@Shadow and Maxximilius- The fluff implied by the Ninja's abilities doesn't reflect the fluff of a Rogue. It implies very well the fluff of a ninja (eastern weapons, mystical vanish powers, flashes of extra Ki attack, etc.) If I just replaced the rogue class in my campaign with the abilities of a ninja, it wouldn't feel much like a classic D&D rogue. If we just look at the ninja as the fix for rogue, then we won't see many actual vanilla rogues until next edition, just a bunch of katana wielding ki users. Which I understand some people will find just dandy, but it is an unwelcome fluff disruption for some of us who want our pathfinder games to still feel like D&D.

@Shadow
I'm not sure how you came up with that definition of game balance, but it glosses over the issue that a new option that is demonstrably better than a core options is patently unbalanced. Its like if we made a new version of the greatsword that did 4d4 damage instead of 2d6. I don't think that it would break the game, but it would take away any reasonable incentive to use several of the weapons in the Core Rules, which is clearly a balance issue. Its called PowerCreep. It means the game becomes slightly less balanced with every new splat book, favoring new content over core rules, so any single new thing can be shrugged off by saying "does it do obscene amounts of damage or allow for instant no save encounters? No? Then it isnt unbalanced." Cumulatively all the little (and big) things add up to warp the original mechanics of the game.

Also if we are supposed to use this to replace the rogue, I wish they hadn't added insult to injury with this introduction:

Ultimate Combat wrote:


The three new classes presented in this book are all
equivalent in power to the classes presented in the
Core Rulebook and additional supplements such as the
Advanced Player’s Guide and Ultimate Magic.

@Kais86- I think there's some confusion. I wasn't referencing Forgotten Trick anywhere in my class match up. I was referencing the ninja trick called "Rogue Talent" that let's a ninja burgle any rogue talent.


First paragraph, "ninjas suck cause I dont want eastern in my western fantasy" < irrelevant argument.

Second paragraph, the fluff implied... Uhh no fluff is not and was never intended to be concrete, if I want my barbarian to be animal loving and worship nature it doesnt mean I have to play a druid. You can call your ninja a prissy loud richboy if you want, the fluff of the class is irrelevant.

Third paragraph, a 4d4 greatsword would very easily break the game in numerous ways, low levels would be a walk in the park, crits would be worse then they already are and vital strike would go from situational to OP. Balance means it doesnt make cr appropriate encounter irrelevant, theres power creep and theres unbalance, they are not the same thing. Power creep is usually considered bad because it pigeonholes builds because those options do everything for you, but if the rogue was so bad only hardcore fans use them then it isnt power creep to release something people will actually use, and those same rogue fans will play rogues to their death. So nothing changed for the rogue.

Grand Lodge

@edross: And give up one of the typically more useful, and definitely more in-tone, Ninja Tricks? Madness. Well.... for the most part, there are several rogue talents that are really good, especially down the road.


I totally have no problem in stating that every elven Rogue was always a Ninja. :p

What do you mean, eastern weapons? ^^

---

And my idea of balance isn't "Is the Ninja balanced with the Rogue", because the Rogue is one of the weakest classes in the game.

My idea of balance is "Is the Ninja balanced with the other classes", and here is where the Ninja is perfectly okay, because it is more or less in line with Fighters, Rangers and other martial classes.

I think that the thing to be done is to have the Paizo guys abandon their "The Rogue is fine, walk along!" stance, because if the Rogue had been fine, the Ninja should have not been written as it is.

In a bit of defense for the Rogue, the class is much more versatile than the Ninja, as the Ninja does not have access to most of the archetypes of the Rogue. Knifefighter is an archetype which is comparable in power to the Ninja, IMO.

251 to 300 of 313 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Paizo Products / Ultimate Combat: The Ninja All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.