| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, just straight rogue.With that said, compared to others who are semi-decently built you characters damage will have a hard time pulling his weight.
Looking at your build, it I'm guessing your using the scout archetype to pull extra damage,
and since your not two-weapon fighting but using finesse I'm guessing your using a rapier.
Yeah, rapier.
With that said, your getting a single attack, that has a mediocre chance of hitting with ok damage at 4th-6th level, but will do terrible damage at 6+ when others will get iterative attacks.
Even at 5th level a greatsword fighter will be doing 2d6+6 (assuming 18 strength after racial)+ 6 (powerattack)+ 1 (weapon training) for a reliable 20 damage. The rogue will do 1d6+3d6 (sneak)+1-2 (depending on strength)= 15 damage. Whats worse is your to-hit will be far lower then the fighter.
I see what you're saying here. The disparity exists even at 1st level as the greatsword fighter example you give at 1st level is dealing around 16 damage with a ~+4 to hit while the 1st level rogue's dealing half that with nearly half the same chance to hit (though Weapon Finesse tends to even out the low level to hit chance between the two classes).
Since it seems like my words are being constantly misinterpreted, let me clarify. I don't hate the rogue, or think they're not worth playing. I'm simply pointing out that there's nothing that the rogue is able to do that can't be matched by another...
I think you were pretty clear. The only eyebrow raising bits, for me, was the use of "mediocre", "terrible", "worse", "far lower", which are all emotionally weighty words and, given the topic are applied to something that seems to be largely subjective. To be more neutral I would have used "lower" instead of "mediocre", "less" instead of "terrible", "additionally" instead of "what's worse", and just "lower" instead of "far lower". My interpretation of your stance, based on your use of those words, was that you did hate, or at least greatly disliked, the rogue...until you implicitly stated you didn't.
But I can see how you might think that doing 5 points less damage on average per hit, with one less attack per round, than the 6th level fighter is "terrible." I, personally, don't think it's terrible, but it does scratch at the back of my inner munchkin's brain. I can hear it saying, "not fair," and "must do most damage or not it's not a valuable class choice." But I think that voice is a silly voice.
But I do agree, at least specifically for combat, there's a lot of other builds and classes that will outmatch the rogue roll for roll. My focus was on the OP's initial statement, "We wish to make a rogue (PURE rogue) that can perform roguish functions while dealing enough damage in combat to be on par with his spellcasting peers (bards, aclehmists, etc.)."
Key bits "perform roguish functions" and "enough damage...on par with spellcasting peers." Not to try and shoehorn the rogue into a 4th ed/WoW "striker" max-damage output class. I wouldn't complain if Pathfinder revamped the rogue so that it did have the highest damage output of all the classes...but I'm not complaining that it doesn't.
If a player chooses to play a rogue because they want to be one of the highest damage dealers in the party, well, they don't understand the rogue class very well.
You started your post by saying
...you characters damage will have a hard time pulling his weight.
But I don't think you showed why or how. You clearly and cleanly explained why a 5th level rogue vs a 5th level fighter is going to do, on average, less damage...by about 5 points...but is that you're interpretation of 'pulling [damage] weight', that the rogue, or any class's build, must do as much damage as a damage-focused fighter build?
If a fighter does X damage, then what is an acceptable pulling [damage] weight average for the rogue (or any other class)? Not X-5 as you seem imply, nor 3/4 * X. So, X-2? Or 9/10 * X? Looking at the 20th level builds for the fighter and rogue in the NPC Codex, the fighter's highest attack weapon is doing:
+40/+35/+30/+25 (2d4+23/15–20/×3...) +18 for Power Attack.
and the rogue is:
+22/+17/+12 (1d6+4/15–20) and has 10d6 sneak attack.
So if all attacks hit the fighter is doing 46 per hit, 184 total, and the rogue is doing 42.5 per hit, 127.5 total. In a given round that rogue is doing about 70% the damage output of the fighter. Given both have high threat ranges, if all hits are crits then the fighter is doing 552 damage per round while the rogue is doing 150, or 27% of the fighter's output.
This would be the root of my confusion of your side of the debate. Even if you hated the rogue and think they're not worth playing (which you said you don't), but even if you did, that wouldn't mean your argument would be invalid...but the only thing you showed is that the rogue can be outmatched in damage output by a fighter...which wasn't the subject of the OP's inquiry...and seems fairly obvious.
Now keep in mind the bards damage is consistent. Meaning he'll be able to do that damage virtually every combat without special circumstances set up to work for him.I apologize if it’s bad form to pick up the conversation days later. I couldn’t get back sooner, but I did want to question this.
I may missing something, but I don’t see how this rogues damage output wouldn’t be consistent. In the example above, I excluded the surprise round because I thought I made my point well enough without it. The point is to just illustrate that a rouge can keep up with his ¾ BAB counterparts, correct? Keeping the bench mark at 6th level, I have an initiative at +9, and a Stealth at +12.
My primary tactic would be scouting ahead of the party, probably only 30ft ahead of the group. I’d be using stealth to peer into rooms, if I catch enemies unaware, I soften them up and retreat back 30ft to the waiting ambush that is my party.
So it would rather play out as such; the INT rogue is sneaking 30ft ahead of the group, using signs he moves ahead checks an area out, then signals an OK, before moving ahead.
He comes upon a room of enemies; let’s say he sees 4 boggards. With a Perception +4, the odds of them noticing me are not likely. If I roll an average (10), they only have a 15% chance of noticing me (18 or higher). Even if one notices me, Snap Shot ensures I’m going first in the surprise round.
In this situation, we’ll say the Bard has Heroism up. He’s waiting 30ft away with the group. He sure isn’t sneaking up with me with a Stealth of +3.
Surprise Round: Rogue uses deadly aim for a +9 to hit against AC 14 for 24pts of damage.
Round 1: Rouge should win Initiative here too with +9 to Init, score another 24 pts (48 total) of damage and move 30ft back. The sound of boggards croaking alerts my Archaeologist friend to activate Luck and cast Allegro. The bard is going nova.
Round 2: The remaining boggards come charging after the rogue. The bard now...
I think you misinterpreted what I meant by consistent.
Consider seeing the boggards in a misty dungeon deep in a warm swamp. Meaning a 20% miss chance due to concelament in the whole area. Your stealth becomes easier, but your sneak attack damage dies.
Or if you meet the boggards farther away out of sneak attack range. You could attempt to stealth closer but that potentially drops you further away from the party.
In each of those instances the bard will still do all his damage. The rogue won't. That's really the crux of the issue with the rogue and the goal of many of the builds posted here. It's about beating the limitations so the numbers you've posted can be maintained.
For the record the party that this bard belongs to uses a dwarf ranger as a scout.
Didn't read the whole thread, so I'll just say what I do in my games: give them bonus feats instead of rogue talents.
Sub_Zero wrote:...you characters damage will have a hard time pulling his weight.But I don't think you showed why or how. You clearly and cleanly explained why a 5th level rogue vs a 5th level fighter is going to do, on average, less damage...by about 5 points...but is that you're interpretation of 'pulling [damage] weight', that the rogue, or any class's build, must do as much damage as a damage-focused fighter build?
This is the part that is bothering me. Please note that I think Sub Zero has been pretty fair in his critiques, and I don't want to come off as picking on him. However, some posters keep comparing the rogue to full BAB PCs. The point of this thread is to find builds that bring the rogue on par with other 3/4 PCs.
Instead, we've primarily got anecdotes that other classes can do the same thing (and better), or we have some fighter builds that show what we already know (and should expect).
We've had one archaeologist build that was posted, which in the archetype description even mentions that it is basically a rogue/bard hybrid. I think (maybe falsely) that I've demonstrated a build that pulls similar damage, but also fills a different role.
I started following this thread primarily because I want to play a rogue in an upcoming campaign. It has helped me come to the conclusion that I'll have fun playing a rogue and filling a useful role in the party.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sub_Zero wrote:...you characters damage will have a hard time pulling his weight.But I don't think you showed why or how. You clearly and cleanly explained why a 5th level rogue vs a 5th level fighter is going to do, on average, less damage...by about 5 points...but is that you're interpretation of 'pulling [damage] weight', that the rogue, or any class's build, must do as much damage as a damage-focused fighter build?This is the part that is bothering me. Please note that I think Sub Zero has been pretty fair in his critiques, and I don't want to come off as picking on him. However, some posters keep comparing the rogue to full BAB PCs. The point of this thread is to find builds that bring the rogue on par with other 3/4 PCs.
Instead, we've primarily got anecdotes that other classes can do the same thing (and better), or we have some fighter builds that show what we already know (and should expect).
We've had one archaeologist build that was posted, which in the archetype description even mentions that it is basically a rogue/bard hybrid. I think (maybe falsely) that I've demonstrated a build that pulls similar damage, but also fills a different role.
I started following this thread primarily because I want to play a rogue in an upcoming campaign. It has helped me come to the conclusion that I'll have fun playing a rogue and filling a useful role in the party.
I feel the need to echo this sentiment. Most groups aren't really counting on the 6 skills per level guy to be doing loads of damage (unless your name starts with Slay or Rang and ends with "er".).
So really you don't necessarily need to compete with the fighter or barbarian or ranger really. What you need to compete with are the other 3/4 bab classes that may fill your roles. Alchemists and Bards in particular have numerous ways to be better. Investigators too stand in a position where they will blow the rogue out of the water in a lot of important ways, (oh and take their talents too). The bard I posted is probably not a good thing to compete against particularly since I made him to handle other aspects of the rogue that aren't already handled by the groups ranger.
I think you misinterpreted what I meant by consistent.
Consider seeing the boggards in a misty dungeon deep in a warm swamp. Meaning a 20% miss chance due to concelament in the whole area. Your stealth becomes easier, but your sneak attack damage dies.
Or if you meet the boggards farther away out of sneak attack range. You could attempt to stealth closer but that potentially drops you further away from the party.
In each of those instances the bard will still do all his damage. The rogue won't. That's really the crux of the issue with the rogue and the goal of many of the builds posted here. It's about beating the limitations so the numbers you've posted can be maintained.
For the record the party that this bard belongs to uses a dwarf ranger as a scout.
Sorry, I had boggards on my mind as they're in an AP I'm prepping for. I'm sure there may have been some head scratching why I chose that encounter. At about 6th level the PCs run into a boggard village. In the scenario, they are pretty hunkered down in a village, no concealment for marsh conditions, and the boggards are fairly spread and isolated. There are some leaders, and such, but with the tactics I mentioned above, there is a probability that the rogue could go from area to area, eliminating most of the opponents with the rest of the group nearby.
Glancing through the rest of the AP's 6th level encounters, it also appeared those tactics would work very well too. Roughly 75% of the encounters didn't have 1/2 my Stealth or Initiative bonus, giving the rogue a decent advantage.
I wish I had more time to put together a little bit of an analysis in regards to APs, and the viability of setting up SAs with terrain and given encounters. I have a feeling it isn't as hard as some make it out to be.
Consider seeing the boggards in a misty dungeon deep in a warm swamp. Meaning a 20% miss chance due to concelament in the whole area. Your stealth becomes easier, but your sneak attack damage dies.
For the record the party that this bard belongs to uses a dwarf ranger as a scout.
I forgot to mention too that the Sniper Archetype could easily be added to this build if someone really wanted to take the archer rogue a step further and was concerned about overcoming concealment. Getting sneak attacks on concealed enemies is nice and so is the extra range on SA's.
As it turns out, the group I'll be sticking my rogue into has a barbarian (hammer), Alchemist (bomb chucking anvil), monk (Str based and flank/ stealth buddy). My primary function is to gather information by scouting (sometimes with the monk), handle almost all other skills so the group can focus on other things, and deal secondary damage. When I first started reading this thread, I was set on a dex rogue primarily using short swords and gang up. Now, I've got some more interesting options.
A huge bonus in skill do not solve much. The problem is that skill solve certain amount of thing but magic just win the game. Skill focus can give you a +6 but ivisibility...well, is invisibility.
How can the dev do not accept that the rogue have problems when the inquisitor, the alchemist and the bard are just better thieves thant he rogue?
While I understand your frustration, that magic can trump skills, that in itself is not a flaw. I mean, having skills trump magic seems to be kind of silly. While I can see skills being so high that they mimic magic ("He was here a minute ago" or the funny occurrence from video games, where the guy is almost touching you "I swear he is here somewhere!"), I see that really as being THAT HIGHLY skilled (and not attainable at lower skill rolls).
What I am getting at is that the "problem" might really be that magic is skewed a bit tougher than it should be in some cases. But this really comes down to being a balancing act. Is it fun to play a low level spellcaster that can do things that sort of help but ultimately make little difference? It can be, but not for long. It can be very frustrating to play a low-level spellcaster. The devs realized this, and tried to gauge spell levels to help even a 1st level spellcaster to have a bit of fun with spells like Vanish.
If your real problem is that spells like Invisiblity trump skills, an alternative solution might be to make it a higher level spell. Decide what spell level should give what sort of skill bonus. Maybe you decide that a Stealth +5 per spell level is good. If you decided which spells offend you, maybe that is a more efficient fix.
Spells have always trumped skills eventually, it is nothing new to Pathfinder. It has always been Magic > Non-caster. Magic = options that are not available to others. Every spell slot cast on a skill nerfer is a spell slot that cannot be used for something else. While it gives more options, each use reduces other options.
Skills are good in that you can do it reliably (assuming a decent skill bonus, die roll, and other factors of course). Your skilled character will not go "Crap, I used this skill earlier, so I cannot use this one now".
I have always loved playing a Rogue in earlier editions. I was warned against playing one in Pathfinder, so I have not as of yet played one. But I do think that giving them the skill feats as I mentioned on the previous page might help to make them more unique and a viable niche. I played way too many Mage/Thieves in 2nd Edition AD&D. Of course, multiclassing was done differently, but I relied on those thief abilities at lower level to keep me alive (usually by stealth), and later levels I rarely touched my skills. As stated many times already, magic eventually trumped them. Invisibility + Backstab was fun. At least now we can make more use of sneak attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would really not like this. Partiulary the mind control ones.
EDIT: the sleight of hand one is good IMHO,
It need not be super OP, however spellcasters get spells that completely override the need to even bother will skills, so having a way for the non-spell casters to have spell like abilities that mimick spells would be a decent nod to their ability, however it works out.
That aside...,
I feel the need to echo this sentiment. Most groups aren't really counting on the 6 skills per level guy to be doing loads of damage (unless your name starts with Slay or Rang and ends with "er".).
Fair enough, but even so I think we still run into the same problem. Other 3/4 bab classes have ways to mitigate their low bab.
inquisitor- judgments, spells
Alchemist- mutagen, infusions
bard- music, spells
monk- flurry, ki (not that this works great, but it's workable)
cleric- domains, spells
oracle- curse, spells
magus- spells, magic pool
druid- shape-shifting, spells
summoner- eidolon, spells
rogue- sneak attack and that's it from the class
wow, I looking at the list the rogue really does suffer compared to the others. everyone else's bonuses aren't conditional on difficult setup or heavy feat investments, and bonuses to-hit generally trump bonus damage if your class already suffers from missing frequently (full bab's can sacrifice to-hit for damage since they get bonuses to-hit in addition to their high bab allowing for power attack to work for them).
|
Taking toughness in any build for rogue will gimp your combat progression. The difference being a +1 bonus from a 14 con vs a 12 con. So a total of 9 hp difference at the level listed. Snake style will easily mitigate an attack every round.
Take a 2 level dip into Monk (of the Sacred Mountain) and get Toughness as a bonus feat instead of Evasion (which you already get from Rogue). Your build already has a one level Monk dip so take a second instead of the Unarmed Fighter.
Snake Style allows you to possibly mitigate damage every round. It is by no means a guarantee.
I guess my ninja build was more than acceptable since nobody said a word about it.
The thread is specifically a rogue thread not ninja.
cheers
Consider seeing the boggards in a misty dungeon deep in a warm swamp. Meaning a 20% miss chance due to concelament in the whole area. Your stealth becomes easier, but your sneak attack damage dies.There is a feat to fix that: Shadow Strike
A fix yes but also a feat tax on a class who would have to spend talents to get it or use one of their few precious free ones (since they are an archer).
Fair enough, but even so I think we still run into the same problem. Other 3/4 bab classes have ways to mitigate their low bab.
inquisitor- judgments, spells
Alchemist- mutagen, infusions
bard- music, spells
monk- flurry, ki (not that this works great, but it's workable)
cleric- domains, spells
oracle- curse, spells
magus- spells, magic pool
druid- shape-shifting, spells
summoner- eidolon, spellsrogue- sneak attack and that's it from the class
wow, I looking at the list the rogue really does suffer compared to the others. everyone else's bonuses aren't conditional on difficult setup or heavy feat investments, and bonuses to-hit generally trump bonus damage if your class already suffers from missing frequently (full bab's can sacrifice to-hit for damage since they get bonuses to-hit in addition to their high bab allowing for power attack to work for them).
I would focus more on the "rogue-like" classes. IT's unfair to compare them to a full caster (such as cleric, druid, and by some extension summoners). That leaves us with:
inquisitor- judgments, spells
Alchemist- mutagen, infusions
bard- music, spells
monk- flurry, ki (not that this works great, but it's workable)
magus- spells, magic pool
We should also cut this down a bit. MAgus's almost never have to fill the rogue role. Monks can arguably work the physical aspects of the class but that's generally not what they're there for.
So we're left with our bases:
Alchemist, Inquisitor, and Bard. We could use some more solid baselines of these to work from.
Nice to know how limited your knowledge of the game is, since ninja is a rogue archetype.I guess my ninja build was more than acceptable since nobody said a word about it.The thread is specifically a rogue thread not ninja.
cheers
Actually it's an alternate class. Which is to say you can't take rogue and ninja levels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fair enough, but even so I think we still run into the same problem. Other 3/4 bab classes have ways to mitigate their low bab.
inquisitor- judgments, spells
Alchemist- mutagen, infusions
bard- music, spells
monk- flurry, ki (not that this works great, but it's workable)
cleric- domains, spells
oracle- curse, spells
magus- spells, magic pool
druid- shape-shifting, spells
summoner- eidolon, spellsrogue- sneak attack and that's it from the class
wow, I looking at the list the rogue really does suffer compared to the others. everyone else's bonuses aren't conditional on difficult setup or heavy feat investments, and bonuses to-hit generally trump bonus damage if your class already suffers from missing frequently (full bab's can sacrifice to-hit for damage since they get bonuses to-hit in addition to their high bab allowing for power attack to work for them).
I would focus more on the "rogue-like" classes. IT's unfair to compare them to a full caster (such as cleric, druid, and by some extension summoners). That leaves us with:
inquisitor- judgments, spells
Alchemist- mutagen, infusions
bard- music, spells
monk- flurry, ki (not that this works great, but it's workable)
magus- spells, magic poolWe should also cut this down a bit. MAgus's almost never have to fill the rogue role. Monks can arguably work the physical aspects of the class but that's generally not what they're there for.
So we're left with our bases:
Alchemist, Inquisitor, and Bard. We could use some more solid baselines of these to work from.
I agree, I listed every 3/4 base class to show the glaring disparity between the rogue and the other 3/4's classes. Every single one of them has multiple means of improving their attack bonus and damage. In addition none of them require difficult setup to make work, and most get spells/abilities that far outpace the rogue.
For example by 8th level the inquisitor can add +2 attack +3 damage as a swift action (justice/destruction) and the next turn add an additional 2d6 damage (bane weapon) in addition to casting other useful battlefield spells. They also can wear better armor, gains bonus feats, and other useful abilities (monster lore, stern gaze, cunning initiative).
The alchemist of the same level will be able to down a mutagen, throw bombs that can stagger opponents, drink potions that grant numerous benefits, and if allowed take the vivsectionist then it makes the rogue almost obsolete. Unlike the rogue, they have a good reason to have a high intelligence which makes everything they do that much more potent.
The bard is by default an amazing buffer class. The base bard comes closest to the rogues level in combat damage, but that's due to the bards ability to contribute by being a buffer. Of course you can give away some of this buffer ability to take on the dawnflower dervish/archaeologist, which again shoots them out ahead. By 8th level they (dervish since it's what I know best), get dervish dance as a bonus feat removing the feat tax others pay, +4 to attack/damage via their dance, +2 via arcane strike, and can cast good hope or haste depending on the situation all in 1 round. (obviously if the group is ambushed this might not be the best move and casting a debuff like glitterdust might be the better option, which the bard has the choice of doing).
So in the instance of every single other 3/4's base class we have multiple ways to make them combat viable, and put them on solid footing. Except the rogue, who gets not a single ability to up their attack.
This is the reason that feats like sap adept/master seem almost necessary to make the rogue viable since they don't get any unique way to contribute outside of damage, and then nothing that allows them to actually make sure their attacks stick.
/rant over.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And the developers have clarified that an alternate class is just an archetype that they have delineated full progression for. If something calls out "rogue" as a pre-req, ninjas qualify for it. However, they wouldn't qualify for something like the Extra Rogue Talent feat because they do not have the class feature "Rogue Talent".Actually it's an alternate class. Which is to say you can't take rogue and ninja levels.Nice to know how limited your knowledge of the game is, since ninja is a rogue archetype.I guess my ninja build was more than acceptable since nobody said a word about it.The thread is specifically a rogue thread not ninja.
cheers
That's great and all. But the reason we avoided ninjas (as explicitly stated in the first post) is because many people, and subsequently GM's, treat them as a separate class. Other's don't want eastern flavor in their games at all. If we could simply call the ninja a rogue and walk away this thread would never have existed.
The eastern flavour is incidental in the ninja. It can as easily be the class used for thehassassins in an arabian nights setting, thuggee in classical india inspired setting, fate bound assassins, or mystically inclined thieves guilds.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The eastern flavour is incidental in the ninja. It can as easily be the class used for thehassassins in an arabian nights setting, thuggee in classical india inspired setting, fate bound assassins, or mystically inclined thieves guilds.
agreed, but not all GM's see it that way. For instance my GM bans it and the samurai, because "I want a classic medieval setting and eastern classes don't fit with my idea" (funnily the monk is still allowed)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The eastern flavour is incidental in the ninja. It can as easily be the class used for thehassassins in an arabian nights setting, thuggee in classical india inspired setting, fate bound assassins, or mystically inclined thieves guilds.
And the same can be said for alchemists, bards, and inquisitors.
I understand the point being made here. But when you say you're playing the rogue class, you're playing the rogue class. It's like saying you're playing a paladin, but coming in with an anti-paladin. Similar, but worlds of difference where it counts. So we're here to help the rogue Not the ninja, who arguably doesn't need it.
This thread is about making a rogue work within the rules as written. Ninjas are perfectly legal within the rules as written. You can't then say, "Well some GMs might not allow ninjas." Some GMs might now allow sneak attack and some might decide to "fix" the rogue by giving them full BAB. All we can go by is that whatever is RAW is legal, and that means ninjas are legal.
Great. But you're still calling a ninja a rogue and asking for praise.
Well, congratulations, you made a ninja, awesome. You won the thread. PFS rogues everywhere will take the ninja and be grateful to you. With your astounding reasoning of "The ninja is a rogue by RAW" GM's everywhere will cowtow before their players and ninjas will be popping out of the shadows everywhere.
You win the argument. You have what you want.
Now let's get back to making some actual rogues.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A ninja is a rogue. I'm not calling it that, the devs did. If you don't like it, complain to them rather than throwing a hissy fit and exercising your less thasn stellar sarcasm abilities in this thread.
Consequently do you even have a quote or errata stating that?
And whether or not I like it is irrelevant. It's the GM at the table who decides whether he likes it or not. The only thing you win here with this argument is nothing. In fact what is it that you even want by this?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A ninja is a rogue. I'm not calling it that, the devs did. Stop bringing house rules into it. Design for the lowest common denominator, which is RAW. By RAW, a ninja is a rogue. Deal with it.
nothing to deal with actually. In this thread we are talking about a "pure Rogue". The fact that the OP has specifically told you that were not considering the ninja to fit the bill should be enough.
As stated, good job you can make a good ninja, congratulations. We're not talking about the ninja in this thread were talking about the rogue. I'd give you a cookie if I could, but I always tend to burn mine so you probably wouldn't want it anyway.
in fact lets look back at the original OP
Our agreement
Please no snark, and no negativity. Saying things like "the best rogue is a ninja/bard/alchemist/eidolon" is unproductive to the discussion. We're not here to talk about how the rogue sucks. We're here about how to make the rogue awesome.
as you can see it was clearly stated that were not talking about the rogue in this thread. So, lets move along and get back to the discussion on rogues.
The eastern flavour is incidental in the ninja. It can as easily be the class used for thehassassins in an arabian nights setting, thuggee in classical india inspired setting, fate bound assassins, or mystically inclined thieves guilds.And the same can be said for alchemists, bards, and inquisitors.
I understand the point being made here. But when you say you're playing the rogue class, you're playing the rogue class. It's like saying you're playing a paladin, but coming in with an anti-paladin. Similar, but worlds of difference where it counts. So we're here to help the rogue Not the ninja, who arguably doesn't need it.
No.
See their are strong mechanical and thematic differences between a paladin, and an anti-paladin. That makes what your suggesting rather different, because their are a wide range of mystical rogue/assassin archetypal characters can be well represented by the "ninja" just as "paladin" can well represent a wide range of Holy warriors.
Your confusing name, and thematic niche.
I.E. the cultural flavour should not be a barrier to use with a reasonable DM, but the thematic structure of the class might be.
That said, I entirely understand your not really interested in talking about the Ninja, so I'll be moving on to the actual subject I wanted to raise in my next post.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except that bards, alchemiss, and eidolons are separate classes (or separate class features), ninjas are rogues. So if I want to make the rogue work, I make a ninja and it works.
you miss the point. Ninja's were specifically called out in the OP as not being what this thread is about. I'm not sure why your stubbornly unrelenting on this point, since the OP has told you that a ninja is not what is meant, and it's also included in the original post as not being what were talking about.
However, I could very esily make the character I posted as a pure rogue, just not right now because I'm at work. The more I think about it, the pure rogue might actually be better, not having Vanishing Trick and Invisible Blade notwithstanding.
This I'd be interested in seeing as it fits with what the thread is about.
The eastern flavour is incidental in the ninja. It can as easily be the class used for thehassassins in an arabian nights setting, thuggee in classical india inspired setting, fate bound assassins, or mystically inclined thieves guilds.And the same can be said for alchemists, bards, and inquisitors.
I understand the point being made here. But when you say you're playing the rogue class, you're playing the rogue class. It's like saying you're playing a paladin, but coming in with an anti-paladin. Similar, but worlds of difference where it counts. So we're here to help the rogue Not the ninja, who arguably doesn't need it.
No.
See their are strong mechanical and thematic differences between a paladin, and an anti-paladin. That makes what your suggesting rather different, because their are a wide range of mystical rogue/assassin archetypal characters can be well represented by the "ninja" just as "paladin" can well represent a wide range of Holy warriors.
Your confusing name, and thematic niche.
No, I'm talking alternate classes.
Which, as the game defines it are archetypes that change the class so radically they become practically different classes (see the ACG playtest) so they get their own statblocks and everything else.
And in fact it wasn't a particularly popular idea. The only reason Ninja's remained an alternate class was because the dev's felt they didn't want classes who had abilities that stacked in such a way that multiclassing was better than going straight into the core. So, by being an alternate class they avoided that.
And really, if a ninja can fit any non-eastern theme so too can the rogue fit any eastern one. But it hardly stops gm's from banning them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The eastern flavour is incidental in the ninja. It can as easily be the class used for thehassassins in an arabian nights setting, thuggee in classical india inspired setting, fate bound assassins, or mystically inclined thieves guilds.And the same can be said for alchemists, bards, and inquisitors.
I understand the point being made here. But when you say you're playing the rogue class, you're playing the rogue class. It's like saying you're playing a paladin, but coming in with an anti-paladin. Similar, but worlds of difference where it counts. So we're here to help the rogue Not the ninja, who arguably doesn't need it.
No.
See their are strong mechanical and thematic differences between a paladin, and an anti-paladin. That makes what your suggesting rather different, because their are a wide range of mystical rogue/assassin archetypal characters can be well represented by the "ninja" just as "paladin" can well represent a wide range of Holy warriors.
Your confusing name, and thematic niche.
No, I'm talking alternate classes.
Which, as the game defines it are archetypes that change the class so radically they become practically different classes (see the ACG playtest) so they get their own statblocks and everything else.
And in fact it wasn't a particularly popular idea. The only reason Ninja's remained an alternate class was because the dev's felt they didn't want classes who had abilities that stacked in such a way that multiclassing was better than going straight into the core. So, by being an alternate class they avoided that.
And really, if a ninja can fit any non-eastern theme so too can the rogue fit any eastern one. But it hardly stops gm's from banning them.
Sorry, but are you seriously suggesting that rogues can't fit into an eastern setting?