|
First, a caveat:
There's a lot of things in this post about topics that have generally gotten really heated. Please keep the message board rules in mind when posting and play nice!
These arguments don't hold that playing a rogue isn't fun. In fact, it is pointed out within the first ten posts in the thread linked above that explicitly stating that that isn't the point.*
When 4th Edition was coming out, a common complaint was that it was too video-gamey, and that it was too bland - which was often associated with it being so balanced as to remove any flavor.**
So my question is this: how do we fix a problem like that seen in the rogue (or the monk, for that matter) without simultaneously losing flavor to preserve balance? How do we (the community) expect Paizo to fix the problem without becoming a different product. What can our favorite game company (or at least, my favorite game company) do to give the rogue what people want without making it feel like something other than the rogue?
*I really don't think responses that just say something along the lines of "I don't like playing rogues" will be helpful. Clearly there are people who enjoy rogues, but maybe they could be made better for everyone.
**I REALLY don't think we need to rehash any of the arguments leading up to this statement. This is not about the editions, it's about what the community thinks Paizo ought to do to fix one of the top 10 issues that comes up on the boards.
|
|
Some Random Dude, I started this topic because the other major one right now asks a question I don't feel I can reasonably address while staying on topic. What possible method would I have of knowing whether Paizo has "given up" on the rogue?
I am though very interested to see what people think can be/want to be done to fix the issue without losing identity.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Better Rogue Talents. This should have been done ages ago but Paizo seems reluctant to do anything to help these poor guys out.
Gear. Magic gear.
You what a high level rogue would easily pay 200,000 gold for? A ring of greater invisibility and a head slot of mind blank.
Goz mask, sniper goggles, and smoke sticks make a rogue a dangerous range combatant. If only Goz mask was from a PRD source (sees through smoke and mist).
EDIT: Also a way to counter blur would be nice.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Better Rogue Talents. This should have been done ages ago but Paizo seems reluctant to do anything to help these poor guys out.How would you define "better" rogue talents?
Not once per day abilities. Not abilities that are better left to roleplaying. Abilities that synergize with the Rogue' abilities. Stuff like dodging magic, using his reflex save against fort or will. Evasion and Improved Evasion should have full effect in combination with that.
I want talents that grant weird abilities. Like something called Foolhardy that gives a big bonus vs Fear effects. Currently the best Rogue Talents are ones that give feats. Thats very disappointing. Basically Paizo gave us a brand new class feature and the best thing you can do with it is trade it in for feats.
A Deep Pockets talent would be great too. To retroactively spend gold to conjure forth an item since you always seem to have the right tool for the job. The GP value of the item increases as you gain levels. Eventually you can whip out a +2 equivalent weapon for that fight where you need a Ghost Touch sword. Or a Scroll of Deathward.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think there's a problem with the rogue, but let's assume for a moment there is one. Here's the thing I take issue with (from your strangely hidden comments):
These arguments don't hold that playing a rogue isn't fun. In fact, it is pointed out within the first ten posts in the thread linked above that explicitly stating that that isn't the point.
Actually, whether or not playing a rogue is fun should be the ONLY point. It's a game. You play the game to enjoy yourself. If playing a rogue is fun, mission accomplished.
Comparing power in the game and treating mechanics as if they are life or death is one of those arbitrary things I equate to cheating the dice or tricking your GM to get more power or gold. Worse, it's like punching your GM in the face when you don't get those things. These things are not only arbitrary and relative, THEY ARE IMAGINARY. They are barely worth a discussion, much less a heated debate that goes on for weeks and weeks.
Gear. Magic gear.
You what a high level rogue would easily pay 200,000 gold for? A ring of greater invisibility and a head slot of mind blank.
Goz mask, sniper goggles, and smoke sticks make a rogue a dangerous range combatant. If only Goz mask was from a PRD source (sees through smoke and mist).
EDIT: Also a way to counter blur would be nice.
What do you mean from a PRD source? The goz mask is from the inner sea world guide and is legal for PFS play, if that's what you're worried about.
And ways to make the rogue better? Give them full bab, better talents, maybe something unique/useful that only they can do?
I think the problem some people have with the rogue, is that there is nothing the current rogue can do that another class can't do better.
Playing rogues and fighters is not fun. I've seen friends become depressed and/or suicidal after playing one.
Correlation is causation.
Gear. Magic gear.
You what a high level rogue would easily pay 200,000 gold for? A ring of greater invisibility and a head slot of mind blank.
Goz mask, sniper goggles, and smoke sticks make a rogue a dangerous range combatant. If only Goz mask was from a PRD source (sees through smoke and mist).
EDIT: Also a way to counter blur would be nice.
What do you mean from a PRD source? The goz mask is from the inner sea world guide and is legal for PFS play, if that's what you're worried about.
And ways to make the rogue better? Give them full bab, better talents, maybe something unique/useful that only they can do?
I think the problem some people have with the rogue, is that there is nothing the current rogue can do that another class can't do better.
It's not in the PRD, so most GMs don't give it the automatic OK or are likely to add those items in shops.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think there's a problem with the rogue, but let's assume for a moment there is one. Here's the thing I take issue with (from your strangely hidden comments):
These arguments don't hold that playing a rogue isn't fun. In fact, it is pointed out within the first ten posts in the thread linked above that explicitly stating that that isn't the point.
Actually, whether or not playing a rogue is fun should be the ONLY point. It's a game. You play the game to enjoy yourself. If playing a rogue is fun, mission accomplished.
Comparing power in the game and treating mechanics as if they are life or death is one of those arbitrary things I equate to cheating the dice or tricking your GM to get more power or gold. Worse, it's like punching your GM in the face when you don't get those things. These things are not only arbitrary and relative, THEY ARE IMAGINARY. They are barely worth a discussion, much less a heated debate that goes on for weeks and weeks.
So should we just abandon balance all together? I don't think that makes for a fun game. Why not all just play Commoners if you have fun right?
|
|
I don't think there's a problem with the rogue, but let's assume for a moment there is one. Here's the thing I take issue with (from your strangely hidden comments):
These arguments don't hold that playing a rogue isn't fun. In fact, it is pointed out within the first ten posts in the thread linked above that explicitly stating that that isn't the point.
Actually, whether or not playing a rogue is fun should be the ONLY point. It's a game. You play the game to enjoy yourself. If playing a rogue is fun, mission accomplished.
Comparing power in the game and treating mechanics as if they are life or death is one of those arbitrary things I equate to cheating the dice or tricking your GM to get more power or gold. Worse, it's like punching your GM in the face when you don't get those things. These things are not only arbitrary and relative, THEY ARE IMAGINARY. They are barely worth a discussion, much less a heated debate that goes on for weeks and weeks.
Bruunwald, I agree that the rogue is fun to play. Many of the people who complain about the rogue do not argue that the rogue is not fun to play. But for some reason it's still worth making the issue of its balance/usability a regular and major topic on the message boards.
I personally agree with you that having fun is the only point. But clearly, that is not an opinion held by everybody. I want to understand what that sector of the community thinks. I already grok what the "let's just have fun, and who cares exactly what the rules are so long as we're having fun" crowd thinks.
Finally, I hid the actual question so that people would read the reminder not to be jerks before posting. I'd love to have a conversation about the issue without a lot of posts being deleted.
One thing that we have done (in my home games) is give rogues the Shadow Child trait from the 'Council of Thieves' AP. (As a free bonus trait.) This allows rogues without dark-vision to function better than most characters of their race in dim light, which my group feels is thematically appropriate.
My rogues are always half-elf or elf anyways.
|
|
So should we just abandon balance all together? I don't think that makes for a fun game. Why not all just play Commoners if you have fun right?I don't think there's a problem with the rogue, but let's assume for a moment there is one. Here's the thing I take issue with (from your strangely hidden comments):
These arguments don't hold that playing a rogue isn't fun. In fact, it is pointed out within the first ten posts in the thread linked above that explicitly stating that that isn't the point.
Actually, whether or not playing a rogue is fun should be the ONLY point. It's a game. You play the game to enjoy yourself. If playing a rogue is fun, mission accomplished.
Comparing power in the game and treating mechanics as if they are life or death is one of those arbitrary things I equate to cheating the dice or tricking your GM to get more power or gold. Worse, it's like punching your GM in the face when you don't get those things. These things are not only arbitrary and relative, THEY ARE IMAGINARY. They are barely worth a discussion, much less a heated debate that goes on for weeks and weeks.
I think another way of saying that is to point out that the rules are directly related to the game - and for a lot of people, their enjoyment of the game.
Pathfinder is really crunchy, as far as RPGs go. Ignoring the rules is probably bad juju. I don't think the fan base would handle it well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So should we just abandon balance all together? I don't think that makes for a fun game.
I think that's a fundamental problem Paizo face - I actually do think that unbalanced RPGs are more fun. I wont pretend that you should think so too, but when we operate from such different base assumptions, they're kind of screwed as to pleasing everyone.
By unbalanced, I mean mechanically unbalanced - in contrast to most of the rules posters, I prefer games where making particular flavor choices has mechanical disadvantages.
I'm willing to accept the community consensus that rogues are less powerful or 'easily emulated/replaced' or whatever the broad consensus is. But I dont find that a problem. Furthermore, in games where such things are meticulously balanced (or where they try to balance all PCs anyhow) I dont find that I enjoy myself as much. That's purely an aesthetic preference, but it's a real one.
By unbalanced, I mean mechanically unbalanced - in contrast to most of the rules posters, I prefer games where making particular flavor choices has mechanical disadvantages.
Maximum over stormwind fallacy alert!
I personally agree with you that having fun is the only point. But clearly, that is not an opinion held by everybody. I want to understand what that sector of the community thinks. I already grok what the "let's just have fun, and who cares exactly what the rules are so long as we're having fun" crowd thinks.
Sorry about that. I didnt fully appreciate the thrust of your post.
I think another way of saying that is to point out that the rules are directly related to the game - and for a lot of people, their enjoyment of the game.
Pathfinder is really crunchy, as far as RPGs go. Ignoring the rules is probably bad juju. I don't think the fan base would handle it well.
I think this is a good point. Although my preference is rules-light, I think it's pretty clear that most of Paizo's fans are at the rules-heavy (or at least rules-comprehensive) end of the spectrum. FWIW, I think that should tip their inclination towards balanced classes. Although possibly a more broad concept of 'balance' than seems to be usually requested.
By unbalanced, I mean mechanically unbalanced - in contrast to most of the rules posters, I prefer games where making particular flavor choices has mechanical disadvantages.Maximum over stormwind fallacy alert!
Nah, I dont think optimisation has any bearing on roleplaying. I was just stating a preference as to what I enjoy.
|
|
By unbalanced, I mean mechanically unbalanced - in contrast to most of the rules posters, I prefer games where making particular flavor choices has mechanical disadvantages.Maximum over stormwind fallacy alert!
I don't think that's the stormwind fallacy. The stormwind fallacy, unless I've misunderstood it, is about pointing out that roleplay and "roll-play" are not mutually exclusive. I.e., you aren't a better roleplayer just because you made a character that sucks at life. And the corollary, you aren't a bad roleplayer just because your character rocks in combat.
I understood Geddes' comment to mean that certain thematic choices *should* be better (in some or all situations) than other choices. Fighter should be better than rogue at fighter stuff. Choosing beast-totem barbarian in a diplomacy heavy court-intrigue game, and you may very well have a bad time. And if classes don't have distinct "flavors", then why have classes at all?
Perhaps I misunderstood Geddes.
By unbalanced, I mean mechanically unbalanced - in contrast to most of the rules posters, I prefer games where making particular flavor choices has mechanical disadvantages.Maximum over stormwind fallacy alert!
I don't think that's the stormwind fallacy. The stormwind fallacy, unless I've misunderstood it, is about pointing out that roleplay and "roll-play" are not mutually exclusive. I.e., you aren't a better roleplayer just because you made a character that sucks at life.
I understood Geddes' comment to mean that certain thematic choices *should* be better (in some or all situations) than other choices. Fighter should be better than rogue at fighter stuff. Choosing beast-totem barbarian in a diplomacy heavy court-intrigue game, and you may very well have a bad time. And if classes don't have distinct "flavors", then why have classes at all?
Perhaps I misunderstood Geddes.
Kind of, but it's not terribly important. I'm an outlier and not really the target audience of this thread.
I certainly wasnt suggesting that imbalanced rulesystems lead to better roleplaying (although perhaps that's what it looked like I was saying).
So should we just abandon balance all together? I don't think that makes for a fun game.I think that's a fundamental problem Paizo face - I actually do think that unbalanced RPGs are more fun. I wont pretend that you should think so too, but when we operate from such different base assumptions, they're kind of screwed as to pleasing everyone.
By unbalanced, I mean mechanically unbalanced - in contrast to most of the rules posters, I prefer games where making particular flavor choices has mechanical disadvantages.
I'm willing to accept the community consensus that rogues are less powerful or 'easily emulated/replaced' or whatever the broad consensus is. But I dont find that a problem. Furthermore, in games where such things are meticulously balanced (or where they try to balance all PCs anyhow) I dont find myself enjoying myself. That's purely an aesthetic preference, but it's a real one.
Genuinely curious here, what makes an unbalanced RPG more fun then a balanced one? I would prefer if your answer was something other then "Because then people who know better can pick the best classes." but if that's your answer I'll accept it as a difference in opinion.
I think a big problem with trying to get balance in PF is that too many associate 4E with balanced and while yes that's one way to balance, many classes in 3.5 were for the most part balanced against each other without being very similar.
Beguilers, Binders, Crusaders, Dread Necromancers, Duskblades, Factotums, Swordsages and Warbaldes were all pretty well balanced against each while being very distinct in playstyle.
The problem with achieving balance is that for some people Martials are "supposed to be weaker then casters". Others hold that Martials should be shackled to our level 1-6 reality even those Martials hit level 8. And heaven help if you show what a Level 16 Martial should be able to do, that's Weeaboo Fightan Magic. Until people stop trying to justify Martials abilities within the context of our realities physics (which quite frankly they already break), balance is kind of impossible, since by default casters get to run roughshod over reality.
Genuinely curious here, what makes an unbalanced RPG more fun then a balanced one? I would prefer if your answer was something other then "Because then people who know better can pick the best classes." but if that's your answer I'll accept it as a difference in opinion.
No it's just my fundamental assumptions. I enjoy worlds where magic is fundamentally better than non-magic - part of being a magic-user is being feared by all and sundry but that isnt part of being even a high level fighter (in my preferred world).
I suspect it's also part of my group's poor system mastery - our rogues have plenty to do because our spellcasters are probably terribly run (magic-users do damage in our games and clerics cast healing spells a lot, for example - what I've come to understand as two pretty poor choices).
EDIT: At it's heart though, it's not really something I have a reason for, it's just an empirical observation. Games where balance is an obvious factor in the game design just arent as appealing to me.
The problem with achieving balance is that for some people Martials are "supposed to be weaker then casters". Others hold that Martials should be shackled to our level 1-6 reality even those Martials hit level 8. And heaven help if you show what a Level 16 Martial should be able to do, that's Weeaboo Fightan Magic. Until people stop trying to justify Martials abilities within the context of our realities physics (which quite frankly they already break), balance is kind of impossible, since by default casters get to run roughshod over reality.
Yeah, I'm in this camp, basically. This is how I like it to be - which does make balance difficult (unless magic is dialled back to "limp").
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd be ok with magic being dialed back to limp. Greater limit on consumables and reduce the dependance on magic items. I think its too much to expect but, I would love to see some designers take a true shot at bounded accuracy.(I know the name sucks but its all I got to work with.)
Yeah, I'm in this camp, basically. This is how I like it to be - which does make balance difficult (unless magic is dialled back to "limp").
Would you be fine with Fighters entering a level 11 PrC where they become angel/hell knights, pick up thor's hammer and become lord of storms, or train under Irish warrior women for salmon leaping superpowers?
I would love to see some designers take a true shot at bounded accuracy.(I know the name sucks but its all I got to work with.)
That's pretty much AD&D. AC caps at -10 (30 in Pathfinder terms)
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
On balance: I'm of the opinion that game balance is necessary for fun. Perfect balance is impossible, but good balance is not.
IMO it's very easy to make a fun game. You did it all the time when you were 5 and just made up random rules on the spot. But making something that's fun for a large number of people, for an extended period of time? That requires balancing.
A system that is not balanced to a certain degree falls apart. You can see that by looking at most games that have slid downhill over the years after being popular, both videogame and otherwise.
Usually the cause is one of a few reasons:
1.) The game was highly outdated, either due to sheer age or the release of a new edition/a sequel.
2.) The game never had much staying power to begin with (easy to draw in new players because the first 20 hours or so are fun...but after that it kinda loses its luster).
3.) The devs stopped supporting the game entirely. A game without new content is stagnant, and people get bored of it.
4.) The game started off balanced, but then became steadily more unbalanced, or the imbalances already extant became more noticeable. Unfortunately the former (and to a lesser extent the latter) is usually a direct result of mishandling of part 3. The balance (ha) is delicate.
That last bit is the most insidious, and is what is at play here. Pathfinder has a remarkable lack of power creep where it counts, the upper ceiling is not too far from where the game was on release. However, the balance floor, where classes like the Rogue reside, has gotten comparatively farther away. Why? The middle ground has moved upwards somewhat.
Classes like the Alchemist are balanced, fun, share a somewhat similar flavor, and fill a similar role to the Rogue. However, where the Rogue class resides at the bedrock of the balance scale of this game, the Alchemist is somewhere closer to the upper-middle.
By comparison, this makes the Rogue suck more, even though they're really in the same spot that they were before.
But that's ramble-y. Back to the point.
Balance is necessary for a game to thrive. When an imbalance is perceived, it's only natural that people will petition to have it addressed, because it IS a flaw in the game. While some people might not see it that way, or may not care, many other people DO.
Flaws, naturally, should be fixed. That's what a game designer/developer's job is, to design a fun AND balanced game. Failing on one of those fronts means you have failed to produce a good game. A fun game, perhaps, but one that is unlikely to be successful in the long term.
Now, the Rogue being a crappy class doesn't make the whole game unbalanced, and doesn't mean Pathfinder isn't a good game. But it could be a BETTER game. I doubt anyone would complain if the Rogue were buffed. The people that have fun with the Rogue can still have fun...they're just more effective now.
Likewise, the people who DIDN'T have fun with the class may be more likely to now that it is a mechanically sound option.
Everybody wins, except that one guy who has an irrational hatred for the class and wants to see it cut, burned, and forgotten. =)
I'm obviously "in the other camp" but its pretty hard to argue with Rynjin's last post from a mass-appeal perspective.
Yeah, I'm in this camp, basically. This is how I like it to be - which does make balance difficult (unless magic is dialled back to "limp").Would you be fine with Fighters entering a level 11 PrC where they become angel/hell knights, pick up thor's hammer and become lord of storms, or train under Irish warrior women for salmon leaping superpowers?
Yeah, I'm not really against fighters "becoming magical", but it doesn't fit my imagining if that becomes the default assumption. I think King Arthur and Lancelot are best modelled as just very competent knights. It wouldn't bug me if their sorcery enabled foes were inherently mechanically superior.
Yeah, I'm not really against fighters "becoming magical", but it doesn't fit my imagining if that becomes the default assumption. I think King Arthur and Lancelot are best modelled as just very competent knights. It wouldn't bug me if their sorcery enabled foes were inherently mechanically superior.
What do you consider the meaning of a "Level" in D&D?
How do you think the Merlin of Arthurian legend should be modeled in D&D?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think there is an abundance of exuberance around wanting to do cool things around the rogue. Paizo redesigned stealth, afterall. The issue is the efficacy of their already existing materials. It will take a new edition to fix as the current format and content of the CRB is simply lacking. If you have a player with an old version they're effectively "playing it wrong" (see crane wing arguments). The mechanical issues with the rogue go beyond simply adding rogue talents, though that would accomplish a lot. It would take replacing what's already there.
Yeah, I'm not really against fighters "becoming magical", but it doesn't fit my imagining if that becomes the default assumption. I think King Arthur and Lancelot are best modelled as just very competent knights. It wouldn't bug me if their sorcery enabled foes were inherently mechanically superior.What do you consider the meaning of a "Level" in D&D?
How do you think the Merlin of Arthurian legend should be modeled in D&D?
Well, I don't want to hijack the thread. But, fwiw, I don't consider level to have a real world analog. It's a non-realistic, purely gamist term, in my view.
I don't know what merlin did, to be frank. My instinct is that he'd be a mid level magicuser of say eighth level. (but that's based on half remembered stories from thirty plus years ago).
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I enjoy worlds where magic is fundamentally better than non-magic - part of being a magic-user is being feared by all and sundry but that isnt part of being even a high level fighter (in my preferred world).
At first I thought - "not another rogue thread!" - but this one's been a good read because it brings the edition/game system topic to the forefront.
I'm absolutely playing Pathfinder more than other systems like 4E because it more accurately simulates the relationship between the magic and non-magical camps - where magic is always the more powerful one.
If I wanted a game where they were at parity, I'd play and invest my dollars into a different game. This is a sacred cow to me.
I like Steve's views. I'd bet Paizo does too, him being a superduperscriber and all. :)
I enjoy worlds where magic is fundamentally better than non-magic - part of being a magic-user is being feared by all and sundry but that isnt part of being even a high level fighter (in my preferred world).At first I thought - "not another rogue thread!" - but this one's been a good read because it brings the edition/game system topic to the forefront.
I'm absolutely playing Pathfinder more than other systems like 4E because it more accurately simulates the relationship between the magic and non-magical camps - where magic is always the more powerful one.
If I wanted a game where they were at parity, I'd play and invest my dollars into a different game. This is a sacred cow to me.
I like Steve's views. I'd bet Paizo does too, him being a superduperscriber and all. :)
Would you be fine with Fighters entering a level 6-11 PrC where they become angel/hell knights and sprout wings, pick up thor's hammer and become stormlords, or train under Irish warrior women for salmon leaping superpowers?
That is, after a certain point they are no longer constrained by being "John McClane from DieHard", but gain supernatural powers.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
First of all everyone does not want the same thing from a rogue so I won't go into specifics, but the rogue talents need to be equal to or better than feats generally speaking. Rogue's do decent damage so that is not really a problem. They do need to be better with skills, and by that I don't just mean higher bonuses. I mean they should be able to, even if it means using talents, use skills in ways that others can't.
Maybe diplomacy can act like charm person for a limited amount of time*.
Maybe with UMD he can pick one class at the beginning of the day and emulate that class for the purpose of activating spells, using scrolls, wands, and staves.
Maybe gather information acts like one of the divination spells. The flavor could be that while he is gathering information he knows how to put the information together that is gained from talking to people. I am leaning towards the locate ____ spells.
The rogue could also have paths that make him better at certain things depending on the path.
Maybe bonuses to combat, another one could be really good with skills, such as from the above mentioned options. Maybe there could be a rogue focused on social skills.
*Please don't derail this with what are the limits of charm person. I am just giving examples.
Personally I don't think of any of this will happen but you homebrewers out there it is something to look at.<------Paizo fixing the rogue would take time away from newer projects and they are always tip toeing the deadline as it is to get products out.
Unless they had freelancers do the major revisions, and/or had a contest, and then worked toward smoothing out the edges I don't see this happening.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
rogues are an archaic class that was never truly needed. they gave existed as limiters since 0E, like monks. relics that were always vestigial.
in fact, it is the existence of the rogue, that denies martial characters access to more skill points and better gang up abilities, rogue shouldn't be a class, it should be a skill selection made by a variety of larcenous characters
the existence of the monk denies decent unarmed combat options because the monk must be accounted for, make unarmed and unarmored an optional style useable by any class to fix this
the fighter exists to limit the feats of others because it has no real features, how about we give them real features instead and give everyone more feats?
instead of the cavalier? how about a feat for a scaling mount and better animal training rules?
how about we drop the gunslinger and simply fix guns, slings, and crossbows?
how about we rebalance spells to a more spammable paradigm to drop the 15 minute adventure day and tweak how healing works so divine casters are less of a character tax?
how about we make disabling magic traps a part of disable device?
how about we merge some of the redundant skills like climb and swim, and fix the DCs for Acrobatics and the like
how about we fix CMD? manuevers are impossible to land past level 7. unless you are a minmaxed lore warden built for one highly specific manuever.
Better Rogue Talents. This should have been done ages ago but Paizo seems reluctant to do anything to help these poor guys out.How would you define "better" rogue talents?
A start is to make talents that do not make you worse than you were before (like powerful and deadly sneak do), drop the once per day that seems to get tacked to the majority of talents*, be a little more forgiving on which talents affect the sneak attack (remember you can use only one talent that affects sneak attack) and don't make talents that don't (or shouldn't) do anything (rumormonger).
*if you want to place a restriction on the number of days, either give the rogue a pool and have talents require said pool's points in order to activate or make the talents usable more times per day (like 3+something, or 1+half level)
First, a caveat:
There's a lot of things in this post about topics that have generally gotten really heated. Please keep the message board rules in mind when posting and play nice!
...
No. I like this edition. Please, no.
rogues are an archaic class that was never truly needed. they gave existed as limiters since 0E, like monks. relics that were always vestigial.
in fact, it is the existence of the rogue, that denies martial characters access to more skill points and better gang up abilities, rogue shouldn't be a class, it should be a skill selection made by a variety of larcenous characters
the existence of the monk denies decent unarmed combat options because the monk must be accounted for, make unarmed and unarmored an optional style useable by any class to fix this
the fighter exists to limit the feats of others because it has no real features, how about we give them real features instead and give everyone more feats?
I cant tell you are sarcastic or not.
Now about rogue... i did not played much this class, but from what i remember i most of rogue talents seemed underpowered...
|
Playing rogues and fighters is not fun. I've seen friends become depressed and/or suicidal after playing one.
Correlation is causation.
Actually talking statistically correlation doesn't prove cause or effect relationships.
Anyways, I think this is a pretty gross overstatement or assumption. If your friends don't find that style of game play then they shouldn't play those classes it would be rather boring for them.
Playing rogues and fighters is not fun. I've seen friends become depressed and/or suicidal after playing one.
Correlation is causation.
Actually talking statistically correlation doesn't prove cause or effect relationships.
Anyways, I think this is a pretty gross overstatement or assumption. If your friends don't find that style of game play then they shouldn't play those classes it would be rather boring for them.
Either I failed my Sense Motive check or Marthkus was being sarcastic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For me, the problem of the rogue is not new.
Way back in 1st ed AD&D, having a thief in the party was essential, but generally was much more fun/effective when multi-classed with fighter or magic-user, or even cleric.
Nowadays, a rogue is not as essential, and its role can be filled by several other classes. Or can be covered by taking just a couple of levels of rogue. Even if you wanted to play a rogue for flavour/fluff/personality reasons, you are quite likely to take some or many levels of something else.
For approximately 30-odd years, this 'problem' has existed, so I suggest taking a look at the fundamentals of the class concept.
1)what precisely do you want a 'rogue' to be able to do?
2)what do you want a 'rogue' to be unable to do?
3)what do you want it to be OK at but not excel at?
For some people there are probably 'sacred cows' like sneak attack; I don't care about that one way or another. The idea of precision damage seems useful, and many classes get something like that.
This is turning a bit long. I'll leave it there and post further thoughts later on, if people seem interested.
So should we just abandon balance all together? I don't think that makes for a fun game.I think that's a fundamental problem Paizo face - I actually do think that unbalanced RPGs are more fun. I wont pretend that you should think so too, but when we operate from such different base assumptions, they're kind of screwed as to pleasing everyone.
Perhaps the solution is to have two rogue classes: Normal Mode Rogue and Hard Mode Rogue. NM rogue can have whatever fixes the community and the Paizo team can throw at it, while the HM rogue can stay as-is. Heck, why not make HM downright hardcore? Go back to d6 HD and old school backstab rules instead of sneak attack!