Also, I couldn't find what level it is, so it was difficult to compare if the numbers were good or not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the best thing to do moving forward is simply to ignore Remy.
I don't fee like wasting any more precious time no non-arguments, veiled insults, and misconceptions that lead me to believe certain things forbidden to say.
I believe in using math.By the math the rogue is "good enough". I prefer empirical evidence of the creature running around in the wild.
What happens on the battlemat is that the rogue is hosed by the move or damage dichotomy of martials... the difference being that the rogue doesn't have to be within 5 feet of a foe, they need to be within 5 feet of a full on sneak attack. This doesn't always happen. The gang up feat can help, but like many rogue options its burning feats just to get at the start of the race.
Oh this a thousand times.
DPR only calculates numbers. It's use in optimization analysis is limited at best.
It's more important to know how a character can get into position and negotiate the right number of actions to execute those ideal numbers.
Rogues suffer the problem of lacking the mobility or action economy to effectively make those numbers work. IDeally, they'd be about as mobile as a monk to ensure easier flanks with an option to maybe pounce as a barbarian in after leves. As it is now they can do neither without racial shenanigans.
|
Thank you, that was great reading. It still didn't cover the enchanting, which i'll probably try to FAQ. But now I get to trade out weapon focus for an additional 10% Miss Chance constantly, and i'll trade +1 will save for another traits that gets rid of the penalties for non proficiency and gives a +1 to hit, and probably take iron will instead.
There is already a thread or two for that.
EDIT:To the trait, the trait that removes non-proficiency provides a trait bonus, as does "Surprise Weapons", so really, I'd swap "Surprise Weapons" for the trait that removes non-proficiency penalties, and swap Indomitable Faith for Fate's Favored which when used with Sacred Tattoo is the same +1 to will saves, but also goes to reflex and fortitude saves.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's funny, in the course of just a few years "Bards Suck" has gone from a foregone conclusion to painfully obvious trolling.
I also think it is funny that not being the best at something means a character sucks. All it takes to make a rogue viable at combat is to power attack with a two handed weapon. With a dip into a full BAB class a rogue can kick lots of ass. Just like a fighter with a dip of rogue can be the skill monkey.
Although I enjoy optimizing and theorycrafting, threads like this one make me glad the designers aim for a wider audience then messageboard "experts" when designing the game.
It's funny, in the course of just a few years "Bards Suck" has gone from a foregone conclusion to painfully obvious trolling.
I also think it is funny that not being the best at something means a character sucks. All it takes to make a rogue viable at combat is to power attack with a two handed weapon. With a dip into a full BAB class a rogue can kick lots of ass. Just like a fighter with a dip of rogue can be the skill monkey.
Power Attacking actually makes you an even worse character in the case of the Rogue who has no ability to improve accuracy from his class. Pathfinder promoted the ability to stay in a class for 20 levels. If you need to dip as a Rogue, I consider that a failure of the class. Also by taking Power Attack and boosting strength, you have basically said the game only supports the Thug conceptual archetype. This is an incredible failing in the design of the Rogue. That the Strength Rogue is far more viable than the Cunning Rogue or the Dextrous whom are the most Iconic.
It has nothing to do with being the best at anything. It has to do with how the Rogue really isn't good at anything past 4th level when compared to any of the other classes in a similar niche. Inquisitors, Alchemists, and Bards are just far better at everything, including being a jack of a all trades. By choosing to play a Rogue, you have made a deliberate decision to make a worse character. If thats your goal, then why not play an NPC class, the ones deliberately worse than PC classes instead of (Hopefully) accidentally worse. The Rogue doesn't fulfill any concepts better than most Trapper Rangers.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree wholeheartedly. By default the rogue has more skill points than the other classes. While some classes may be able to out specialize the rogue, the rogue can more easily specialize in being a generalist.
The bard does this better, twice over even.
The only thing preventing the rogue from being as swishy and flamboyant as a bard, or the bard being as deadly serious at the rogue is how YOU, the player, role play it. Relying on the name of the class to imbue your character with a devious, underhanded personality is the exact oppostite of good role playing.
Get out of the box.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's funny, in the course of just a few years "Bards Suck" has gone from a foregone conclusion to painfully obvious trolling.
I also think it is funny that not being the best at something means a character sucks. All it takes to make a rogue viable at combat is to power attack with a two handed weapon. With a dip into a full BAB class a rogue can kick lots of ass. Just like a fighter with a dip of rogue can be the skill monkey.
Although I enjoy optimizing and theorycrafting, threads like this one make me glad the designers aim for a wider audience then messageboard "experts" when designing the game.
3.5 came out 11 years ago. That's 1/4 the lifespan of D&D games. Bards have been good for a very long time.
|
|
It's funny, in the course of just a few years "Bards Suck" has gone from a foregone conclusion to painfully obvious trolling.
I also think it is funny that not being the best at something means a character sucks. All it takes to make a rogue viable at combat is to power attack with a two handed weapon. With a dip into a full BAB class a rogue can kick lots of ass. Just like a fighter with a dip of rogue can be the skill monkey.
1:Not being the best at something does not equate to sucking. The barbarian is not the best at unarmed combat, but he does it fine. Being very far behind the best at something equates to sucking. Its all a matter of comparison. Bards are a lot better at skills and is better at combat, both by significant margins. Alchemist, Inquisitor, and Ranger, can all say that they are just as good as Rogues with skills and better at combat. So by comparison, rogues suck*.
2:So instead of being the iconic** rogue, a rogue should instead be a high-Strength rogue with Power Attack, fitting the thug role that 1 or 2 archetypes supposedly cover, or should all use a niche weapon that they need to spend a feat on using? This isn't great design.
3:So to be an optimal build, a rogue needs a level of Fighter/Barbarian/Paladin/Cavalier/Ranger/Samurai/Antipaladin/Gunslinger? This isn't very good design either. It means that the 20 level Base Class design PF is based on doesn't apply to rogues***. Just some things to consider about your statement.
Scavion, I think if your re-read what I wrote, and think about it in the context of the thread title (and various assertions throughout), you will see that I did not make some of the assertions you suggest.
If you look back at some of my earlier posts in this thread you will find a strength based rogue outline that I posted that is adequate in combat and excellent in social situations. It would be better at combat (and a skill or two) with a dip of barbarian, but it was OK without that dip. Power attack opened up shield of swings, and if I was seriously concerned about the penalty to attack, there is a feat that fixes that.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Rogue's biggest problem is that "there is a feat that fixes that."
Rogue can't get sneak attack in a dark alley, or by any other classic concealment method? There's a feat that fixes that.
Rogue has bad saves? There's a feat (or 3) that fixes that.
Rogue has trouble doing damage? There's a feat that fixes that.
Rogue took the feat that does more damage, and now they're having trouble hitting? There's a feat that fixes that.
Rogue wants to use dexterity instead of strength to attack and deal damage? Rogue wants to use two knives instead of one? There's an entire chain of feats that fix that.
Rogue needs help hiding because its AC is too low? There's a feat chain that fixes that.
Rogue consumed by the need to constantly take feats to address weakness which shouldn't have been introduced in its build in the first place? There's a feat that fi... oh.
It's funny, in the course of just a few years "Bards Suck" has gone from a foregone conclusion to painfully obvious trolling.
Really? Who??
I also think it is funny that not being the best at something means a character sucks....
A second strawman. As others have already pointed out, Bards and Alchemists can do everything as well as or better than Rogues and have neat tricks of their own left over.
Although I enjoy optimizing and theorycrafting, threads like this one make me glad the designers aim for a wider audience then messageboard "experts" when designing the game.
I'm sure some people like playing Commoners or Experts- good for them. That does not mean that Pathfinder blew it utterly and completely when they designed their Rogues. But you can make fun of 'experts,' think that the problem is the messenger pointing out the woeful inadequacies, and engage in denial if that makes you glad.
Thank you for giving a concrete suggestion, i.e. giving Rogue Power Attack + Fighter dip. Still doesn't have them contributing like a Bard with a similar fix, but it does allow for actual discussion of actual problems.
The Rogue's biggest problem is that "there is a feat that fixes that."
Rogue can't get sneak attack in a dark alley, or by any other classic concealment method? There's a feat that fixes that.
Rogue has bad saves? There's a feat (or 3) that fixes that.
Rogue has trouble doing damage? There's a feat that fixes that.
Rogue took the feat that does more damage, and now they're having trouble hitting? There's a feat that fixes that.
Rogue wants to use dexterity instead of strength to attack and deal damage? Rogue wants to use two knives instead of one? There's an entire chain of feats that fix that.
Rogue needs help hiding because its AC is too low? There's a feat chain that fixes that.
Rogue consumed by the need to constantly take feats to address weakness which shouldn't have been introduced in its build in the first place? There's a feat that fi... oh.
Excellent post. If the designers had a time machine and could have read that, your ideas point to possible solutions. That's one of the values of positive criticism- reverse engineering can create fixes for problems.
Is the bard really better than the rogue in skills?
I mean: yeah, high level the bard is quite the skillfull character, but the vast majority of campain are not at level 20, right?
If the bard want to gain from versatile performance, he must ''trash'' a lot of skill point in the performs skill at the firsts levels. In level one, for example, he will probably put two points in two performance, which left 4+int points for all the other skill (and I don't see a bard with 0 diplomacy, 0 bluff and 0 sense motive, even if the versatile performance will boost it later).
So, the bard will get a pretty slow start in skill in comparison of the rogue (there's only bardic knowledge to help him). He will surpass the rogue, yes, but near the 9 or 10 level... where magic is quite more usefull.
The real problem that I see with the rogue is the progression. At low level, he is not that bad: in fact, he is probably far more useful at levels 1 to 3 than a wizard or a sorcerer. But after maybe the 8th level, he lack of special abilities (he just go more feat, more sneak and more trap sense). Well, it's sad, but there is the multiclassing option that will kick in (be it with a PC or an other class).
PS. Sorry if there is some mistake ;)
Well, even if you just put one at level one, you'll need to put a lot of rank in the 6th level perform to gain it's benenfice, while the points that were put in some major skill (diplo, bluff, sens motive) will become useless. Also, it must be possible in your gaming group to do so: it's kind of unrealistic to pass from à guy who can't danse to the lead dancer of a troup in one day, many GM will not accept to put more than one point by level per skill...
|
Well, even if you just put one at level one, you'll need to put a lot of rank in the 6th level perform to gain it's benenfice, while the points that were put in some major skill (diplo, bluff, sens motive) will become useless. Also, it must be possible in your gaming group to do so: it's kind of unrealistic to pass from à guy who can't danse to the lead dancer of a troup in one day, many GM will not accept to put more than one point by level per skill...
Those GMs are houseruling against the player at that point. There are a lot of 'unrealistic' things in the rules, and what those things are varies from individual to individual.
And again, you don't wait until 6th level to start building it up. Once you hit 4th you've built up your other skills enough to drop a couple in your new Perform skill. Diplomacy, Bluff, Sense Motive NEVER become useless just because you don't max your ranks in them.
Is the bard really better than the rogue in skills?
I mean: yeah, high level the bard is quite the skillfull character, but the vast majority of campain are not at level 20, right?
If the bard want to gain from versatile performance, he must ''trash'' a lot of skill point in the performs skill at the firsts levels. In level one, for example, he will probably put two points in two performance, which left 4+int points for all the other skill (and I don't see a bard with 0 diplomacy, 0 bluff and 0 sense motive, even if the versatile performance will boost it later).
So, the bard will get a pretty slow start in skill in comparison of the rogue (there's only bardic knowledge to help him). He will surpass the rogue, yes, but near the 9 or 10 level... where magic is quite more usefull.
The real problem that I see with the rogue is the progression. At low level, he is not that bad: in fact, he is probably far more useful at levels 1 to 3 than a wizard or a sorcerer. But after maybe the 8th level, he lack of special abilities (he just go more feat, more sneak and more trap sense). Well, it's sad, but there is the multiclassing option that will kick in (be it with a PC or an other class).
PS. Sorry if there is some mistake ;)
Past 5th level, the common Rogue replacements become tremendously better than the Rogue. If the Rogue's niche was being good at skills levels 1-4, what was the point of making the class 1-20?
I don't really see that to be against the player. It's more like common sense, like to ask the player to ''explain why they can put skill in a new skill this level''. But event without it, you'll have to put ''one level'' of skill in the perform.
Just look at 2 level 6 (I will forget about the int because the 2 class can gain good benefice from it and it depends a lot of the player):
Bard: 6x6= 36 pts, you max two performs to gain the benefice of versatile: -12+24... so we are at 48pts. But, depending of you choice of VP, you will ''scrap'' points in some skills that will be replace by a perform, which will drop your ''effective'' skill pool (you'll have put at least one point in diplo that will be replace by a perform, and probably 3-4pts in bluff/ sense motive. And well, you have your 1/2 level in knowledge... but it's knowledge.
For the Rogue: 8x6= 48.
By level 6, the optimized bard can have almost as much skill points in use than the rogue, and will be far better in knowledge. But if the bard player choose to put more importance in the flavor than in the effectivness (like, by taking the performance by concept and not by optimization), the rogue will have more skill points. So, it's more by the 7th or the 8th level that the bard become better than the rogue in skills.