Commoner is a great class.
You just have to play it right, and have fun!
But you're only capable of that if you're a gaming genius like Sen. Every forum member who sees a problem with is obviously an idiot. Sen's uniquely brilliant mind is only the one who holds the secret to make Rogues a good class.
Bow before his supreme gaming skills.
The problem with the rogue is while every class in the game is gets better better. The rogue get better as they go up till about 10-12th level then they peeter off and become less power. Since most people don't play high level game, my group included this problem doesn't show up. If we are playing high level no plays a rogue or if they do they multiclass it.
I'd be fine with just an untyped +1 to hit every 4 levels too. Probably a better solution, in many ways.As a thought, maybe take a precedent from the monk's Flurry of Blows, and say that rogues count as full BAB when sneak attacking?That would work quite well.Pseudo-full BAB is a bad mechanic and whoever initially drafted that mechanic should feel bad.
Either give them full BAB, or give them some kind of bonus to hit. None of this 'I'm kind of a full BAB class but not really' b@*$&+%$.
I just proposed something in the HB section that could help. Basically bonuses when SA applies and a smite-like mechanic to help when you need it.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2quel?rogue-tweaks
I think the three main problems with the rogue are:
•Sneak attack – it doesn’t work very well and it makes it impossible for a rogue to take on a foe one-on-one.
•Skills – yes I love skills, but they aren’t good enough to justify the rogue (or any skill monkey class). A lot of skills need magic to enhance them, at least at higher levels.
•Trapfindning – the rogue is the trap expert and looking at the vanilla versions of the classes this makes him unique. Whatever argument being used can always be countered with: -Well at least it is the only class that can deal with all kind of traps.
Edit:
It is Trapfindning that makes the rogue problematic and it is Trapfindning that ‘forces’ people to play a rogue, since rogue is the only class with trapfindning.
This quote is excellent.
The wizard is not required. A player can play one of may other arcane casters and still fill the role.
The cleric is not required. A player can play one of many other divine casters and still fill the role.
The fighter is not required. A player can play one of several other martial characters and still fill the role.
Why is the rogue some kind of sacred cow that MUST be protected if no other class in the game is?
If we talk about roles we probably could divide them into arcane casters, Full divine casters, Tank/ Full BAB role, skill monkey role (at least 6 skills per level or high int). Considering how many 6/9-casters we now have we can probably add the hybrid/jack-of-all trades role. Finally we have the trap expert role.
Looking at the vanilla version of all the classes we have:•3 Full arcane casters
•3 Full divine casters
•6 Full BAB classes (4 of them with heavy armor)
•5 skill monkey classes, and if we add all the int based casters we have 4 more classes.
•5 hybrid / jack-of-all trades classes Bard, Magus, Inquisitor, Alchemist, Summoner
•Only 1 trap expert class, the rogue.
Without trapfinding what role does the rogue fill?
I really hope the advanced class guide gives us more trap expert classes and that thouse classes aren't using the rogue as a benchmark
The game start to break down at higher levels and this is a part of the 3.5 legacy. Unless you are a spell caster or can hit things really hard you are going to have a hard time contribiuting to a game, because at higher levels the game is very much about combat. At least if you play an AP. If balance is more than combat effectiveness, the rules should reflect that and they don’t. Skills and trapfinding don’t make up for not having spells or not being able to hit things hard.
There a quite a number of non-Rogue classes with Trapfinding.
None of the vanilla versions of the classes have Trapfinding. Sure there are archetypes that get Trapfinding or something close to Trapfinding, but there is no class where the vanilla version has it.
Nor are these archetypes, with the possible exception of the urban ranger, built to be the typical sneaky trap expert. I’m not talking about the class feature I’m talking about the trap expert role.
There is even a trait to get it now.
Again: That trait is going to be banned by a lot of GMs.
Also it is not available in Pathfinder Society Organized Play nor is it on the PRD.
There is even a trait to get it now.Again: That trait is going to be banned by a lot of GMs.
Also it is not available in Pathfinder Society Organized Play nor is it on the PRD.
Honestly? I've yet to meet a single one who would ban it.
Nor are these archetypes, with the possible exception of the urban ranger, built to be the typical sneaky trap expert. I’m not talking about the class feature I’m talking about the trap expert role.
Not sure I am understanding this sentnces. What is the sneaky trap expert role? woudl be sneaky and expert in traps qualify for it?, because that totally can be done with the archetypes.
There a quite a number of non-Rogue classes with Trapfinding.None of the vanilla versions of the classes have Trapfinding. Sure there are archetypes that get Trapfinding or something close to Trapfinding, but there is no class where the vanilla version has it.
Nor are these archetypes, with the possible exception of the urban ranger, built to be the typical sneaky trap expert. I’m not talking about the class feature I’m talking about the trap expert role.
Well the Rogue isn't exactly sneakier than anyone. In fact the Trapper Ranger can be much sneakier than him provided he's in one of his favored terrains. In this respect, the Trapper Ranger is just flat out better.
Anyone who dips Pathfinder Delver is effectively as good as a Rogue when it comes to Stealth. The Trapfinding feature is only so good until you auto find and disable traps which is DC 34. With Trapspringer's Gloves and Eyes of the Eagle that DC is quite a bit lower.
A Slayer from the ACG so far is just as good at Trapfinding with far better Combat Ability to boot. The Investigator has better fighting power and utility use out of combat as well.
Honestly? I've yet to meet a single one who would ban it.There is even a trait to get it now.Again: That trait is going to be banned by a lot of GMs.
Also it is not available in Pathfinder Society Organized Play nor is it on the PRD.
Same here.
BTW, I have yet to see how Rogues can be any sneakier than anyone with Stealth as a class skill.
Somehow I suspect you're speaking to one who would (unless by 'meet' you mean in-person)
Perhaps. But ban archetypes as well? At that point we're talking about a core only game. Wherein the rogue still gets kicked around the curb. Trapfinding is simply not that good enough of a reason.
I agree there are a lot of archetypes of core or base classes that are ”better” than the rogue, but there are no vanilla class beside the rogue that has trapfindning.
The problem with archetypes is that they don’t get as good support, or nay support in some cases, as the vanilla versions. The Guide archetype is a good example of this.
Also, I don’t you should force new players – or GMs – to read thru every single supplement just so they can swap out the rogue.
Somehow I suspect you're speaking to one who would (unless by 'meet' you mean in-person)Perhaps. But ban archetypes as well? At that point we're talking about a core only game. Wherein the rogue still gets kicked around the curb. Trapfinding is simply not that good enough of a reason.
I never said anything about banning archetypes.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What you really shouldn't do, is force a player to play a Rogue so your party can have a trap finder.
I agree there are a lot of archetypes of core or base classes that are ”better” than the rogue, but there are no vanilla class beside the rogue that has trapfindning.
The problem with archetypes is that they don’t get as good support, or nay support in some cases, as the vanilla versions. The Guide archetype is a good example of this.
Also, I don’t you should force new players – or GMs – to read thru every single supplement just so they can swap out the rogue.
Whats the point of saying "no vanilla class beside the rogue has trapfinding?"
The game is more than vanilla classes. If a new person sits down at a table and wants to be the sneaky trap expert, I would recommend them to look up the Trapper Ranger on the SRD. Also whats the problem with the fantastic Guide Ranger archetype?
The Investigator and Slayer are legal classes for PFS and have Trapfinding as an option.
Honestly? I've yet to meet a single one who would ban it.There is even a trait to get it now.Again: That trait is going to be banned by a lot of GMs.
Also it is not available in Pathfinder Society Organized Play nor is it on the PRD.Same here.
BTW, I have yet to see how Rogues can be any sneakier than anyone with Stealth as a class skill.
We are on the same page so how about doing a benign reading of what I wrote? ;)
The rogue comes with a lot of fluff/baggage. If I want to play that scout and trap expert, I may not want to play a bard or an Oracle. If I would play a scout and trap expert I would probably play an urban ranger, but I personally prefer the Guide archetype. See what I mean? Me, I just would love an official feat or trait on the PRD that could just let me dump the rogue once and for all. I don’t want to be forced to play some (lame) archetype that get trapfinding as some sort of trade off, while re-fluffing the core/base class.
I guess people that play Pathfinder Society Organized play may have similar wishes.
I hope the Slayer and the investigator don’t get to nerfed. They may be just want the game need.
I agree there are a lot of archetypes of core or base classes that are ”better” than the rogue, but there are no vanilla class beside the rogue that has trapfindning.
The problem with archetypes is that they don’t get as good support, or nay support in some cases, as the vanilla versions. The Guide archetype is a good example of this.
Also, I don’t you should force new players – or GMs – to read thru every single supplement just so they can swap out the rogue.
Whats the point of saying "no vanilla class beside the rogue has trapfinding?"
The game is more than vanilla classes. If a new person sits down at a table and wants to be the sneaky trap expert, I would recommend them to look up the Trapper Ranger on the SRD. Also whats the problem with the fantastic Guide Ranger archetype?
The Investigator and Slayer are legal classes for PFS and have Trapfinding as an option.
You might want to take a Deep breath and reread what I wrote.
There a quite a number of non-Rogue classes with Trapfinding.None of the vanilla versions of the classes have Trapfinding. Sure there are archetypes that get Trapfinding or something close to Trapfinding, but there is no class where the vanilla version has it.
Nor are these archetypes, with the possible exception of the urban ranger, built to be the typical sneaky trap expert. I’m not talking about the class feature I’m talking about the trap expert role.
There is even a trait to get it now.Again: That trait is going to be banned by a lot of GMs.
Also it is not available in Pathfinder Society Organized Play nor is it on the PRD.
That trait won't be banned by me as GM. That trait gives freedom to the game. No longer are you held hostage by traps requiring a rogue.
EVERY vanilla class besides the rogue has trapfinding. Its called perception.
@:bfobar. My delete post was not aimed at you.
Indeed cool story bro! :)
EVERY vanilla class besides the rogue has trapfinding. Its called perception.
Sigh. I'm out of here.
|
That trait won't be banned by me as GM. That trait gives freedom to the game. No longer are you held hostage by traps requiring a rogue.There a quite a number of non-Rogue classes with Trapfinding.None of the vanilla versions of the classes have Trapfinding. Sure there are archetypes that get Trapfinding or something close to Trapfinding, but there is no class where the vanilla version has it.
Nor are these archetypes, with the possible exception of the urban ranger, built to be the typical sneaky trap expert. I’m not talking about the class feature I’m talking about the trap expert role.
There is even a trait to get it now.Again: That trait is going to be banned by a lot of GMs.
Also it is not available in Pathfinder Society Organized Play nor is it on the PRD.
I've got no idea why anyone would ban this trait, and it feels like a bad idea that it was made a campaign trait just to make it 'exclusive' when it was a great addition to the game. As stated before, Rogues who give up Trapfinding (which a lot of them do) can get it back too, thus helping them be more versatile.
|
The "I had fun playing a Rogue" posts are not arguments, but statements based on personal experience.
The thing is, that it doesn't matter what the class is, someone will have fun playing it.
This could even include the Commoner.
These experiences are not disputed, but are totally irrelevant to the conversation.
Some people really enjoy getting kicked in the groin, but not everyone will enjoy it. The "you are just not doing it right" response doesn't work with this either.
|
This could even include the Commoner.
Yeah, I know a guy who has had tons of fun playing a commoner. He was using the triple-nat-20-auto-kill rule, and was facing the BBEG of the Epic campaign, and had been given over 20 negative levels [with the GM running Negative Levels as having actually lost levels], and had the last level remaining become commoner. Picked up a pitchfork and did a suicide charge at the Balor who had no more AoO's, managed a Triple-nat-20 and finished it. Then died, but it was one of his favorite moments. Commoners are fun.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fun Anecdote:I remember playing with one rogue who, in one round, was doing more damage to anything he was close to than even the most optimized anything except for maybe a Vivisectionist or smiting paladin could come close to. He was dropping Crippling Strike on top of buckets of d6's and at the same time was hiding in shadows to well to be seen [he was 13, and dropped a few levels in shadow dancer]. We convinced the townsfolk that the shadows he hid in were really the Vashta Nerada eating people in the night. Hehe, we did have a semi-flexible GM and he kinda was about 10x as optimized as the Tarrasque itself, but still it was hilarious how the town council reacted when we announced that "The Shadows are Eating your People!". Of course, when the build failed a will save for dominate after rolling a 19 on the die, one-rounded the paladin, and then subsequently was slaughtered by the confused barbarian, we kinda burned the character sheet and buried the ashes, so I can't exactly post the build. Still, it was a fun time.
Oh, we're telling fish stories now? Cause I swear we once had a melee Wizard who used to never cast spells, he slaughtered everything with two weapon fighting. I don't have the build, of course, because he was so powerful my GM destroyed the character sheet.
You can make a Rogue work quite well, but it is a feat of engineering the character.
Recommended Race: Human (extra feat at level 1 is awesome)
Class builds: Summoner (synthesist) 1, Rogue 1-19)
For Melee Rogue:
Small Quadruped Form (Str 10, Dex 16, Con 11)
Your Base character needs at least 13 dex to qualify for all of two-weapon fighting with the belt of Incredible Dexterity +6.
A note on Constitution: If you have 12 con in Base Form, and switch into eidolon form YOU LOSE HP, but it comes back when you switch out or are knocked out of it.
Evolutions (3): Arms (costs 2 points), Pounce (costs 1 point).
Feats:
(Human) Two Weapon Fighting
(1st) Weapon Finesse
Rogue archetype: Knife Master
For Ranged Rogue:
Small Serpentine Form (Str 8, Dex 18, Con 11)
Evolutions (4): Arms (costs 2 points), Arms (costs 2 points)
Feats:
(Human) Extra evolution
(1st) Rapid Shot (light cross bow) or Deadly Aim (Bow) but summoners are not prof with Bows, so you'll get a -4 penalty until level 2.
Rogue Archetype:
Ninja. Invisibility and Improved invisibility as a class skill is priceless.
Rogue Only (non purist): Ki-pool, then then invisibility then the greater invibility.
Rogue Only (purist): Minor magic (anything), Major magic (Vanish), and possibly Familiar (infiltrator) somewhere down the line.
From these beginnings either of these can be built into anything, but we're still not staying a strict 1 - 20 Rogue.
|
|
Oh, we're telling fish stories now? Cause I swear we once had a melee Wizard who used to never cast spells, he slaughtered everything with two weapon fighting. I don't have the build, of course, because he was so powerful my GM destroyed the character sheet.
Didn't say or mean that Rogues are Awesome because Anecdote, just thought it might be appropriate in the rogue thread. Honestly, that rogue was incredibly lucky for his entire career [up until that last dominate], and was incredibly Min-Maxed and combat-spec'd, and the only reason the party believed the story was the Bluff-focused Bard [who had to actually convince the Paladin].
Oh, we're telling fish stories now? Cause I swear we once had a melee Wizard who used to never cast spells, he slaughtered everything with two weapon fighting. I don't have the build, of course, because he was so powerful my GM destroyed the character sheet.Didn't say or mean that Rogues are Awesome because Anecdote, just thought it might be appropriate in the rogue thread. Honestly, that rogue was incredibly lucky for his entire career [up until that last dominate], and was incredibly Min-Maxed and combat-spec'd, and the only reason the party believed the story was the Bluff-focused Bard [who had to actually convince the Paladin].
Well... "My Rogue did all this amazing stuff, but I can't post his build because reasons." doesn't sound very convincing.
OF course "rogue sucks because sneak attack never hits"
but "Giving rogue full BaB doesn't make him any better" doesn't sound so convincing as to why the rogue sucks so much.
Who said giving Rogues full BAB doesn't help him? In fact, the only reason SA sucks is because Rogues can't reliably hit anything worth hitting.
BTW, Rogues also suck because their defenses are pathetic.
|
|
Well... "My Rogue did all this amazing stuff, but I can't post his build because reasons." doesn't sound very convincing.Which is just fine, as it is in no way shape or form intended to be an argument meant to convince people that rogues don't suck. Its just a fun story to place, when it seems appropriate. I also posted an anecdote about Commoner fun, and it wasn't meant to be an argument for commoners. It just seemed appropriate. Its rather pointless to say rogues don't suck when math shows that they do*.
OF course "rogue sucks because sneak attack never hits"
but "Giving rogue full BaB doesn't make him any better" doesn't sound so convincing as to why the rogue sucks so much.
Well, it helps a lot by adding an additional attack and a bit of an attack bonus, but it doesn't completely fix the rogue's problems of low saves, AC, HP, and the fact that so many classes are 'better' than him.
Well... "My Rogue did all this amazing stuff, but I can't post his build because reasons." doesn't sound very convincing.Which is just fine, as it is in no way shape or form intended to be an argument meant to convince people that rogues don't suck. Its just a fun story to place, when it seems appropriate. I also posted an anecdote about Commoner fun, and it wasn't meant to be an argument for commoners. It just seemed appropriate. Its rather pointless to say rogues don't suck when math shows that they do*.
Fair enough.
Full BAB (+1 every four levels) is not that much of an improvement to attack rolls. All the existing full BAB classes have class features to increase their attack roll further.
Rogue sucks because other classes do skills as well or better, AND have spells, AND have a higher chance to hit, AND are more survivable in combat, all at the same time.
OF course "rogue sucks because sneak attack never hits"
but "Giving rogue full BaB doesn't make him any better" doesn't sound so convincing as to why the rogue sucks so much.
Probably because neither statement provides complete information nor provides any good context to work with.
Stating that you did well with the rogue without solid context is unhelpful.
So is stating that giving them full bab won't help. Since you have to cite why.
Arguments and evidence.