| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Should we start a new ACG discussion thread, this one is likely to get locked and is derailed in multiple directions. And maybe we should start a google doc to continue the flamewar/troll discussions.
I've learned a lot about how the arcanist and a few other ACG classes play from this thread.
For once, I am on topic. Comparing slayers and rogues!
For once, I am on topic. Comparing slayers and rogues!Should we start a new ACG discussion thread, this one is likely to get locked and is derailed in multiple directions. And maybe we should start a google doc to continue the flamewar/troll discussions.
I've learned a lot about how the arcanist and a few other ACG classes play from this thread.
Heh. I actually found the lack of dependence on Sneak Attack to be a godsend for the Slayer. I think that if the Rogue had other things it could do in combat than deal damage or try to be a bad spellcaster, it'd be fantastic. Debuffing through Dirty Tricks or other stuff is a niche that CAN be implemented without having to go through the jank of a system that CMB is for anyone not Full BAB and not even them since CMD is so...you know what I mean.
|
Ah thanks. Still, the Bloodline Arcana is gained permanently and that is pretty nuts since I'm definitely willing to dip as a Wizard for that stuff.
The talents run off of Charisma, as opposed to the spellcasting ability of Intelligence. Also, I may be wrong, but I don't think you get the '3+' daily allotment.
For once, I am on topic. Comparing slayers and rogues!Should we start a new ACG discussion thread, this one is likely to get locked and is derailed in multiple directions. And maybe we should start a google doc to continue the flamewar/troll discussions.
I've learned a lot about how the arcanist and a few other ACG classes play from this thread.
Well I disagree with your opinion about slayers and rogues because of my entirely subjective opinion that dependency on sneak attack is bad!
Edited: Ninja'd! By someone with more details.
I do care a lot more if my character is interesting and fun to role play than I do about 'winning' the mechanical portion.
Requoting because just favoriting this post isn't sufficient.
Could be a generational divide in terms of viewpoints, but this has always been my approach as well. I'd rather play a character who is interesting and three-dimensional (strengths and flaws included) than one who is focused solely on optimization to the point of lack of character.
Not that the two approaches are incompatible, but it often seems as if the arguments about nerfs and so-called "unplayable" classes seem to have blinders in this regards.
I do care a lot more if my character is interesting and fun to role play than I do about 'winning' the mechanical portion.Requoting because just favoriting this post isn't sufficient.
Could be a generational divide in terms of viewpoints, but this has always been my approach as well. I'd rather play a character who is interesting and three-dimensional (strengths and flaws included) than one who is focused solely on optimization to the point of lack of character.
Not that the two approaches are incompatible, but it often seems as if the arguments about nerfs and so-called "unplayable" classes seem to have blinders in this regards.
It totally ignores how mutable flavor is.
No class is unplayable. I could sit down with a Commoner and have a good time in a village intrigue game.
It seems silly to make Class X more effective than Class Y when they do the same thing no? Especially when conceptually they match. It is at this point the question begs to be asked, "Why play Class Y?" After this we get to "Heres how we can make Class Y interesting and unique again."
When the first part has happened, getting to the last part quickly is probably a good idea.
For once, I am on topic. Comparing slayers and rogues!Should we start a new ACG discussion thread, this one is likely to get locked and is derailed in multiple directions. And maybe we should start a google doc to continue the flamewar/troll discussions.
I've learned a lot about how the arcanist and a few other ACG classes play from this thread.
Well I disagree with your opinion about slayers and rogues because of my entirely subjective opinion that dependency on sneak attack is bad!
Edited: Ninja'd! By someone with more details.
I actually like the sneak attack mechanic. I find that I am basically playing an entirely different game during combat than everyone else.
Running that "create a diversion to hide" is part of the move action to stealth has made range combat about half of what my feint rogue does (it's the only way we see it can be run. Some people think creating the diversion is a standard action though. So some people could be interpreting it differently). We also run the skillmastery works with UMD, because that is what the ability says (don't argue about this with me, I budge less than mjolnir in the hand of the unworthy on this issue).
Rogues do things. I've found that their kit has saved my life many times. Not being fireball'd to death is very nice. Out lived a magus with that at low levels. Uncanny dodge saved my life in the encounter with the fiend-forge and it's deeper darkness, I went total defense for the +6 to ac because of acrobatics. I was in no position to kill the thing, but it couldn't really hurt my either.
It seems silly to make Class X more effective than Class Y when they do the same thing no? Especially when conceptually they match. It is at this point the question begs to be asked, "Why play Class Y?" After this we get to "Heres how we can make Class Y interesting and unique again."
When the first part has happened, getting to the last part quickly is probably a good idea.
This is a totally viable position. In fact, it's one of the things that first came to my mind when the ACG was announced and some of the classes were described (Warpriest? Don't we already have a Cleric?)
Even when the first playtest came around, I had some of the same concerns, and was glad to see that as they developed, many of them (at least the ones I followed closely) largely came to develop their own unique flavors as opposed to being carbon copies with a little bit extra.
So, I understand concerns that this might be the case, and that going back to basics is something to consider. At the same time, going back to basics- getting those classes back to being more viable options and shoring up major discrepancies- can be a tougher task, particularly this far into the life cycle of the game as it stands. Witness the attempt to clarify and refine the Stealth skill which kind of faded out.
Its certainly a fine line to walk, and not one I envy the developers for.
It's not about mechanically worse being more interesting or vice versa. Those are orthogonal. But a sorcerer doesn't have a spell book, and that's kind of a big deal.Ahh, spellbook only matters for that hour a day your in study. After that you can FWOOSH! with the best of them! Provided you prepared some fwoosh today.
Personal preferences tend to be subjective though.
I took that line about a spell book being a big deal in the context of associated mechanics. I hear people on the boards say that fluff is 100% mutable and classes are just sets of mechanics to be skinned any way you like, but not everyone plays that way. I didn't even know what the word fluff meant in game jargon until I joined the boards.
In my group, if I play a wizard I know that my guy learned magic through study, and that is always going to feel different than a guy who has it coursing through his blood. If I have an itch to play an eccentric, absent minded bookworm of a mage who masters magic through study, I'm going to choose wizard every time even if someone shows me a sorcerer build that can cast the same spells more times per fight or whatever. (I know bad example because wizards are great and all but I hope you get what I'm saying anyway.)
Everyone I play with is the same way, and we're using the same exact rule book as the rest of you folks. I've learned from these boards that this is not the most popular approach to the game, but it is supported at least enough that we didn't have to change anything to play that way, and we didn't even know we were doing anything unusual until we got online.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, I understand concerns that this might be the case, and that going back to basics is something to consider. At the same time, going back to basics- getting those classes back to being more viable options and shoring up major discrepancies- can be a tougher task, particularly this far into the life cycle of the game as it stands. Witness the attempt to clarify and refine the Stealth skill which kind of faded out.
Love this stuff, but it requires a rework to feint.
Actually wait. It doesn't. Feint doesn't require a stealth check. Diversion does. Hmmmm.
I like the current stealth rules enough though...
It's not about mechanically worse being more interesting or vice versa. Those are orthogonal. But a sorcerer doesn't have a spell book, and that's kind of a big deal.Ahh, spellbook only matters for that hour a day your in study. After that you can FWOOSH! with the best of them! Provided you prepared some fwoosh today.
Personal preferences tend to be subjective though.
I took that line about a spell book being a big deal in the context of associated mechanics. I hear people on the boards say that fluff is 100% mutable and classes are just sets of mechanics to be skinned any way you like, but not everyone plays that way. I didn't even know what the word fluff meant in game jargon until I joined the boards.
In my group, if I play a wizard I know that my guy learned magic through study, and that is always going to feel different than a guy who has it coursing through his blood. If I have an itch to play an eccentric, absent minded bookworm of a mage who masters magic through study, I'm going to choose wizard every time even if someone shows me a sorcerer build that can cast the same spells more times per fight or whatever. (I know bad example because wizards are great and all but I hope you get what I'm saying anyway.)
Everyone I play with is the same way, and we're using the same exact rule book as the rest of you folks. I've learned from these boards that this is not the most popular approach to the game, but it is supported at least enough that we didn't have to change anything to play that way, and we didn't even know we were doing anything unusual until we got online.
There have been a few cases where I had to "reskin" a class.
Sometimes the mechanics for a class just fit so well with the character concept I had in mind that I talk to my GM and gloss over it with a new "skin."
This is because I make my characters backstory and combat style first, then try to find a way to create the character using the rules afterward.
Totally man, I have too. I don't mean to sound absolute about it.
Yeah, sometimes it just happens. Glad we're on the same page :)
Our group is pretty loose with some things and we ignore some restrictions sometimes, like making Lawful barbarians or ignoring the lore requirement for specific prestige classes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But since I've played the boxed set, 1E, 2E, and 3E I'm fine with the disparity (which has its own threads) because the game is mechanically better and more fun to play.Huh... Does that mean I might be spoiled by the other games I've played or the way things can be more responsive in this day and age? Probably best not to delve too deep and answer that one.
I think older gamers like myself are less sensitive to legitimate concerns about the fighter and rogue and some mechanical issues. And one of the automatic replies to those concerns is that people play and have fun playing the fighter and rogue. Which is valid, but people feel strongly on both sides of the issue. There are merits to both sides, and I think it's possible to find common ground.
This is really simple though. Anything can be fun to play even Experts, so that's not really valid. Or rather its as viable as trying to talk to about the mechanical deficiencies of an old car that is liable to break down on you and having someone say "Well I like it." OK... that's great, it still a wreck of a vehicle. The common ground is really "Oh wow, mechanically speaking Fighters and Rogues are really weak and this can impact peoples fun."
So really, a slayer will be MUCH more viable in the combat role my characters occupy (maybe not in the other roles... but maybe it will, having not seen the final class yet).
Slayer though has a static bonus to damage and attack that he can use as a swift every round at 7th and he has full BAB and he can ignore the prerequisites for TWF. While TWF still has problems, the slayer has much better returns on his TWF routine than the rogue. Neither rogue nor slayer have a reliable way to get off sneak attacks or full attacks in their current build though, as opposed to a beastmorph/vivisectionist which has both.
Ranger though can have an even higher static to hit going as high as +12/12 as a swift. So ranger might actually get more out of the gig, but I'm not keen on that myself.
Depending on the slayer's end product, he might actually be better at some skills than the rogue because of his 6+ skill points and int base being coupled with actual stat boosting abilities. This would make him the 3rd or so class to be better than the rogue in the skill point department, after the bard and alchemist. This isn't an innately bad thing though.
Edit: the most awkward thing about slayer is the way his studying moves from move to swift at 7th. Burning a move to get a bonus won't do anything to help a TWF because they want full attacks even at lower levels. Bard has a similar problem with his performance forcing him to stay out of the action at early levels but being something truly simple to use later on.
Along the same line, the rogue is not the full-attack-at-all cost mundane. The slayer is. Sneak attack is nice to have as a slayer, but you will still priorities full attacks over sneak attacks. You are basically playing another "full-attack!" variant. I already fill that need with Fighter. When I want to play the stealth fighter, I'll play a slayer. But that is a poor reason to play a rogue.Actually, I've found with two-weapon rogues/ninjas that I'm still a "full-attack" character. Sure, I know the board opinions is that TWF is inferior to THF, but this is one of those "flavor" things I wanted for the characters in question (as other posters on this thread have mentioned). So really, a slayer will be MUCH more viable in the combat role my characters occupy (maybe not in the other roles... but maybe it will, having not seen the final class yet). As it is now, I tend to burn full rounds getting into position (either with a single weapon attack with just Str bonus or, if vanished as ninja, no damage output), followed by a burst of full TWF and sneak from flanking. Sure, there are more tactics involved, but unlike other non-sneak-dependent classes out there, who can use the same tactics, I'm required to in order to contribute. Throw in a DR monster and I'm spending full rounds as set up just so I can get anything through. Unless the flavor is just impossible to reconcile, I don't see how slayer won't be better across the board...
And my rogue uses a shortbow or a one-handed rapier.
TWF is a trap. Flanking is not something you can reasonably depend on, in my experience. We're level 11 now and I can count the number of flanks I've had on one hand.
This is why I don't have a problem with the slayer. TWF full attacker just isn't a good tactic for the rogue. Such a rogue does nothing without both Sneak attacks AND full attacks which is an exceedingly rare combination unless you waste rounds trying to set it up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's odd because I have had multiple campaigns where flanking was accomplished almost every round of almost every battle. . . one of which didn't even feature a rogue, just a fighter and cleric who always worked together to flank.
Almost as if choosing to ignore tactics or treat the game like its a solo game instead of a cooperative hinders some characters, while other characters willing to work together gain advantage by thinking tactically. . .