| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem isn't that the rogue doesn't have a niche. The problem is that he's not even especially GOOD at his niche.
The problem isn't that the rogue doesn't have a niche. The problem is that he's not even especially GOOD at his niche.
True that.
"I use convoluted mechanics to make use of my main class feature in exchange for some out of combat ability that still needs to be supplemented by UMD" may be fun to play and even useful to the party, but it's not a great niche.
EDIT: I think that stems from mundane abilities stacking with magic so well. If pre-buffing is assumed in the game balance then there is only so much you do with mundanes before crazy broken combos pop up. Fighter and rogue suffer more so, with their thing being core mechanics(feats and skills). It's tricky, but not un-doable. I do see why paizo hasn't managed it yet though.
The difference is, the Paladin, Cleric, and Sorcerer skills will always come up eventually, even if the GM isn't specifically trying to use them.
Exactly. The other abilities just get used naturally. And other classes have several ahbilities that can use. The paladin is good at diplomacy, have good saves, crush evil enemies, it is not like you have to use fear effect againt the party so the paladin can feel good.
If you used your score to cast when you emulate, wouldn't you fail to cast because you are using your score which isn't high enough?
If you used your score to cast when you emulate, wouldn't you fail to cast because you are using your score which isn't high enough?
exactly.
Exactly. The other abilities just get used naturally. And other classes have several ahbilities that can use. The paladin is good at diplomacy, have good saves, crush evil enemies, it is not like you have to use fear effect againt the party so the paladin can feel good.The difference is, the Paladin, Cleric, and Sorcerer skills will always come up eventually, even if the GM isn't specifically trying to use them.
True, but I think locked doors, traps, social encounters, multiple languages, documents, forgeries, needing to find something, getting around obstacles and hazards come up enough that you don't need to TRY to make the rogue feel useful by putting a disintegrate trap on every 5ft square.
Exactly. The other abilities just get used naturally. And other classes have several ahbilities that can use. The paladin is good at diplomacy, have good saves, crush evil enemies, it is not like you have to use fear effect againt the party so the paladin can feel good.The difference is, the Paladin, Cleric, and Sorcerer skills will always come up eventually, even if the GM isn't specifically trying to use them.
If your rogue is for some reason only good at trapfinding, then he's going to be in for awkward moments when combat starts. The awkward thing about pushing forward one thing to make someone special is that he might not be special anywhere else, and all of the sudden he isn't so hot anymore. When everyone's good and at least a little versatile then they all have their chance to shine all the time. Niche protection also creates a weird situation where you say "Crap, a deadly trap! I wish we had a rogue." or worse "Who's rolling the rogue?" in a group where no one has fun with rogue...
"Who's rolling the rogue?" in a group where no one has fun with rogue...
agreed. That is an awful situation.
I don't think anyone in my current group would play a rogue if I wasn't.
I like the rogue's playstyle, but no game should force someone to play it. It requires enough rules knowledge and reading to make the average caster seem simple. Our group has learned about whole new sets of rules just from me playing a rogue. 9 times out of ten, the people who know enough about the game to make a rogue work, are also people that think all the hurdles it has to jump through are stupid and would rather play a rogue-like.
As a GM I use deadly traps even if there is not a rogue in the party. It is not like traps can only be bypassed by rogues.If your rogue is for some reason only good at trapfinding, then he's going to be in for awkward moments when combat starts. The awkward thing about pushing forward one thing to make someone special is that he might not be special anywhere else, and all of the sudden he isn't so hot anymore. When everyone's good and at least a little versatile then they all have their chance to shine all the time. Niche protection also creates a weird situation where you say "Crap, a deadly trap! I wish we had a rogue." or worse "Who's rolling the rogue?" in a group where no one has fun with rogue...Exactly. The other abilities just get used naturally. And other classes have several ahbilities that can use. The paladin is good at diplomacy, have good saves, crush evil enemies, it is not like you have to use fear effect againt the party so the paladin can feel good.The difference is, the Paladin, Cleric, and Sorcerer skills will always come up eventually, even if the GM isn't specifically trying to use them.
Or only by Disable Device. Or only by a Trapfinding ability.
Or only by Disable Device. Or only by a Trapfinding ability.
Or in a pinch summon monster 1 and dispel magic. Which really traps shouldn't be so common that you can't use spells to get around them.
IMHO just throwing traps at the PCs is boring.
"I use convoluted mechanics to make use of my main class feature in exchange for some out of combat ability that still needs to be supplemented by UMD" may be fun to play and even useful to the party, but it's not a great niche.
Thats a method, not a niche.
Thats a method, not a niche."I use convoluted mechanics to make use of my main class feature in exchange for some out of combat ability that still needs to be supplemented by UMD" may be fun to play and even useful to the party, but it's not a great niche.
It's a playstyle niche.
It's a playstyle niche.Thats a method, not a niche."I use convoluted mechanics to make use of my main class feature in exchange for some out of combat ability that still needs to be supplemented by UMD" may be fun to play and even useful to the party, but it's not a great niche.
That other classes can do too. Which isn't very niche, imo.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the Rogue has a niche, it's being Pathfinder's finest punch line.
That other classes can do too. Which isn't very niche, imo.It's a playstyle niche.Thats a method, not a niche."I use convoluted mechanics to make use of my main class feature in exchange for some out of combat ability that still needs to be supplemented by UMD" may be fun to play and even useful to the party, but it's not a great niche.
No other classes can't really mimic the playstyle. They can be just as effective though, which to most people is a subtle difference.
No other classes can't really mimic the playstyle. They can be just as effective though, which to most people is a subtle difference.
Or a non existent difference. Can you show me ANYTHING to justify the idea that there is something about your vague concept of "playstyle" that makes the rogue different?
No other classes can't really mimic the playstyle. They can be just as effective though, which to most people is a subtle difference.Or a non existent difference. Can you show me ANYTHING to justify the idea that there is something about your vague concept of "playstyle" that makes the rogue different?
If you can't parse it from the dialog that Scavion and I had, then I probably can't show you.
I have a build posted. Scavion and I talked about what his build could and couldn't mimic. The important aspect was the lack of skillmastery not the tricks with UMD. My rogue can rely on his skills more to get sneak attacks, when in the situations where skills are risky for the alchemist, the alchemist pulls out an extract of greater invisibility.
The tricks with the UMD showed that the rogue does bring some utility to the group due to the nature of random loot, and can use actions to use the wizard's rechargeable staves for him when the situation calls for it. This is by no means the core of the build, but the rogue-alchemist core isn't their extracts either.
As the rogue your attack pattern changes depending on the encounter. Is there cover? Should I do range combat first or just focus on closing the distance? Am I next to a foe? Should I move to flank that foe or should I feint them? Should I burn charges on this staff of stealth? Is the enemy a mind affecting caster that is evil? Can I use stealth to get close to the enemy? Does that enemy have soft cover to me? Is that foe already bleeding, and should I attack a different one? Omg am I actually flanking for a full attack someone pinch me!?
Nearly every round of combat I am rolling multiple skill checks, and by rolling I mean taking 10 and not failing any of them. The only times I've failed a stealth check is when the GM forgets about the range penalties to perception.
My experience with the alchemist on the other-hand went like this:
1) Spider climb on ceiling
2) Throw bombs
3) Collect XP
It was more effective, but boring to me and I ran into some problems that prevented me from being my old character+, I was just a different character that to me was less interesting IN COMBAT. Yes that is right, I am mainly playing a rogue for the in-combat thrill. It's RotRL so out of combat moments are few and far between.
My experience with the alchemist on the other-hand went like this:
1) Spider climb on ceiling
2) Throw bombs
3) Collect XP
Isn't it a little unfair to compare a bomb specced alchemist to a rogue instead of one that's made for melee combat? Especially when the prime example of that one guy who's great at being a rogue isn't the bomb alchemist, but the vivisectionist, who gives up bombs to get full sneak attack, including the bleed damage on a sneak attack as a discovery! Vivisectionist for me has mostly been a choice between setting up his sneak attack, using UMD, drinking a potion/extract, or actually getting attacks in. I still have my ranged options too.
My experience with the alchemist on the other-hand went like this:
1) Spider climb on ceiling
2) Throw bombs
3) Collect XP
Which is why you use a vivisectionist, which gives up the bombs for sneak attack.
Which is why you use a vivisectionist, which gives up the bombs for sneak attack.My experience with the alchemist on the other-hand went like this:
1) Spider climb on ceiling
2) Throw bombs
3) Collect XP
That you have trouble making use of because you don't take ten on skills.
Your extracts make up the difference, but without skillmastery, you traded a solid feature for one you can't really make full use of without burning resources.
Your extracts make up the difference, but without skillmastery, you traded a solid feature for one you can't really make full use of without burning resources.
Well I mean unless you didn't want to use bombs or burn your feats on them. Bombs are pretty feat heavy to turn into the nova monster they can be. Extracts do a lot, invisibility alone is a good boon. Infusion discovery even lets you share! Combine extracts is also pretty delicious. Shield + enlarge person in a standard action that can be shared with a reach bro.
Isn't it a little unfair to compare a bomb specced alchemist to a rogue instead of one that's made for melee combat? Especially when the prime example of that one guy who's great at being a rogue isn't the bomb alchemist, but the vivisectionist, who gives up bombs to get full sneak attack, including the bleed damage on a sneak attack as a discovery! Vivisectionist for me has mostly been a choice between setting up his sneak attack, using UMD, drinking a potion/extract, or actually getting attacks in. I still have my ranged options too.My experience with the alchemist on the other-hand went like this:
1) Spider climb on ceiling
2) Throw bombs
3) Collect XP
You really have to use that alchemy to make use of the sneak attack since you lack skill mastery.
Really, without skill mastery, you can't mimic a high level rogue's play style without a loose interpretation of the taking 10 rules.
Your extracts make up the difference, but without skillmastery, you traded a solid feature for one you can't really make full use of without burning resources.Well I mean unless you didn't want to use bombs or burn your feats on them. Bombs are pretty feat heavy to turn into the nova monster they can be. Extracts do a lot, invisibility alone is a good boon. Infusion discovery even lets you share! Combine extracts is also pretty delicious. Shield + enlarge person in a standard action that can be shared with a reach bro.
Oh yeah you do stuff, but it is a different play style. It's not rogue+. It's one of those, "most people would think this is more effective". Calling it rogue+ though in play style is incorrect.
IMHO bombs are less feat intensive than making sneak attack work. Pbs, precise shot, improved precise shot, far shot, maybe distance thrower. Avoid rapid shot or TWF, burns up bombs too fast. Discoveries, fast bombs, precise bombs, infusions.
|
My experience with the alchemist on the other-hand went like this:
1) Spider climb on ceiling
2) Throw bombs
3) Collect XP
Interesting.
My experience with Rogue:1:Move to flank.
2:Make Full TWF Attack[and managed to get lucky on rolls]
3:Asked to borrow hat to roll all the d6's.
4:Missed on next Full Attack, and had to go ask the cleric to burn a Heal spell because he was way down on health.
My Experience with Vivisectionist:
1:Mutagens himself.
2:Moves to flank.
3:Makes full attack.
4:Asks to borrow hat to roll all the d6's.
5:Repeated 2-4 so much I considered renting the guy my hat because he didn't miss.
6:Didn't have to ask for heal spell because he had some healing on him and had a better AC, and dropped things quicker.
That you have trouble making use of because you don't take ten on skills.
Your extracts make up the difference, but without skillmastery, you traded a solid feature for one you can't really make full use of without burning resources.
1:Taking 10 doesn't make you the undisputed master of skills, it just makes you reliably good at the skills you are good at.
2:You burn a resource as a Vivisectionist to get reliable sneak attack by chugging a greater invisibility extract. You get that extract back after you sleep, it lasts the entire combat, and you don't need to burn a bunch of feats or an action each round to use the extract. For a Rogue, you burn an advanced talent that you need to spend cash, time, and use an optional rule to actually change, and you need to make a fixed selection, and invest in feats to feinting or intimidating to use it to get reliable sneak attack[or use a wand of greater invisibility, which will cut into your wealth]. I say Vivisectionist comes out ahead.
You really have to use that alchemy to make use of the sneak attack since you lack skill mastery.
Is this entire argument going to be about a single advanced rogue talent? That's pretty weak, imo.
Oh yeah you do stuff, but it is a different play style.
Oh wait, there's this vague "another playstle" argument you keep going back to, like other classes can't choose to use feign or acrobatics. At least its not something ridiculous like "The fact you have better things to do like turn invisible or do damage without sneak is why you aren't doing it!" or... is it?
|
|
Isn't it a little unfair to compare a bomb specced alchemist to a rogue instead of one that's made for melee combat? Especially when the prime example of that one guy who's great at being a rogue isn't the bomb alchemist, but the vivisectionist, who gives up bombs to get full sneak attack, including the bleed damage on a sneak attack as a discovery! Vivisectionist for me has mostly been a choice between setting up his sneak attack, using UMD, drinking a potion/extract, or actually getting attacks in. I still have my ranged options too.My experience with the alchemist on the other-hand went like this:
1) Spider climb on ceiling
2) Throw bombs
3) Collect XPYou really have to use that alchemy to make use of the sneak attack since you lack skill mastery.
Really, without skill mastery, you can't mimic a high level rogue's play style without a loose interpretation of the taking 10 rules.
You do realize that Skill Mastery doesn't mean you will always succeed at that skill, nor does it mean that you will be the only one with a massive bonus to that skill, nor does it mean that you will be the only one who can feint/intimidate foes into flat-footed/etc, right? An alchemist could with the right traits get a pretty nice intimidate just like a rogue. They will just have a chance of rolling really high or moderately low.
You grossly overrate skill mastery, skill mastery is decent not great. Greater invisibility is great.
Not like the rogue can't use greater invisibility. They just don't provide the resource for it.
It's the problem with mundane balancing. Mundane powers stack with magic. The devs account for that by deciding mundanes get less umph.
They will just have a chance of rolling really high or moderately low.
A lot of times that means you have a higher chance of failing.
When I am rolling two or more skill checks a round and rolling less than ten on even one of them would waste my turn, then skill mastery pays dividends.
The more skills you use, the better skill mastery is.
Oh wait, there's this vague "another playstle" argument you keep going back to, like other classes can't choose to use feign or acrobatics. At least its not something ridiculous like "The fact you have better things to do like turn invisible or do damage without sneak is why you aren't doing it!" or... is it?
They don't take ten though. So the more skills they use in a round the higher chance they have at failing one of them.
I normally need to roll two or more skill checks each round. My chance of rolling in the bottom half on at least one of them is at least 75%. That can easily mean the difference between doing something that round and not. Taking 10 brings that chance to 0% (or 100% if you round up from 10.5)
You grossly overrate skill mastery, skill mastery is decent not great. Greater invisibility is great.Not like the rogue can't use greater invisibility. They just don't provide the resource for it.
It's the problem with mundane balancing. Mundane powers stack with magic. The devs account for that by deciding mundanes get less umph.
Which is why they get more WBL and they count differently towards CR and APL!
Except you know... They don't.
Oh wait, there's this vague "another playstle" argument you keep going back to, like other classes can't choose to use feign or acrobatics. At least its not something ridiculous like "The fact you have better things to do like turn invisible or do damage without sneak is why you aren't doing it!" or... is it?They don't take ten though. So the more skills they use in a round the higher chance they have at failing one of them.
That's not actually a 'playstyle' imo. You still do all the same rolls(or... lack there of I guess). Its about success and fail chance.
You grossly overrate skill mastery, skill mastery is decent not great. Greater invisibility is great.Not like the rogue can't use greater invisibility. They just don't provide the resource for it.
It's the problem with mundane balancing. Mundane powers stack with magic. The devs account for that by deciding mundanes get less umph.
Which is why they get more WBL and they count differently towards CR and APL!
Except you know... They don't.
Yeah. the assumption is that they are in the same party as casters. And that people would throw a fit about a mundane ability not stacking with magic. So they get balanced around that. Normally with magic taking precedence.
Not best design philosophy, but PF inherited it and then expanded it. For everyone but the barbar, who is balanced around the idea that they don't stack with magic because of superstitious, but then they just pre-buff...
You grossly overrate skill mastery, skill mastery is decent not great. Greater invisibility is great.Not like the rogue can't use greater invisibility. They just don't provide the resource for it.
It's the problem with mundane balancing. Mundane powers stack with magic. The devs account for that by deciding mundanes get less umph.
Which is why they get more WBL and they count differently towards CR and APL!
Except you know... They don't.
Yeah. the assumption is that they are in the same party as casters. And that people would throw a fit about a mundane ability not stacking with magic. So they get balanced around that. Normally with magic taking precedence.
Not best design philosophy, but PF inherited it and then expanded it. For everyone but the barbar, who is balanced around the idea that they don't stack with magic because of superstitious, but then they just pre-buff...
Source?
That's not actually a 'playstyle' imo. You still do all the same rolls(or... lack there of I guess). Its about success and fail chance.Oh wait, there's this vague "another playstle" argument you keep going back to, like other classes can't choose to use feign or acrobatics. At least its not something ridiculous like "The fact you have better things to do like turn invisible or do damage without sneak is why you aren't doing it!" or... is it?They don't take ten though. So the more skills they use in a round the higher chance they have at failing one of them.
Or you decide not to depend on strategies that require all those skills because it increases your failure rate.
Which is a different play style. Trying to do the same things as a rogue with a higher chance for failure makes you a rogue-, which is a dumb thing to aim for.
I prefer the thoery that paizo just likes BArds > rogues.
Probably.
They do the skill monkey thing better and can come out ahead on personal damage.
They don't play the same though nor does the bard do everything the rogue does. It's just the relative worth between what the bard can do that the rogue cannot and what the rogue can do and the bard cannot, is lop-sided to the bard.
You really have to use that alchemy to make use of the sneak attack since you lack skill mastery.
You're making a mountain out of a mole hill of difference, and ignoring dozens of way in which the rogue is outclassed here.
You're relying on appeals to vague, meaningless an ephemeral unprovable concepts like "style" so that you can't be disproved. Its evading a conversation, not having one.
Really, without skill mastery, you can't mimic a high level rogue's play style without a loose interpretation of the taking 10 rules.
who cares if you can take 10 when the alchemist has a +20?
The importance of not spending resources is a myth. It doesn't matter if you can go all day, every day. As soon as the cleric or wizard are out of resources, EVERYONE is stopping.
who cares if you can take 10 when the alchemist has a +20?
So does the rogue... if not more.
Those opposed checks tend to scale past 20.
who cares if you can take 10 when the alchemist has a +20?So does the rogue... if not more.
Those opposed checks tend to scale past 20.
the alchemist has a +20 on top of the rogue from his greater invis. extract.