Just want to point out that I dislike the "trapfinding is a trait now" argument, since it's a campaign trait. Which means it's really only supposed to be available for Mummy's Mask, or a homebrew campaign where the GM deems it appropriate.
Really if you're going to allow any campaign traits all the time, there are many more better ones. The one that gives you a free hp and skill point every level, in addition to your favored class bonus, for example.I actually agree with you entirely, here. Heck, even in Mummy's Mask, Blood of the Pharaohs gives the equivalent of two normal Traits. And you'll note I've never tried to use this as an argument against Rogues being good, instead referencing things like Investigator or Archaeologist Bard.
I just don't think not using that Trait helps the Rogue notably given that so many Archetypes or other classes also grant Trapfinding.
OTOH, I honestly think that trait actually helps Rogues. Thanks to it, they can trade away Trapfinding by taking an useful archetype (e.g.: Scout) and still have the iconic ability of disarming magic traps (with a small bonus to boot)!
Also on topic, +1 to Lemmys rogue class. I'll be putting that into my future games. It definitely helps the rogues have a real defining role that isn't trap monkey or handful of d6.
Thanks! I'm glad you like it.
|
OTOH, I honestly think that trait actually helps Rogues. Thanks to it, they can trade away Trapfinding by taking an useful archetype (e.g.: Scout) and still have the iconic ability of disarming magic traps (with a small bonus to boot)!
I see where you're coming from...I just don't allow any Campaign Traits outside the Campaign. Bad precedent, and they're not designed for it.
And Scout doesn't touch Trapfinding. For the record. :)
|
OTOH, I honestly think that trait actually helps Rogues. Thanks to it, they can trade away Trapfinding by taking an useful archetype (e.g.: Scout) and still have the iconic ability of disarming magic traps (with a small bonus to boot)!I see where you're coming from...I just don't allow any Campaign Traits outside the Campaign. Bad precedent, and they're not designed for it.
And Scout doesn't touch Trapfinding. For the record. :)
Can I ask if this is because of power level of campaign traits or a lack of thematic cohesion? Me personally, I allow any campaign traits, as generally Religion traits are the strong ones (Second Chance is what?!), and the flavor of anything is mutable, especially something as generic as "you disarm traps."
I can respect whatever reason you have for barring them, but this is more my own personal curiosity, since I myself feel like there's plenty of characters who should be good with traps without having grown up on the streets...with all the street traps...
I see where you're coming from...I just don't allow any Campaign Traits outside the Campaign. Bad precedent, and they're not designed for it.
I do, but on a case-by-case basis. Trapfinding is hardly a necessity anyway, and it sure isn't worth a trait. (Then again, I give all characters with at least 10 ranks in Disable Device the ability to disable magic traps, albeit at -10 penalty (unless they have trapfinding).
And Scout doesn't touch Trapfinding. For the record. :)
My mistake, Thug then. (I usually see Rogues take both archetypes, so I wasn't sure about which one replaced what).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My number one fix to rogues would be to fix the amount a rogue can sneak attack. Ranged rogues falter because they don't flank and therefore lose out on the ability to sneak attack. Even melee rogues have a problem if there are only two other martials in the party.
The solution to me would be to allow sneak attack when others flank the enemy. Here's my example.
Jim Bob the hulking tin can fighter is standing in front of Lord Tyrantdude and waving his steel phallic imagery in his face. Brother Outtaplace Inthissetting the monk flips over Tyrantdude to flank him. Then Awesomeman the rogue hits him from the side. Amesomeman gets no flanking bonus and no sneak attack.
The reason why flanking gives you a bonus is because the person being flanked (Tyrantdude) is splitting his attention between two targets which means he can't focus his defenses at one point when Jim Bob or Outtaplace attack.
For Awesomeman to not have sneak attack in this scenario, it would mean that Tyrantdude is totally ignoring Jim Bob and Outtaplace to focus all his defenses on Awesomeman. You'd really think that Jim Bob and Outtaplace would just hit him for not paying attention.
And this is just for a melee sneak attack. It gets even sillier for a ranged rogue. Tyrantdude is not only totally ignoring the martials but perfectly aware of where the ranged rogue is and focusing his guard against him so perfectly that it hides all his vital points. Really?
I think all martials should get some kind of bonus for this situation but rogues in particular need this. I also think it would fit the idea of a rogue as a canny fighter who scans his enemy and waits for the right moment to strike. No matter what your idea of a rogue is, they are supposed to be street smart. Even a thug would understand the concept of hitting someone while they're looking somewhere else. And I don't know anyone who would focus on the guy attacking their side when the Mountain That Rides in hitting them from the front and Bruce Lee is hitting them from behind.
By the way, yes rogues can sneak their way past combat or bluff through it but most of the time they are lugging around the whole party. The clanking oaf in full plate is an albatross around the neck of a stealth rogue. The two most obvious fixes for that would be to strike out on your own (everyone sing along: Don't you know you never split the party...) or to have the magic people silence him with spells which means relying on someone else.
The way to buff stealth I'd say is to make invisible people easier to spot or make mundane stealth better against the classic ways to detect invisibility. Invisibility is only a second-level spell. It shouldn't be as good as it is unless there's multiple ways around it. Maybe things like increasing the duration and availability of see invisibility or invisibility purge traps. Mundane stealth already has the advantage against those things.
Rogues could also get some kind of bonus against things like tremorsense and scent. Something like:
Twinkle Toes: your steps are now light as a cat's. The DC for anyone to detect you via tremorsense, hearing-based Perception, and blindsight/sense increases by 10.
The math may not be perfect but I'm just throwing out ideas here.
And, of course, rogues should get a good will save. Not as a talent, just something they have.
Me personally, I allow any campaign traits, as generally Religion traits are the strong ones (Second Chance is what?!), and the flavor of anything is mutable, especially something as generic as "you disarm traps."
Yeah I think Campaign bonuses aren't too bad. I just demand a damn good reason for having them outside of the particular campaign. And if you think the religion traits are bad, you haven't seen the Magic ones like Magical Lineage
|
|
Can I ask if this is because of power level of campaign traits or a lack of thematic cohesion? Me personally, I allow any campaign traits, as generally Religion traits are the strong ones (Second Chance is what?!), and the flavor of anything is mutable, especially something as generic as "you disarm traps."
I can respect whatever reason you have for barring them, but this is more my own personal curiosity, since I myself feel like there's plenty of characters who should be good with traps without having grown up on the streets...with all the street traps...
It's mostly mechanical, though a bit thematic too. A lot of Campaign Traits are flat-out better than other Traits (Finding Haleen, I'm looking at you...but Trapfinder qualifies as well, being flat-out better than Vagabond Child by a fair bit) and many of them have highly specific and potentially inappropriate flavor.
I do allow custom Traits if people like, but only ones that follow the generic Trait rules (+1 to a skill and make it class, +1 to a save, +2 Initiative, +2 Concentration, or +2 to a particular category of saves like those vs. fear).
I do, but on a case-by-case basis. Trapfinding is hardly a necessity anyway, and it sure isn't worth a trait. (Then again, I give all characters with at least 10 ranks in Disable Device the ability to disable magic traps, albeit at -10 penalty (unless they have trapfinding).
I'd actually be fine with a Trait that granted the ability to deal with magical traps. That seems to be worth about a Trait in all honesty, maybe a bit less. The issue with Trapfinder is that it also grants a skill as class and gives it a +1...which is something worth a Trait all by itself.
My mistake, Thug then. (I usually see Rogues take both archetypes, so I wasn't sure about which one replaced what).
Heck, I only know that one because it's one of like two Archetypes Ninja's can take and part of a hypothetical Pouncing Kitsune Ninja build I keep meaning to take out for a spin if I manage to wrangle my way into a high-level game.
|
Nothing, Start enjoying being subpar like every good roleplayer. (pun option, but who knows)This would be my vote. My reasoning is you can't really fix the rogue with out a new edition as the rogue is core book class and the APG/UC books didn't do the jobs to fix the rogue. Now with new Class coming this summer you have options to take other than the rogue.As I've said several times, including on this thread (IIRC), I think an expanded list of rogue talents that don't suck would go a long way towards rescuing the rogue. And that could easily be published as a splatbook.
That would help the rogue, but it would help the Archeologist and Negotiator bard archetypes more.
|
|
That would help the rogue, but it would help the Archeologist and Negotiator bard archetypes more.
Depends on the nature of the Talents. Something combat-oriented based on Sneak Attack is pretty Rogue exclusive, for example. And something like "Quick Mind" allowing you to use a Reflex Save for a Will Save would be much more useful to a rogue than Bard.
And powering up the Archaeologist and Negotiator isn't necessarily a bad idea. They're weaker than a standard Bard, after all.
I'd actually be fine with a Trait that granted the ability to deal with magical traps. That seems to be worth about a Trait in all honesty, maybe a bit less. The issue with Trapfinder is that it also grants a skill as class and gives it a +1...which is something worth a Trait all by itself.
I see your point, but disarming traps is probably the main use of Disable Device and it's not a particularly powerful skill, so I'm okay with it in this particular case. I'm okay with traits related to "weaker" skills giving an extra bonus. (I probably wouldn't allow the Trapfinder trait if the it granted Trapfinding and, say, Perception as a class skill).
My mistake, Thug then. (I usually see Rogues take both archetypes, so I wasn't sure about which one replaced what).Heck, I only know that one because it's one of like two Archetypes Ninja's can take and part of a hypothetical Pouncing Kitsune Ninja build I keep meaning to take out for a spin if I manage to wrangle my way into a high-level game.
Understandable. Honestly, I tried to keep my Rogue Fix homebrew close to the vanilla Rogue so that it'd be easier to implement in different games, but I'd not be against Rogues getting the Scout archetype for free. It's one of the very few abilities that actually increase the mobility of a non-caster class. Probably would give them a 2nd good save as well, although I do like the idea of they only having good Reflex progression but being compensated for it with class features that boost their overall saves (e.g.: Something like my versions of Iron Guts, Resiliency, Slippery Mind, Getaway Artist, etc).
I think the points made to show how ninjas, inquisitors, and rangers tend to better the rogue in combat while bards can be made to be better skillmonkeys than rogues have merit.
The big problem is to find a way to assist the rogue, knowing full well that the core rulebook has been in print already.
The advanced class investigator and slayer works, yet neither are "pure rogues". his thread was set up to have the core class rogue gain something without having to reprint the books all over again - such as some new rogue talent that gave the equivalent to a bard's "versatile performance". Something like, every rank gained in acrobatics also counted towards climb. Or every point in diplomacy also counts as a point in bluff. It doesn't have to be two added skills, just one somewhat related and synergistic skill, considering that if several talents were made like this it could somewhat counteract the skill gap of versatile performance.
Another fix might be a rogue talent that helps the rogue use sneak attack while in darkness (A name like alley stalker perhaps? To ignore the concealment from lack of illumination only for precision / sneak attack?), and an advanced rogue talent that allows a rogue to use flanking sneak attack solo one round per day for every 5 class levels would be nice (no bonus for flanking, yet allowed to add the additional precision damage dice should the strikes connect).
Make certain said new rogue talents can only be used by the rogue or ninja (cannot be chosen by bard archetypes as written, exceptions to the rules).
New archetypes could be made, yet then people wouldn't be playing a core rogue anymore and may as well play investigators / slayers, etc. It doesn't help the core rogue.
Long story short, I hope Pathfinder 2.0 addresses the problem if and when it is made. New rogue talents might help a rogue for now, yet such things are power creep patches (won't help people that don't want to buy "supplement X" or have games that are strictly "core book only").
Can't we just say Slayer and Investigator are two Rogue "Alternate Classes", cross out the default rogue and let people pick the direction they want? Problem solved no? The Core Rogue *is* the Slayer and Investigator. Alternatively, ya a new edition is needed.
I think the points made to show how ninjas, inquisitors, and rangers tend to better the rogue in combat while bards can be made to be better skillmonkeys than rogues have merit.
The big problem is to find a way to assist the rogue, knowing full well that the core rulebook has been in print already.
The advanced class investigator and slayer works, yet neither are "pure rogues". his thread was set up to have the core class rogue gain something without having to reprint the books all over again - such as some new rogue talent that gave the equivalent to a bard's "versatile performance". Something like, every rank gained in acrobatics also counted towards climb. Or every point in diplomacy also counts as a point in bluff. It doesn't have to be two added skills, just one somewhat related and synergistic skill, considering that if several talents were made like this it could somewhat counteract the skill gap of versatile performance.
Another fix might be a rogue talent that helps the rogue use sneak attack while in darkness (A name like alley stalker perhaps? To ignore the concealment from lack of illumination only for precision / sneak attack?), and an advanced rogue talent that allows a rogue to use flanking sneak attack solo one round per day for every 5 class levels would be nice (no bonus for flanking, yet allowed to add the additional precision damage dice should the strikes connect).
Make certain said new rogue talents can only be used by the rogue or ninja (cannot be chosen by bard archetypes as written, exceptions to the rules).
New archetypes could be made, yet then people wouldn't be playing a core rogue anymore and may as well play investigators / slayers, etc. It doesn't help the core rogue.
Long story short, I hope Pathfinder 2.0 addresses the problem if and when it is made. New rogue talents might help a rogue for now, yet such things are power creep patches (won't help people that don't want to buy "supplement X" or have games that are strictly "core book only").
This thread was set up as a poll and included options like giving them new class features, rogue talents, defensive abilities, debuff options, etc. The Bloat/Power Creep discussion is for a different thread. The only thing I would say is that I don't own the APG but I can play a Witch just fine thanks to the magic of the internet. As long as d20pfsrd.com, the PRD, PathfinderWiki, and the Archives of Nethys are still up then new splat shouldn't be as much of an issue as you describe.
Slayer and Investigator are not really Alternate class to the rogue the same way Ninja, Anti-paladin, and Samurai are. The ACG classes mix two class into one. Slayer is Rogue and Ranger and Investigator is Rogue and Alchemist I think
|
|
I think a good step would be to make an archetype for Rogues that is like Qinggong for Monks. Something that allows you to trade any number of rogue talents or other class abilities for Spell Like, Supernatural, or Extraordinary abilities that can be used either x times per day or tied to Ki from the Ki Pool Rogue talent.
This would allow the abilities to be both more powerful than a rogue talent, and make it available to rogues only.
Rogues don't need a better weapon selection. Being limited to certain weapons is part of the rogues flavour.Slightly better weapon selection. All I gave them is proficiency with whips, longswords and bucklers... But I guess these ain't Rogue wepaons for you... I mean, who ever heard of Rogues using whips, right?
Rogues were never meant to be a combat heavy class. They were designed to get that hit in every now amd then that really hurts, and does.Not being "combat heavy" doesn't mean they should suck in combat. Bards, Alchemists, Wizards ain't any more "combat heavy" than Rogues, they are just more capable (which isn't saying much, as Rogues suck in combat). Rogues are not just worse than Barbarians in battle, they are worse than any PC class should ever be!
Like it or not, combat is a big part of this game. It takes most space and more rules than anything else in the CRB. Being awful at it means you're losing a big piece of game time (and probably being a burden to the party).
No one is asking for Rogues to be just as powerful as an optimized Barbarian in combat, not even close! We just want them to be at least as useful as a Bard or Inquisitor is, although in a different way. We want Rogues to be able to face level-appropriate threats without the need of GM mercy.
One last thing. I think there are a lot of people who really miss the point classes and their design. Classes are not designed with maximum numbers in mind, they are designed with a concept. Also, people choose classes based on an idea they have and not just because they get high numbers. I know strolling through the door and using Charm Person would be...
So how many of these actual games consist of the douche bag player creating a character to do exactly what you can do just for the hell of it?
Sorry, but this doesn't cut it as a legitimate excuse to change a class. So if I can build a better healer using another class besides the cleric, is it time to change the class?
You are misunderstanding how incredibly easy it is to have a character that can beat the rogues at skills purely by accident. You are also misunderstanding that even if someone *can* heal better then the Cleric, that is only one fairly minor part of being a cleric and says nothing about their buff spells, combat abilities or domain powers.
You can beat a Rogue at skills just by being Average Joe Bard/Alchemist/INT based caster. You can beat a Rogue at combat by being Joe Anybody, even some NPC classes (Adept!)
That's because combat requires the most mechanics therefore requires more of a page count. That doean't mean the game is combat heavy. 4th esition D&D was a combat heavy game with role playing tacked on. It was like playing Monopoly but adding some role playing into the mix.
There is absolutely nothing to say that 4e is more combat heavy than Pathfinder. This is just ridiculous bias. Both games focus on rules for tactical combat simulation because you generally don't need rules for how to RP.
So how many of these actual games consist of the douche bag player creating a character to do exactly what you can do just for the hell of it?
None that I know of. Literally every single player who I played with chose the class they wanted based on what would be more fun for him/her to play.
I've seen Bards and Inquisitors completely overshadow the party Rogue just by virtue of being a Bard or Inquisitor. Besides, at least IME, Rogues are so terrible in combat (mostly due to their low accuracy and pathetic saves) that they don't last long without house rules or GM's mercy, either because they die or because their player gets tired of playing second fiddle on their main job.
Tell me, if we are all playing a game with moderately effective classes (say, Barbarian, Bard, Paladin, Inquisitor, Alchemist, Ranger, etc), and you show up with an Warrior (or Expert)... Is the Barbarian (or Bard) being a dick or is it a innate unbalance between the classes?
But let's say that the Bard/Inquisitor/Alchemist is indeed being a dick and trying to overshadow the Rogue on purpose... Why is it okay for Rogues to be so easily overshadowed on their own area of expertise? Especially considering said overshadowing is caused by balanced class. This is not a over-optimized God Wizard using Simulacrum, Gate and Bind Outsider to steal the Rogue's thunder, it's just a moderately well-built Bard, Alchemist, Ranger, Ninja or Inquisitor doing what comes naturally to those classes.
That's because combat requires the most mechanics therefore requires more of a page count. That doean't mean the game is combat heavy. 4th esition D&D was a combat heavy game with role playing tacked on. It was like playing Monopoly but adding some role playing into the mix.There is absolutely nothing to say that 4e is more combat heavy than Pathfinder. This is just ridiculous bias. Both games focus on rules for tactical combat simulation because you generally don't need rules for how to RP.
True,... but not true. Sure, you don't need real rule for RP, but the 4e just don't have good mechanics outsine of combat: forget profession, craft (and all the crafting) and Perform, Skill DC that scale with you (so, the Rogue level 18 will need the same result on his dice than a Rogue level 6 to steal from the town cleric), few poer/ class habilities that can be use outside of combat....
No, Pathfinder is quite stronger outside of combat.
So how many of these actual games consist of the douche bag player creating a character to do exactly what you can do just for the hell of it?
This happened to a rogue player in one of my games, actually. Apart from the rogue, the party included an alchemist, an urban ranger and a dawnflower dervish bard. To be fair it probably didn't help that he was a finesse rogue, fought with a rapier, and relied on a shortbow for ranged attacks. The player eventually retired the rogue at level 5((?) and rolled up a paladin with a few pointers from the rest of us, which he seems to find much more enjoyable.
You don't have to intentionally push the rogue out - it's very easy to overshadow him in the skill department entirely by accident.
Why is NO Changes not an option?
What if I told you, you don't need ranks in Profession to be able to have a profession?
We could just dispense with the profession skill and say "My character was a blacksmith before he began adventuring" "Mine was a mortician" and so on. PCs and NPCs in 4e have jobs, even if there's not a skill to represent it. Likewise for craft/perform. Some things can just be RPed without requiring specific rules.
So how many of these actual games consist of the douche bag player creating a character to do exactly what you can do just for the hell of it?None that I know of. Literally every single player who I played with chose the class they wanted based on what would be more fun for him/her to play.
I've seen Bards and Inquisitors completely overshadow the party Rogue just by virtue of being a Bard or Inquisitor. Besides, at least IME, Rogues are so terrible in combat (mostly due to their low accuracy and pathetic saves) that they don't last long without house rules or GM's mercy, either because they die or because their player gets tired of playing second fiddle in their own area of expertise.
Tell me, if we are all playing a game with moderately effective classes (say, Barbarian, Bard, Paladin, Inquisitor, Alchemist, Ranger, etc), and you show up with an Warrior (or Expert)... Is the Barbarian (or Bard) being a dick or is it a innate unbalance between the classes?
So those classes you named were mimicking everything the rogue was doing?
I don't buy this overshadowing argument because there are usually enough monsters for everyone to hit, and there are enough out of combat scenarios for everyone to participate in.
Are we still going with that number assumption again? While 1d6 + 8 + 5d6 may not be the best damage, it still brings a monster that closer to death. Skill DC's? Never seen a rogue struggle to reach the DC's he has skills in.
Could it be that you are maybe the one who wants too much instead of the rogue actually not having enough?
The only arguments I have seen are against other classes instead of against actual scenarios and encounters.
So how many of these actual games consist of the douche bag player creating a character to do exactly what you can do just for the hell of it?This happened to a rogue player in one of my games, actually. Apart from the rogue, the party included an alchemist, an urban ranger and a dawnflower dervish bard. To be fair it probably didn't help that he was a finesse rogue, fought with a rapier, and used a shortbow a fair amount of the time. The player eventually retired the rogue at level 5((?) and rolled up a paladin with a few pointers from the rest of us, which he seems to find much more enjoyable.
You don't have to intentionally push the rogue out - it's very easy to overshadow him in the skill department entirely by accident.
Sounds more like a problem with player than the class. If wanted to be a combat powerhouse then rogue was not the way to go. Funny how he chose one of the most powerful combat classes there is as his next character. Some players aren't bothered by how much more damage another class is doing.
|
|
I don't buy this overshadowing argument because there are usually enough monsters for everyone to hit, and there are enough out of combat scenarios for everyone to participate in.
Rogues are a 3/4 BAB class with no accuracy bonuses. While there are more than enough foes to hit, the Rogue has more difficulty hitting them than any other class, and do less damage when they do.
As for out of combat scenarios, it is usually only the person with the highest skill bonus that actually gets to contribute, with other just aiding another.
It has been shown that other classes will be better at any given skill than a rogue for all practical purposes. But hey, you can contribute. You'll always make the aid another check.
You can beat a Rogue at combat by being Joe Anybody, even some NPC classes (Adept!)Warrior! Full BAB + all Simple & Martial weapons is worth more than anything Rouge brings to the table.
It's true. Face makeup is rarely useful in a dungeon sitrep.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So those classes you named were mimicking everything the rogue was doing?
Yup. And often being much better at it too.
Are we still going with that number assumption again? While 1d6 + 8 + 5d6 may not be the best damage, it still brings a monster that closer to death. Skill DC's? Never seen a rogue struggle to reach the DC's he has skills in.
A Warrior with Power Attack also reduces the enemy's HP. Does that mean they are a good class? And they too can easily hit the DC of whatever skills they assign ranks to. I guess Warriors are a perfectly balanced class.
Could it be that you are maybe the one who wants too much instead of the rogue actually not having enough?
Only if "not being a pushover in combat" and "not being easily overshadowed at their own role by half a dozen different classes" is considered "too much".
Could it be that you are maybe the one who doesn't want to see the problem?
The only arguments I have seen are against other classes instead of against actual scenarios and encounters.
I could say the very same thing about "Rogues are fine" arguments, except they can't deal with class comparison either.
I'm not saying Rogues are completely useless, I'm saying they are less effective than most (if not all) other classes, and, more importantly, less effective than they should be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can't we just say Slayer and Investigator are two Rogue "Alternate Classes", cross out the default rogue and let people pick the direction they want? Problem solved no? The Core Rogue *is* the Slayer and Investigator.
Why? People have fun playing the rogue- as is. It's popular and contributes.
For those who want a more combat focused class- sure have the slayer, etc. Nothing wrong with more options.
Because it seems mean to allow players with low system mastery to kneecap themselves. Can we move it to the NPC class table maybe? Then if people want to play it they know what to expect?
|
|
It's true. Face makeup is rarely useful in a dungeon sitrep.You can beat a Rogue at combat by being Joe Anybody, even some NPC classes (Adept!)Warrior! Full BAB + all Simple & Martial weapons is worth more than anything Rouge brings to the table.
Thank you sir, for pointing out the folly of my typographical error. It has been corrected.
Because it seems mean to allow players with low system mastery to kneecap themselves. Can we move it to the NPC class table maybe? Then if people want to play it they know what to expect?
Maybe some player's don't care for system mastery and not all tables play like that?
|
|
So those classes you named were mimicking everything the rogue was doing?
Probably not every little thing. But if one class is better at 80% of stuff than the other...the one who's only getting to shine 1/5 of the time (actually way less since other characters than those two will overshadow both sometimes) has a bit of a problem.
I don't buy this overshadowing argument because there are usually enough monsters for everyone to hit, and there are enough out of combat scenarios for everyone to participate in.
Sure. But if everyone's fighting their own monster, and by the time other people have killed theirs, the rogue's only hit their enemy once, that's not good. Ditto if the rogue is doing maybe half as much damage as his flanking buddy.
And out-of-combat encounters you usually send whoever's best at the skill in question. If that's only the rogue one time in ten...
Are we still going with that number assumption again? While 1d6 + 8 + 5d6 may not be the best damage, it still brings a monster that closer to death. Skill DC's? Never seen a rogue struggle to reach the DC's he has skills in.
the issue isn't that the rogue never achieves anything, it's that he achieves vastly less than anyone else. If you are in a group of five, and you're only the main reason for success in one in ten encounters, while everyone else almost doubles that number...you're gonna feel overshadowed.
Could it be that you are maybe the one who wants too much instead of the rogue actually not having enough?
I'm perfectly happy when I'm playing a Bard, or Inquisitor, or just about any other class* except Rogue and Fighter. Those classes all give me enough. If they do and only Rogue and Fighter don't...that says more about Rogue and Fighter than it does me.
The only arguments I have seen are against other classes instead of against actual scenarios and encounters.
Right. Because it's not that Rogues can't effect the game at all, it's that they effect the game much less than everyone else and thus get overshadowed.
As part of a solo game Rogue game would probably be a lot of fun (if the GM lowered the power level of adversaries to compensate and gave you plenty of healing items)...but in a group game, if one character is worse than the others, it's a problem. So unless you want to power down basically every other class out there, Rogue needs to be powered up to fit in a group game.
*Okay, I'm not happy when playing most Full Casters, but that's not a power level issue, just a play-style one.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because it seems mean to allow players with low system mastery to kneecap themselves. Can we move it to the NPC class table maybe? Then if people want to play it they know what to expect?Maybe some player's don't care for system mastery and not all tables play like that?
Then why would they care if the Rogue is made more effective?
If they don't care about game balance, they don't care. Nothing is being taken from them.
However, if the game balanced is improved, those who do care about it will be able to better enjoy the game, and those who don't care about it can go on not caring and still enjoy the game as well.
It's a win-win scenario, so why be against game balance?
Because it seems mean to allow players with low system mastery to kneecap themselves. Can we move it to the NPC class table maybe? Then if people want to play it they know what to expect?Maybe some player's don't care for system mastery and not all tables play like that?
This post makes no sense. Why is labeling a weak class as such a problem? If you want to play an adept or warrior or rogue, no one is forcing you not to. We're just putting up warning signs that the class may not function as a low system mastery player expects.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because it seems mean to allow players with low system mastery to kneecap themselves. Can we move it to the NPC class table maybe? Then if people want to play it they know what to expect?Maybe some player's don't care for system mastery and not all tables play like that?
Maybe some players do and it can be incredibly frustrating to get into this neat new game all your friends are talking about and try out a class that you assumed did the thing that you wanted your character to do based on the flavor text only to find that you're too busy missing to do any of the things you describe your character doing?
(fun facts: this was me. this was my first experience with pathfinder. it was not fun)
Because it seems mean to allow players with low system mastery to kneecap themselves. Can we move it to the NPC class table maybe? Then if people want to play it they know what to expect?Maybe some player's don't care for system mastery and not all tables play like that?
If you don't care for system mastery, then why worry about the fact that improvements have been made to the rogue?
More generally, though.... most people with low system mastery are novices, and we should steer them away from trap options.
If I ask a player what kind of a character he wants, and he says "I want to build a character like the Grey Mouser, kind of clever and sneaky and stealthy," that person's going to look at the list of core classes and say "Oh, rogue! That's it." When you think "Grey Mouser" you think "rogue," just like when you thing "Gandalf" you think "wizard," and when you think "kung fu expert" you think "monk."
I don't want to have a discussion about "well, yes, but you don't really want a rogue because your character is more effective built on a different chassis." But I also don't want the player to sit there not being able to contribute effectively and end up sulking. (No, that's not a hypothetical. It's happened. The noobie playing a bard had fun, the noobie playing a rogue didn't, and it all came down to being able to do anything useful.)
Can't we just say Slayer and Investigator are two Rogue "Alternate Classes", cross out the default rogue and let people pick the direction they want? Problem solved no? The Core Rogue *is* the Slayer and Investigator. Alternatively, ya a new edition is needed.
pretty much this
But it gets worse. Diplomacy is generally single player GM interaction.
Is this a problem? We can't have more encounters solvable outside of combat because only the face gets to handle them..... meanwhile, the Witch uses the slumber hex.
If 33% of encounters can be diplomatic then 67% cannot.
But it gets worse. Diplomacy is generally single player GM interaction. Maybe two if the party has two charisma based characters and one aids the other. Three non-paladin charisma characters in one party is pretty rare. Everyone being a non-paladin charisma character is pretty much unheard of outside an all caster gimmick party.
The other 67% is... more complicated. But could probably be solved outside of a standard combat if the player got some imagination (and want to do so).
And, it's not because you don't have a good charisma that you can't try your way with diplomacy:
-First, the charisma score fade in face of the real skill point.
-Second, it's roleplay. Even with a low charisma and few skill point, you can try your way in non-combat encounter and you can help your face.
-Third, in low optimization group, it can be possible to get many character with good CHA. I mean, it's alway more fun to play a charismatic character than a ''Min-Max Barbarian who found it hard to speak''.
Why is labeling a weak class as such a problem?
It's a problem as the rogue isn't a weak class. That's just the VERY VERY LOUD repeated posts by a very few posters, who say this over & over & over again, and insist upon hijacking other threads into yet another useless caster/martial discrepancy debate.
|
|
Wait what? Since when was the paladin one of the most powerful combat classes? I didn't know paladin was a magus, fighter, inquisitor, gunslinger, cleric, witch, wizard, sorcerer or even maybe an oracle? I'll admit the swift action self heals and smite evil got an upgrade, but not that much.
No...I disagree with everything in the post you just quoted except this, but Paladin is indeed one of the most powerful combat classes (which are distinct from offensive caster classes like Witches, generally speaking). They're on par with Magus or Gunslinger and better than Inquisitor or Cleric...at least vs. Evil stuff. Indeed, vs. Evil stuff they do the most damage of just about any class.
Wait what? Since when was the paladin one of the most powerful combat classes? I didn't know paladin was a magus, fighter, inquisitor, gunslinger, cleric, witch, wizard, sorcerer or even maybe an oracle? I'll admit the swift action self heals and smite evil got an upgrade, but not that much.
Well, yeah he is. It is probably the more ''tanky'' class of the game (outside of multiclass), and against evil creature he is quite powerfull. And he said Combat class. I know that you can make Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Wizard and Witch into good combat character, but they are main caster if you know what I mean.
Wait what? Since when was the paladin one of the most powerful combat classes? I didn't know paladin was a magus, fighter, inquisitor, gunslinger, cleric, witch, wizard, sorcerer or even maybe an oracle? I'll admit the swift action self heals and smite evil got an upgrade, but not that much.Sounds more like a problem with player than the class. If wanted to be a combat powerhouse then rogue was not the way to go. Funny how he chose one of the most powerful combat classes there is as his next character. Some players aren't bothered by how much more damage another class is doing.So how many of these actual games consist of the douche bag player creating a character to do exactly what you can do just for the hell of it?This happened to a rogue player in one of my games, actually. Apart from the rogue, the party included an alchemist, an urban ranger and a dawnflower dervish bard. To be fair it probably didn't help that he was a finesse rogue, fought with a rapier, and used a shortbow a fair amount of the time. The player eventually retired the rogue at level 5((?) and rolled up a paladin with a few pointers from the rest of us, which he seems to find much more enjoyable.
You don't have to intentionally push the rogue out - it's very easy to overshadow him in the skill department entirely by accident.
Depends on the campaign. If the GM is dumb enough to throw a bunch of undead, evil dragons, and evil outsiders then the paladin can be pretty powerful in combat. Especially Bowadins. Have you heard the story of the Bowadins who killed a Great Wyrm in one round?
Why is labeling a weak class as such a problem?It's a problem as the rogue isn't a weak class. That's just the VERY VERY LOUD repeated posts by a very few posters, who say this over & over & over again, and insist upon hijacking other threads into yet another useless caster/martial discrepancy debate.
If that's the case, why are Rogues the target of said thread-jackers? I never see that kind of post about Bards, Inquisitors, Alchemist or whatever other Rogue replacement...
They are always about Rogues and Fighters... Have you ever considered the possibility that maybe, just maybe, those posters have a point?
|
|
Why is labeling a weak class as such a problem?It's a problem as the rogue isn't a weak class. That's just the VERY VERY LOUD repeated posts by a very few posters, who say this over & over & over again, and insist upon hijacking other threads into yet another useless caster/martial discrepancy debate.
It's more than just a few people.
And I try and keep the spells out of it for the most part. The Slayer's a better Rogue than Rogues are, at both combat and many skills, and it's got no spells at all.
The Investigator and Bard are better than the Rogue at skills even without spells, too.
Why is labeling a weak class as such a problem?It's a problem as the rogue isn't a weak class. That's just the VERY VERY LOUD repeated posts by a very few posters, who say this over & over & over again, and insist upon hijacking other threads into yet another useless caster/martial discrepancy debate.If that's the case, why are Rogues the target of said thread-jackers? I never see that kind of post about Bards, Inquisitors, Alchemist or whatever other Rogue replacement...
They are always about Rogues and Fighters... Have you ever considered the possibility that maybe, just maybe, those posters have a point?
and monks...and every martial class.