|
it strikes me that the "underpowered" category (rogue, fighter, monk) is also the category that is completely customizable (all these classes give you bonus feats: you decide which feat to go for)
On the other hand, the "powerful" categories cited across these boards have set abilities and very little in the way of customization (let's ignore archetypes for the sake of this observation and compare it core class against core class: a paladin is a paladin is a paladin, whereas every fighter, rogue and monk is different...)
|
Those things make their overall damage output better. We were talking about sneak attack, specifically. Doing that and then trying to group in other things while the rogue just has sneak attack isn't any kind of fair comparison. Fact is, rogues get it at level 1 with a faster progression and overall larger pool. Other classes, due to their other benefits, tend to delay access to sneak attack and have a reduced pool size.
As sated, the vivisectionist has Sneak attack as a rogue of the same level.
Also, a bigger pool does not mean you are better at using it. You still need accuracy to hit, and every other class that has access to sneak attack will easily have +5 or more to hit over a rogue.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
it strikes me that the "underpowered" category (rogue, fighter, monk) is also the category that is completely customizable (all these classes give you bonus feats: you decide which feat to go for)
On the other hand, the "powerful" categories cited across these boards have set abilities and very little in the way of customization (let's ignore archetypes for the sake of this observation and compare it core class against core class: a paladin is a paladin is a paladin, whereas every fighter, rogue and monk is different...)
Having written class guides, I'd challenge this statement. The Alchemist for example can be built in a myriad of ways, and each of them is different and yet powerful in its own way. Same with the Investigator, and the Barbarian (melee done right).
For a Fighter/Rogue/Monk to be above the bar, there's a lot less solid builds that can pull that off, as opposed to the more powerful classes which can actually make less optimal choices and still be viable. There's always going to be the 'best' build, but most solid classes can deviate from that a lot before it actually becomes an issue.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes I think we just ought to retire the rogue class or rename it into something else so that people don't think playing a roguish sort requires that lump of bovine fecal matter.
If we could go back to the core rule book and remove the rogue class, and instead have made some sort of bard archetype with sneak attack, trapfinding and some other bonuses we wouldn't be concerned at all. We wouldn't conflate a set of mechanics called a class with character concepts. We wouldn't have to beat this dead horse once a month.
If only we could go back in time and undo the damage wrought.
@ Purple Dragon Knight: And in at least case of fighter and rogue, nearly all of their class abilities have been parceled out to other classes, usually through archetypes though sometimes through straight class abilities.
I'll have to disagree with the customization bit - a lot of classes are very customizable (barbarian, alchemist, magus, etc.) but usually get better base abilities (rage, spell combat, etc.) on top of their customization options.
Alchemist is a very good example of a customizable class that has strong baseline abilities.
|
Those things make their overall damage output better. We were talking about sneak attack, specifically. Doing that and then trying to group in other things while the rogue just has sneak attack isn't any kind of fair comparison. Fact is, rogues get it at level 1 with a faster progression and overall larger pool. Other classes, due to their other benefits, tend to delay access to sneak attack and have a reduced pool size.As sated, the vivisectionist has Sneak attack as a rogue of the same level.
Even better, invisibility and greater invisibility are on their list.
I had a lot of fun facing one in a recent adventure.
|
|
Rogues saves suck.
Sneak attack is limited situational damage boost that other classes have.
Anything a rogue can do some other class can do better. They can do anything better than a rogue.
Really there is no reason to pick rogue anymore. Your better off picking a better class and calling yourself in game a rogue.
|
|
Uwotm8-
Take investigator...studied strike gives a flat to hit and damage + sneak attack + mutagen (possible pick) + extracts.
Rogue gets...sneak attack. Of 1-2 dice bigger....
Rogue has little supporting it.
Lastly I would like to point you to the tiered system where rogues are considered the weakest class in Pathfinder.
|
|
On the other hand, the "powerful" categories cited across these boards have set abilities and very little in the way of customizationThere's always going to be the 'best' build, but most solid classes can deviate from that a lot before it actually becomes an issue.
Ah but solid classes are less customizable, which was my point... if you compare single class ftr with single class pal, pal wins hands down (unless the pal is fighting neutral creatures, etc. but I digress) but my point is that no two fighters are the same. As a dip class, fighter is more appealing as it provides tons of advantages (martial weapons, heavy armor, two feats levels 1&2, etc.) whereas pal needs to be fully embraced (dipping is good, but not that good)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Uwotm8-
Take investigator...studied strike gives a flat to hit and damage + sneak attack + mutagen (possible pick) + extracts.Rogue gets...sneak attack. Of 1-2 dice bigger....
Rogue has little supporting it.
Lastly I would like to point you to the tiered system where rogues are considered the weakest class in Pathfinder.
Little off topic, you know if there's a new tier list out with the ACG classes?
And for vivisectionist, mutagen + extracts (any form changer, stat booster, invis, etc) make them WAY better at abusing sneak attack than Rogues. It's not even a contest, and it's actually a viable way to use sneak attack, especially with Enlarge Person + Long Arm being able to do it from 15 feet away while invisible.
|
|
Not when the lesser pool is more accurate AND has other damage boosts too. Cuz math.
Statistics keep overall output roughly equal. Even if the rogue has spikier spikes compared to others, the overall output is engineered to be roughly the same. So, yes, a larger pool can and does compensate. Cuz math.
To elaborate, a +1 to hit is worth +2 damage. This is baked into the game math with power attack. a Slayer tops out at 6d6 vs 10d6. The average damage of 4d6 is 14. A slayer has +10 to hit over the rogue from full BAB and Studied Target, AND an additional +5 damage from Studied Target, bringing it to an effective +25 damage from accuracy and bonus damage vs +14 from the extra sneak attack damage, although the gap is actually wider than that when you actually run the math vs high level ACs, not to mention that the slayer has an additional iterative attack.
|
|
Ah but solid classes are less customizable, which was my point... if you compare single class ftr with single class pal, pal wins hands down (unless the pal is fighting neutral creatures, etc. but I digress) but my point is that no two fighters are the same. As a dip class, fighter is more appealing as it provides tons of advantages (martial weapons, heavy armor, two feats levels 1&2, etc.) whereas pal needs to be fully embraced (dipping is good, but not that good)
What I'm saying is that the 'line' of where a character is able to function is low enough for other classes that they can afford to go off and do other things that aren't their main focus.
Fighter being a good dip class isn't really a point in its favor. That's not saying it's a good class, that's like saying it's a good rest station. And we can argue the Paladin isn't a good dip class, since 2nd level gets us Divine Grace, which is hype for anything that cares about its charisma. If I had a 16 Cha, I'd probably consider D. Grace way better than two feats, at least if what I as doing wasn't super feat intensive (but if you're fighter dipping, it probably is.)
I'd also argue the Pal winning against neutral foes (at least not waves and waves of them), as Paladin spells are REALLY nice, and beat out any feat that the Fighter gets by a wide margin. Check out some Grace spells, they're quite good.
I can give you that Alch/Invest aren't good dip classes, but they're FAR more solid full classes, which to me is a better measure of the quality of the classes. A/I are just better classes that are more customization (Alch especially) and while the Fighter and Rogue look like they have lots of moving parts you can tinker around with, once you look under the hood, most of your choices are made for you.
Wanna go ranged? There's 10 feats.
Wanna TWF? There's 2-4 feats.
Going mounted? HA (be a Cav) and there's 2-4 feats.
Rogues are in the same boat but without the feats (they trade their talents for feats, sad), and lack accuracy boost to make them viable for their roles, generally spending most of their resources getting up to par. Because of that, while they seem more customization, you're really stuck with a less customization class that's struggling to keep up.
|
|
Counterpoint: full casters. Or 3/4 casters. Or barbarian... Basically, everyone but the pally I guess.Ah but solid classes are less customizable, which was my point... if you compare single class ftr with single class pal, pal wins hands down (unless the pal is fighting neutral creatures, etc. but I digress) but my point is that no two fighters are the same. As a dip class, fighter is more appealing as it provides tons of advantages (martial weapons, heavy armor, two feats levels 1&2, etc.) whereas pal needs to be fully embraced (dipping is good, but not that good)On the other hand, the "powerful" categories cited across these boards have set abilities and very little in the way of customizationThere's always going to be the 'best' build, but most solid classes can deviate from that a lot before it actually becomes an issue.
Look, I love paladins and full casters! but I don't raise my nose at fighters or rogues, because all the campaigns I've played or DMed had a player that played either of these two classes successfully. The fighters understood they needed to get that shield +5 and full plate +5 ASAP and boost their will saves / get feats that allow rerolls and buy that ring of evasion and get a potion of protection of evil before going into the fight. The rogues were masters of acrobatics and were good at avoiding front lines initially and good at complementing the party with useful stuff. On the other hand, I've played with more than my share of "ham paladins" that kept screwing the party, and "snotty wizards" who buffed for 6 rounds before starting to be useful...
|
I love the Rogue too.
My first Pathfinder PC was a Rogue.
They still suck at any role, they are supposed to do.
Now, I just play the "Rogue" concept, and play a class that's better suited for the role.
I wish it wasn't that way, but that's how it is.
This. So very much this.
Hopefully, Unchained will actually fix this particular issue, but until then, we're a bit screwed.
Those things make their overall damage output better. We were talking about sneak attack, specifically.
Why would we be doing that? Sneak Attack isn't magic or special. It has no advantages over other damage, indeed it has several disadvantages. So...if the other Classes do better damage, who cares that the Rogue has better Sneak Attack?
Well, if you want to do a straight BAB to monster AC comparison per the bestiary stats by CR table (sorry, random, anecdotal hypotheticals are simply useless), they're both pretty well screwed. At level 20, the slayer needs a 16 to hit and the rogue a 20. That 20% difference can very well be made up for with that +9 difference. Lower levels are a bit more kind. At level 10 the slayer needs an 8 and the rogue needs an 11. With the higher SA dice for that level, I'd say the rogue actually comes out on top a little bit.
Uh...you're ignoring Studied Target. Which makes the Slayer hit on an 11 at 20th. Plus your level 10 math is deeply wrong. Going by pure BAB, a 10th level Rogue hits a CR 10 creature on a 17 while a 10th level Slayer, with Studied Target, hits on an 11.
And, of course, are ignoring all the other bonuses you get at those levels, but that's somewhat acceptable, since we're merely comparing classes.
|
|
with all of the above said, my next character will be:
fighter/barbarian/ulfen_guard
or
fighter/ulfen_guard
or
barbarian/ulfen_guard
seems like ftr3/bbn2/ulfen_guard is optimal especially if you then take the "formal training" and "uncanny dodge" dedications... what rage power would you recommend for that combo?
|
|
You're right. At level 10, the slayer would need a 14 and the rogue a 17 vs. a CR 10 enemy. No, the slayer would not have that +5 from studied target at level 10.
No, but he has a +3, making it an 11 to hit (as I wrote...I was referring to 20th level with the +5).
Just like his +5 Studied Target at 20th nets him an 11 to hit at that level.
|
|
Why would we be doing that? Sneak Attack isn't magic or special. It has no advantages over other damage, indeed it has several disadvantages. So...if the other Classes do better damage, who cares that the Rogue has better Sneak Attack?OMFG. I'm out. Deuces. Someone brought it up other classes doing SA better and I followed the line of discussion. Sue me.
If you have Sneak Attack, and do more damage while using it...you're 'doing Sneak Attack better'.
That's really just how this works.
it strikes me that the "underpowered" category (rogue, fighter, monk) is also the category that is completely customizable (all these classes give you bonus feats: you decide which feat to go for)
On the other hand, the "powerful" categories cited across these boards have set abilities and very little in the way of customization (let's ignore archetypes for the sake of this observation and compare it core class against core class: a paladin is a paladin is a paladin, whereas every fighter, rogue and monk is different...)
That's because in PAthfinder specialization is considerably more powerful than generalization.
The rogue as a class existed long before the numerous archetypes and new content dissected him. He fulfilled the role of "sneaky git" when the core book was released.
Unfortunately as time has passed all the other classes could become a variant of "sneaky git" leaving the rogue in the dust. Heck even the fighter can be argued to be good at what he does (it's just a very limited amount of what he does). The rogue however suffers the problem of not only being replaceable but having strong incentives to do so. Afterall bomb, studied combat, and archaeologists luck are all much more reliable and consistent and in at least one case far, far more powerful.
Fixing the rogue at this point would require a full overhaul of the class. There's no excuse for a 3/4 bab class to have one good save, have no reliable means to boost their attack and defense, and a pile of weak options to make up for that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rogues can theoretically do sneak attack VERY well if we consider using non-lethal sneak attack damage. Sap Master and Sap Adept basically give you 20d6 sneak attack with a bonus + 10 damage... Maybe +20, unsure if sap adept takes the extra dice of Sap Master into account. All you need is a way to keep your target flat footed, or to move before they can.
Not easy mind you...but if you can regularly get the drop or the initiative and use a quick runner's shirt to get into position that is a hell o a full attack.
5 attacks at 20d6 damage. If you can find another way to make your target flat footed then perhaps you could manage this more than once a fight...maybe...probably not honestly.
Rogues everyone, give them a hand. Seriously, they might as well only have 1
|
|
If you gave rogues full BAB and D10's for HP, strong will saves, and left everything else the same, would that fix them?
If you wanted them to be much more viable in combat, yes. At this point in time I think it's better to look at the rogue and see what role you want it to fill. If you want it to be the skill/trap monkey while debuffing in combat, other changes would need to be made.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fixing Rogues, quick:
1. +1 to attack for each 2d6 sneak attack dice, to a maximum of +5 at level 20.
2. At level 8, INT bonus applies to all saves.
3. Rogue talents with limited use per day gain another use at levels 6th, 10th, 14th and 18th.
4. Advanced Rogue talents with limited use per day gain another use at 14th and 18th levels.
5. Grant them the Snake Feint feature of the Snakebite Striker Brawler to be able to count as flanking on their own.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fixing Rogues, quick:
1. +1 to attack for each 2d6 sneak attack dice, to a maximum of +5 at level 20.
2. At level 8, INT bonus applies to all saves.
3. Rogue talents with limited use per day gain another use at levels 6th, 10th, 14th and 18th.
4. Advanced Rogue talents with limited use per day gain another use at 14th and 18th levels.
5. Grant them the Snake Feint feature of the Snakebite Striker Brawler to be able to count as flanking on their own.
6. Grant them the ability to apply sneak attack debuffs even to things they can't sneak.
I don't hate the rogue as a character concept. I'm just disappointed in the Rogue character class, including the archetypes.
In my opinion at this point if you are doing anything other than dipping for two levels of rogue, there are other classes that are mechanically better for achieving whatever it is you wanted from the rogue.
Trapper Ranger, Urban Ranger, Slayer and Investigator all seem like more viable builds than a straight Rogue.
Erik Mona said that the upcoming hardcover will give MUCH love to rogues... so don't write them off yet! ;-)
I wonder if they'll revamp the base class or just add an archetype (or two) that functions appropriately.
|
|
Erik Mona said that the upcoming hardcover will give MUCH love to rogues... so don't write them off yet! ;-)I wonder if they'll revamp the base class or just add an archetype (or two) that functions appropriately.
Well, Unchained has sorta explicitly promised a full redesign...so I'm betting on that.
Just adding that the alchemist is very customizable.
|
|
Well, Unchained has sorta explicitly promised a full redesign...so I'm betting on that.Erik Mona said that the upcoming hardcover will give MUCH love to rogues... so don't write them off yet! ;-)I wonder if they'll revamp the base class or just add an archetype (or two) that functions appropriately.
Which makes me hopeful for home games, but kinda scared as a PFS player that it will not be legal.
wat? unchained is said to be PFS legal and you can choose to bring the core or the unchained version.
yeah, not sure how they are gonna sell the new summoner though.