I think I see a serious difference

Based on my exploration of the many threads, and the hatred that others reigned down upon the threads that i have posted it is obvious that the reason (or so it seems) that many of the people on here play is because they see it as a "battle of math"? Or so it seems. I feel many people forget that it is a Role Playing Game. Reminder this is all opinion. But i don't see how you can have a lot of fun when constantly running the numbers of how effective your character will be in every situation. Also i feel people rely to much on their spells, all that has to happen is for a wizard to lose the ability to cast and they are as good as dead, you have to have other classes, i feel other people do not realize that. Again all just opinion. Remember everyone RPG!! not Math Wars

Based on my exploration of the many threads, and the hatred that others reigned down upon the threads that i have posted it is obvious that the reason (or so it seems) that many of the people on here play is because they see it as a "battle of math"? Or so it seems. I feel many people forget that it is a Role Playing Game. Reminder this is all opinion. But i don't see how you can have a lot of fun when constantly running the numbers of how effective your character will be in every situation. Also i feel people rely to much on their spells, all that has to happen is for a wizard to lose the ability to cast and they are as good as dead, you have to have other classes, i feel other people do not realize that. Again all just opinion. Remember everyone RPG!! not Math Wars

Opinion noted.

I think I see the other side of the same coin....

Based on my exploration of the many threads, and the hatred that others reigned down upon the threads that i have posted it is obvious that the reason (or so it seems) that many of the people on here play is because they see it as a "battle of math"? Or so it seems. I feel many people forget that it is a Role Playing Game. Reminder this is all opinion. But i don't see how you can have a lot of fun when constantly running the numbers of how effective your character will be in every situation. Also i feel people rely to much on their spells, all that has to happen is for a wizard to lose the ability to cast and they are as good as dead, you have to have other classes, i feel other people do not realize that. Again all just opinion. Remember everyone RPG!! not Math Wars

That's not correct. What's actually going on is that people prefer the idea of characters being able to work as advertised and to actually be good at the things that they're supposed to be good at to the idea that some characters are less capable of overcoming standard adventuring challenges for no reason. An important part of playing the game for a lot of people is that the actual repercussions of their actions synch up with the character concept, and that if a character invests in being good at something, that should pay off.

In other words, people want a world where the math works well AND the RP stuff works well. If people didn't care about RP stuff, there are hundreds of non-RPG games with better "math" that they could be playing. People like the idea of both working better than the idea of only one working. Why settle?

I used to feel the same as you, OP.

The thing is, some people enjoy playing the "tactical game" where they look for the most effective available choice available to them within the rules, be it at a character design level or during actual combat scenes.

If people enjoy playing like that, who am I to deny that to them? They're not ruining gameplay at my own table, they're doing me no harm, they're making Paizo more money, meaning more Pathfinder stuff will get made, and hopefully costs will be kept down because of that additional volume.

That all makes me happy, as does the fact the hobby I enjoy (even if it's a slightly different variant to the one I enjoy) gets more mainstream attention by appealing to more people.

As long as the rulebook doesn't physically restrict me from playing the way I like by extending a hand to slap me across the face whenever I decide to ignore or change a rule in it, and as long as it continues to provide a library of options to pick from that will work in my game, it's all good with me :)

I think I see the other side of the same coin....

Elaborate please

Pan wrote:

I think I see the other side of the same coin....

Elaborate please

Group to left of me is saying "What no maths? How can you have fun without the maths?" Group to the right of me is saying "The fun isnt in the maths dont worry about the maths." Just a rehashing of the tired old "role vs. roll" argument.

Based on my exploration of the many threads, and the hatred that others reigned down upon the threads that i have posted it is obvious that the reason (or so it seems) that many of the people on here play is because they see it as a "battle of math"? Or so it seems. I feel many people forget that it is a Role Playing Game. Reminder this is all opinion. But i don't see how you can have a lot of fun when constantly running the numbers of how effective your character will be in every situation. Also i feel people rely to much on their spells, all that has to happen is for a wizard to lose the ability to cast and they are as good as dead, you have to have other classes, i feel other people do not realize that. Again all just opinion. Remember everyone RPG!! not Math Wars

I still want to see this rogue build you had fun with!!!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe it helps me visualize the character? If we didn't need any math, we would all still be playing "imagination time". Now fork over the math!

jhofack wrote:

Pan wrote:

I think I see the other side of the same coin....

Elaborate please

Group to left of me is saying "What no maths? How can you have fun without the maths?" Group to the right of me is saying "The fun isnt in the maths dont worry about the maths." Just a rehashing of the tired old "role vs. roll" argument.

It's not so much the roll for roll idea im preaching, it simply seems some people get to caught up in making the "perfect character" just make a character and role with it for better or worse

Pan wrote:

jhofack wrote:

Pan wrote:

I think I see the other side of the same coin....

Elaborate please

Group to left of me is saying "What no maths? How can you have fun without the maths?" Group to the right of me is saying "The fun isnt in the maths dont worry about the maths." Just a rehashing of the tired old "role vs. roll" argument.

It's not so much the roll for roll idea im preaching, it simply seems some people get to caught up in making the "perfect character" just make a character and role with it for better or worse

And some people talk about having fun with a character without providing any mechanical basis for people to understand how and why.

jhofack wrote:

Based on my exploration of the many threads, and the hatred that others reigned down upon the threads that i have posted it is obvious that the reason (or so it seems) that many of the people on here play is because they see it as a "battle of math"? Or so it seems. I feel many people forget that it is a Role Playing Game. Reminder this is all opinion. But i don't see how you can have a lot of fun when constantly running the numbers of how effective your character will be in every situation. Also i feel people rely to much on their spells, all that has to happen is for a wizard to lose the ability to cast and they are as good as dead, you have to have other classes, i feel other people do not realize that. Again all just opinion. Remember everyone RPG!! not Math Wars

I still want to see this rogue build you had fun with!!!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe it helps me visualize the character? If we didn't need any math, we would all still be playing "imagination time". Now fork over the math!

You sound like a stalker.

Or maybe a bot.

Some of us want to read these threads.

So maybe you can give it a rest?

I actually despise the roleplaying part of it :P

I hate interacting with npcs, 90% are hostile for no reason.

I hate yacking about the pastimes and crap with my fellow pcs, especially when i wouldn't do that even irl.

I despise sitting there trying to make a voice, or play a good or evil character.

Give me a game where i can murder everything in sight (or at least a few things a night).

Give me a game where an npc talks to me, and i can sit in silence without half the town coming down in anger because i refused to speak to someone.

Give me a game with hundreds of different rules and tactics, an innumerable amount of situations, and a continuously evolving landscape.

I'll take that over roleplaying any day

Here's what you aren't getting.

It's not about the 'perfect' character. It's about a character that is useful, and is capable of performing the tasks that it proclaims to be good at. Not perfect, just passably good.

The rogue is weak, if not an outright failure, in both of those categories, and several other classes easily outshine it in its supposed niche.

Here's what you aren't getting.

It's not about the 'perfect' character. It's about a character that is useful, and is capable of performing the tasks that it proclaims to be good at. Not perfect, just passably good.

The rogue is weak, if not an outright failure, in both of those categories, and several other classes easily outshine it in its supposed niche.

Is it as bad using just the core rule book.

Zhayne wrote:

Here's what you aren't getting.

It's not about the 'perfect' character. It's about a character that is useful, and is capable of performing the tasks that it proclaims to be good at. Not perfect, just passably good.

The rogue is weak, if not an outright failure, in both of those categories, and several other classes easily outshine it in its supposed niche.

Is it as bad using just the core rule book.

No though that stops rogues from shoring up several of their weaknesses as well without magical equipment. Halfling and human rogues no longer can sneak attack, even in dim light.

The best place to meet a rogue is now a dark alley and there is now no feat to deal with it.

Karl Hammarhand wrote:

Zhayne wrote:

Here's what you aren't getting.

It's not about the 'perfect' character. It's about a character that is useful, and is capable of performing the tasks that it proclaims to be good at. Not perfect, just passably good.

The rogue is weak, if not an outright failure, in both of those categories, and several other classes easily outshine it in its supposed niche.

Is it as bad using just the core rule book.

No though that stops rogues from shoring up several of their weaknesses as well without magical equipment. Halfling and human rogues no longer can sneak attack, even in dim light.

The best place to meet a rogue is now a dark alley and there is now no feat to deal with it.

Well that stinks out loud. What is the best homebrew for fixing that? Sorry if we're getting OT.

Thomas Long 175 wrote:

Karl Hammarhand wrote:

Zhayne wrote:

Here's what you aren't getting.

It's not about the 'perfect' character. It's about a character that is useful, and is capable of performing the tasks that it proclaims to be good at. Not perfect, just passably good.

The rogue is weak, if not an outright failure, in both of those categories, and several other classes easily outshine it in its supposed niche.

Is it as bad using just the core rule book.

No though that stops rogues from shoring up several of their weaknesses as well without magical equipment. Halfling and human rogues no longer can sneak attack, even in dim light.

The best place to meet a rogue is now a dark alley and there is now no feat to deal with it.

Well that stinks out loud. What is the best homebrew for fixing that? Sorry if we're getting OT.

Sneak attack is only blocked by total concealment, not just concealment. Your rogue now gets sneak attack when within 5 feet in obscuring mist and such, but not beyond. Furthermore, dimlight won't stop sneak attack, but as expected total darkness will without darkvision.

I actually despise the roleplaying part of it :P

I hate interacting with npcs, 90% are hostile for no reason.

I hate yacking about the pastimes and crap with my fellow pcs, especially when i wouldn't do that even irl.

I despise sitting there trying to make a voice, or play a good or evil character.

Give me a game where i can murder everything in sight (or at least a few things a night).

Give me a game where an npc talks to me, and i can sit in silence without half the town coming down in anger because i refused to speak to someone.

Give me a game with hundreds of different rules and tactics, an innumerable amount of situations, and a continuously evolving landscape.

I'll take that over roleplaying any day

Dude look at the title of the game you are playing... Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, just saying

And yet, very few people have a problem with me playing what i like to play so long as i don't disrupt the game for them.

jhofack wrote:

Pan wrote:

jhofack wrote:

Pan wrote:

I think I see the other side of the same coin....

Elaborate please

Group to left of me is saying "What no maths? How can you have fun without the maths?" Group to the right of me is saying "The fun isnt in the maths dont worry about the maths." Just a rehashing of the tired old "role vs. roll" argument.

It's not so much the roll for roll idea im preaching, it simply seems some people get to caught up in making the "perfect character" just make a character and role with it for better or worse

And some people talk about having fun with a character without providing any mechanical basis for people to understand how and why.

BUild a rogue and play it for more than one sitting, youd be surprised by how fun itll be

Karl Hammarhand wrote:

Thomas Long 175 wrote:

Karl Hammarhand wrote:

Zhayne wrote:

Here's what you aren't getting.

It's not about the 'perfect' character. It's about a character that is useful, and is capable of performing the tasks that it proclaims to be good at. Not perfect, just passably good.

The rogue is weak, if not an outright failure, in both of those categories, and several other classes easily outshine it in its supposed niche.

Is it as bad using just the core rule book.

No though that stops rogues from shoring up several of their weaknesses as well without magical equipment. Halfling and human rogues no longer can sneak attack, even in dim light.

The best place to meet a rogue is now a dark alley and there is now no feat to deal with it.

Well that stinks out loud. What is the best homebrew for fixing that? Sorry if we're getting OT.

Sneak attack is only blocked by total concealment, not just concealment. Your rogue now gets sneak attack when within 5 feet in obscuring mist and such, but not beyond. Furthermore, dimlight won't stop sneak attack, but as expected total darkness will without darkvision.

Alternatively, just dump the concealment nullification of sneak attack entirely. You're already gambling on hitting or not, that's enough of a penalty.

I don't care of a Rogue is blind, he can STILL cut your heart out if he hits you.

That's better. I wonder if you could give high level theives short range echo location something like what some blind people use to navigate in small areas. IIRC Ray Charles used to tap his shoe against the curb or sidewalk to judge distances. There was one guy who used his echolocation to play basketball. Kind of like Master Po except you know a thief and kind of sneaky and well maybe evil...

Thomas Long 175 wrote:

Karl Hammarhand wrote:

Thomas Long 175 wrote:

Karl Hammarhand wrote:

Zhayne wrote:

Here's what you aren't getting.

It's not about the 'perfect' character. It's about a character that is useful, and is capable of performing the tasks that it proclaims to be good at. Not perfect, just passably good.

The rogue is weak, if not an outright failure, in both of those categories, and several other classes easily outshine it in its supposed niche.

Is it as bad using just the core rule book.

No though that stops rogues from shoring up several of their weaknesses as well without magical equipment. Halfling and human rogues no longer can sneak attack, even in dim light.

The best place to meet a rogue is now a dark alley and there is now no feat to deal with it.

Well that stinks out loud. What is the best homebrew for fixing that? Sorry if we're getting OT.

Sneak attack is only blocked by total concealment, not just concealment. Your rogue now gets sneak attack when within 5 feet in obscuring mist and such, but not beyond. Furthermore, dimlight won't stop sneak attack, but as expected total darkness will without darkvision.

Alternatively, just dump the concealment nullification of sneak attack entirely. You're already gambling on hitting or not, that's enough of a penalty.

I don't care of a Rogue is blind, he can STILL cut your heart out if he hits you.

Yeah but sneak attack is supposed to be precision striking into vital areas. With that you could fire into the correct square from stealth with only a basic idea of where your enemy is, hit on the 50% concealment chance, and then hit them and deal sneak attack.

Does firing blindly into a fog seem like precision striking to you?

Edit: Just saw your "blind rogue" part. Sorry that is the blind rogue rolling a crit, not sneak attacking you. Its not a carefully aimed precision shot, its him getting lucky and hitting hard where it hurts. Luck = crit. Precision = Sneak attack.

That's better. I wonder if you could give high level theives short range echo location something like what some blind people use to navigate in small areas. IIRC Ray Charles used to tap his shoe against the curb or sidewalk to judge distances. There was one guy who used his echolocation to play basketball. Kind of like Master Po except you know a thief and kind of sneaky and well maybe evil...

I know, my school was developing an auditory amplification that filtered out everything but a high frequency sound that the device emitted that allowed almost real time visualization of the surroundings, including textures and such, to people with extreme visual impairment.

Honestly I've never cared for the 'precision damage' category anyway.

But no, 'firing blindly' into a fog doesn't seem like precision striking. HOWEVER, firing 'where his vitals should be, based on his height and the sound of his breathing and/or footsteps' sounds very much like what a Rogue should be doing.

And yet, very few people have a problem with me playing what i like to play so long as i don't disrupt the game for them.

I realize that, and im not say that you shouldnt play the way you want to. But in the same aspect all i have recieved is hostility about me enjoying rogues while ive been posting on these threads, and the only argument i have gotten is because a spell can do anything a rogue can do with skills, but spells are so much more of an asset so why waste them on diplomacy or or climbing when that is easily done without wasting a spell

Thomas Long 175 wrote:

And yet, very few people have a problem with me playing what i like to play so long as i don't disrupt the game for them.

I realize that, and im not say that you shouldnt play the way you want to. But in the same aspect all i have recieved is hostility about me enjoying rogues while ive been posting on these threads, and the only argument i have gotten is because a spell can do anything a rogue can do with skills, but spells are so much more of an asset so why waste them on diplomacy or or climbing when that is easily done without wasting a spell

I was in most of those threads. The vast majority was not hostile and not unless someone really went out of their way to look the idiot first. The point in all of those threads is that your level of fun matters not one wit for the mechanical balance of a class.

I once made an alchemist with a "squid launcher" who rode around in the pouch of a kangaroo. Hilarious? Of course, the table loved it. Mechanically optimal or even good. Gods no, not a chance.

Fun and mechanical soundness are completely separate entities in this game, so when you go into those forums and argue fun you're dragging the thread off topic for something that's both immeasurable and irrelevant.

Honestly I've never cared for the 'precision damage' category anyway.

But no, 'firing blindly' into a fog doesn't seem like precision striking. HOWEVER, firing 'where his vitals should be, based on his height and the sound of his breathing and/or footsteps' sounds very much like what a Rogue should be doing.

That would be blindsight. The ability to target an enemy with a sense beyond sight. Not even just blindsense, which just lets you know the square they're in, but blind sight, which allows you to visualize an enemy, even without sight.

No, blindsight would be seeing the enemy and not suffering a 50% misschance.

I'm just talking about a Rogue using basic visualization along with his skill at targeting vitals to hopefully hit the guy where it really hurts. He still has a 50% chance to miss, but if he hits? As a GM I'd give him sneak attack.

BUild a rogue and play it for more than one sitting, youd be surprised by how fun itll be

You'd be surprised how many of the people who have constructive criticisms of various rules have actually played with said rules rather than just running numbers comparisons or whatever.

Personally, I

a) weight play experience with a class much higher than board build theorycrafting
b) think the rogue class is mechanically severely problematic, probably the most problematic (on the low end) class in the game (eclipsing even the cause of the fighter which is closer to my heart)
c) think this due to playing rogue PCs, and (even more so) playing at the same table as rogue PCs, and observing.

I don't know whether this fits into your theory of 'just play rogues and they will all work out fine' but if not, that's your theory's problem.

It's not so much the roll for roll idea im preaching, it simply seems some people get to caught up in making the "perfect character" just make a character and role with it for better or worse

Just a touch of perspective... maybe useful, maybe not.

Your first character, it doesn't matter what the stats say. You have no clue how the system works and can't tell if a feat is a good choice or a bad choice. Exotic Weapon Proficiency so you can get some random weapon that has stats barely different from a Martial weapon? Sure. Skill Focus in some Profession(whatever) just because your "guy" is a (whatever)? Sure.

Then he gets killed.

And your next one does too. And the next one.

Finally you wake up, realizing you've spent a decade (or more) playing this game, and you're about to stat up your fifty-third character. You've done the evoker, you've done the two-handed Power-Attacking barbarian. You've done the orc-hating elf ranger with BlahBlah Shot, YaddaYadda Shot, ZippyDoodle Shot and YetAnotherShotFeat Shot. You're slipping into a coma and no roleplay in the universe is going to keep you awake at the table.

Then you get an idea. What about a freak-race freak-class freak-feats freak-equipment build? Something DIFFERENT? Something that new. Something that can absolutely be done but requires you to really reach for every little trick to make it actually not suck. You maximize, because you're not doing the basic "best" build.

Second point: after a few characters are under your belt, you may also get tired of putting a bunch of roleplay effort into a complex living, breathing PERSON who get snuffed because you dumped Con in order to have some nice roleplay-friendly Wis to boost your Sense Motive. ("My 'guy' is really, really hard to lie to. Oh. And a wizard. But mostly hard to lie to.") Maybe you recognize that a build that isn't... silly... is a good idea to make your efforts worthwhile.

Just some thoughts. Not right, not wrong, but mine.

Marthkus wrote:

jhofack wrote:

Pan wrote:

jhofack wrote:

Pan wrote:

I think I see the other side of the same coin....

Elaborate please

Group to left of me is saying "What no maths? How can you have fun without the maths?" Group to the right of me is saying "The fun isnt in the maths dont worry about the maths." Just a rehashing of the tired old "role vs. roll" argument.

It's not so much the roll for roll idea im preaching, it simply seems some people get to caught up in making the "perfect character" just make a character and role with it for better or worse

And some people talk about having fun with a character without providing any mechanical basis for people to understand how and why.

BUild a rogue and play it for more than one sitting, youd be surprised by how fun itll be

Been there done that. Cried bitter tears.

There are many different ways to play, of course. I think the only time it gets heated is when people query how other people can possibly be having fun.

I'm very much on the rules-schmules end of the spectrum. I dont understand the rules particularly well, I like imbalance between the classes, prefer magic options to be better than mundane solutions, dont really care if the DM makes a few mechanical adjustments on the fly, etcetera etcetera. Probably anathema to a number (even most) of the posters here.

Nonetheless, I get a lot of value out of reading the posts of those who do understand and care enough to critique the system. I'm unlikely to ever actually play the way they suggest the game 'should' be played, but I dont take their comments as hostile (and similarly, I try not to phrase my comments as "it should be like this" but rather "I prefer it like this"). I think a lot of the arguments which arise on the forums could be averted through a more charitable reading of the "opposing" side's posts.

You might find value in their input even whilst thinking that the way they choose or build characters would feel dull to you. The only time it could possibly be an issue fun-wise is if you sit down at the table with someone of a very different mindset. Even then, I suspect it's not that hard to build a game both will enjoy, provided everyone is prepared to compromise a little.

There are many different ways to play, of course. I think the only time it gets heated is when people query how other people can possibly be having fun.

I'm very much on the rules-schmules end of the spectrum. I dont understand the rules particularly well, I like imbalance between the classes, prefer magic options to be better than mundane solutions, dont really care if the DM makes a few mechanical adjustments on the fly, etcetera etcetera. Probably anathema to a number (even most) of the posters here.

Nonetheless, I get a lot of value out of reading the posts of those who do understand and care enough to critique the system. I'm unlikely to ever actually play the way they suggest the game 'should' be played, but I dont take their comments as hostile (and similarly, I try not to phrase my comments as "it should be like this" but rather "I prefer it like this"). I think a lot of the arguments which arise on the forums could be averted through a more charitable reading of the "opposing" side's posts.

You might find value in their input even whilst thinking that the way they choose or build characters would feel dull to you. The only time it could possibly be an issue fun-wise is if you sit down at the table with someone of a very different mindset. Even then, I suspect it's not that hard to build a game both will enjoy, provided everyone is prepared to compromise a little.

I...I think I love you.

[Bro hug]

Thank you for being reasonable about play style differences.

Played it, still was most effective on my team, but I'm a power gamer who hangs with a bunch of grognards who barely know rules relevant to their characters.

No, blindsight would be seeing the enemy and not suffering a 50% misschance.

I'm just talking about a Rogue using basic visualization along with his skill at targeting vitals to hopefully hit the guy where it really hurts. He still has a 50% chance to miss, but if he hits? As a GM I'd give him sneak attack.

Ok, i'll give you that. Regardless I still wouldn't give it to him. He'd have to make a perception check well into the upper 30's or low 40's along with a called shot in order to shoot into fog and hope to hit the vitals.

Not just say "I aim where his vitals should be." I'm not giving a rogue that.

To each his own Thomas. The rules side with you, I just see things differently.

Peace man :) I want the rogue to get more love too, been making my own for PFS, a 1 handed swashbuckler to tell the truth. I think I managed to get his solo DPR up to about 112, with an auto feint of 29 as a swift action, a constant 20% Miss chance, AC 24, and still 9 SP / level.

jhofack wrote:

Pan wrote:

jhofack wrote:

Pan wrote:

I think I see the other side of the same coin....

Elaborate please

Group to left of me is saying "What no maths? How can you have fun without the maths?" Group to the right of me is saying "The fun isnt in the maths dont worry about the maths." Just a rehashing of the tired old "role vs. roll" argument.

It's not so much the roll for roll idea im preaching, it simply seems some people get to caught up in making the "perfect character" just make a character and role with it for better or worse

And some people talk about having fun with a character without providing any mechanical basis for people to understand how and why.

And some people feel no need to justify the amount of fun they have to strangers on the Internet. So, I hear you don't like rogues. Please, tell us more...

Marthkus wrote:

jhofack wrote:

Pan wrote:

jhofack wrote:

Pan wrote:

I think I see the other side of the same coin....

Elaborate please

Group to left of me is saying "What no maths? How can you have fun without the maths?" Group to the right of me is saying "The fun isnt in the maths dont worry about the maths." Just a rehashing of the tired old "role vs. roll" argument.

It's not so much the roll for roll idea im preaching, it simply seems some people get to caught up in making the "perfect character" just make a character and role with it for better or worse

And some people talk about having fun with a character without providing any mechanical basis for people to understand how and why.

And some people feel no need to justify the amount of fun they have to strangers on the Internet. So, I hear you don't like rogues. Please, tell us more...

No. I love rogues. I just want to know how people have fun playing them.

I want to figure it out.

Is it wrong for me to want to have fun?

Simon Legrande wrote:

Marthkus wrote:

jhofack wrote:

Pan wrote:

jhofack wrote:

Pan wrote:

I think I see the other side of the same coin....

Elaborate please

Group to left of me is saying "What no maths? How can you have fun without the maths?" Group to the right of me is saying "The fun isnt in the maths dont worry about the maths." Just a rehashing of the tired old "role vs. roll" argument.

It's not so much the roll for roll idea im preaching, it simply seems some people get to caught up in making the "perfect character" just make a character and role with it for better or worse

And some people talk about having fun with a character without providing any mechanical basis for people to understand how and why.

And some people feel no need to justify the amount of fun they have to strangers on the Internet. So, I hear you don't like rogues. Please, tell us more...

No. I love rogues. I just want to know how people have fun playing them.

I want to figure it out.

Is it wrong for me to want to have fun?

As the OP points out, not everyone sits down at the table to play Mathfinder. There are two easy steps to have fun playing a rogue:

1. Make a rogue
2. Enjoy playing it

If you love rogues, how come you can't enjoy playing them? Are you confusing "rogue" with "spinning death machine"? If you want your rogue to work the way you think it should, why don't you give the rogue a rewrite for your games? You're allowed to do it, there is a rule that says so.

A general rule for enjoying the Paizo forums if you're not fond of the optimization arguments:

Do not under any circumstances enter a discussion that has any of the following words in its title: 'Monk', 'Rogue', 'Fix', [Variations/synonyms of 'Fix'], 'Need', [Variations/synonyms of 'Need'].

'Alignment', 'Evil', and 'Paladin' are also on my list of words to avoid, but for different reasons.

...Surprisingly, the word 'Optimization' itself doesn't seem to cause threads to become optimization arguments as regularly as those other words do, though it still does so at times. I'm thinking of adding 'Fighter' to the optimization argument list though, especially based on recent discussions.

You'll avoid most of the stuff that you're complaining about by staying out of threads that have such things so blatantly advertised in their titles. This contributes to an environment where people who do enjoy such things can continue such threads in peace without bothering you or getting bothered. When you do happen to stumble into one such thread anyways (it happens), the correct solution is to quickly exit it the moment you realize where you are so that you avoid getting mixed up in an argument that you're not fond of.

...Also the secret to having fun with a rogue lies neither with any particular build, nor any style of roleplay. It's all about whether the other people in the party understand that it's in their best interest to set up flanking opportunities for you.

If they get that, then unless your GM is absolutely brutal you'll have fun. Sneak Attack is awesome when you're getting it every round.

If they don't get that, good luck with your feint build, but it might be wise to change classes while you still can.

Basically a rogue is terrible at pulling off the lone wolf (stealthy stabby slit their throats, they're dead before they saw you) playstyle that its theme might make you think it's meant for. That's an assassin's thing, or maybe a ninja's. I find the rogue works much better as a melee supporter who transforms unfair advantages into extremely unfair advantages. Call that what you will; thug, dirty fighter, opportunist, etc.

Of course getting Sneak Attack requires hitting, and even on their best attack rogues rarely get better than 75% chance to hit. (Thought I'd throw that out there.)

Simon Legrande wrote:

Marthkus wrote:

jhofack wrote:

Pan wrote:

jhofack wrote:

Pan wrote:

I think I see the other side of the same coin....

Elaborate please

Group to left of me is saying "What no maths? How can you have fun without the maths?" Group to the right of me is saying "The fun isnt in the maths dont worry about the maths." Just a rehashing of the tired old "role vs. roll" argument.

It's not so much the roll for roll idea im preaching, it simply seems some people get to caught up in making the "perfect character" just make a character and role with it for better or worse

And some people talk about having fun with a character without providing any mechanical basis for people to understand how and why.

And some people feel no need to justify the amount of fun they have to strangers on the Internet. So, I hear you don't like rogues. Please, tell us more...

No. I love rogues. I just want to know how people have fun playing them.

I want to figure it out.

Is it wrong for me to want to have fun?

I CAN Powergame/munchkin like you...but I don't LIKE playing that way.

Perhaps that's why I ENJOY playing a Rogue...because I don't have to powergame/munchkin to have fun.

In addition, in a group of four players...it's just dumb (or not) in the way we play to have a bunch of abilities overlap. If you have a Rogue, why try to find someone to upscale the rogue or do the same thing...when you could instead focus on having another character concept that fills another void?

It's called Teamwork. It's called...not being a jerk and a glory hog and having to be the only one that wants the DM's attention.

It's called, working together. So if one wants to be a Rogue...you don't automatically decide to be a Ninja because you think it would be a better optimization choice and you will do better than that player who chose to be a Rogue, or be a Wizard that focuses on getting spells to do the same thing as a Rogue instead of researching or gaining spells that may do something that the Rogue or others cannot.

However, a party full of wizards or Druids can be fun as well...but it's much more fun if you do it as a TEAM instead of a glory hog that has to one up anyone else who plays.

Perhaps THAT's the REAL reason many can enjoy playing a Rogue but which you cannot understand?

I have trouble accepting a wizard who uses his spell slots to do rogue stuff in a party that has a rogue as being intelligent enough to cast cantrips

Of course getting Sneak Attack requires hitting, and even on their best attack rogues rarely get better than 75% chance to hit. (Thought I'd throw that out there.)

Ehh, I'd call that a bit pessimistic. Or a lot pessimistic.

Average AC of enemies at each CR level seems to be along the lines of CR + 13 until you start getting to high level play...

(Note: That's just my estimate from a glance at the four bestiaries. PLEASE correct me if you have an actual chart of the average AC at each stage of CR, as it would be really neat to see such a thing.)

...and it barely takes any effort at all to get a +2 to hit at 1st level, which is all that you really need to hit the average foe 50% of the time based on that average (assume you're flaking on the majority of attacks, because you should be).

Your to-hit bonus scales up at most of your levels after that, and it's not hard to keep up with what's lost at levels 1, 5, 9, 13, and 17. A masterwork weapon here, a weapon focus there, a magic weapon once you can afford it, etc.

Heck, unless you're deliberately ignoring upgrading your weapons and are taking absolutely nothing but non-combat feats (or unless you're a primary arcane caster), your to-hit bonus should easily be scaling faster than your level is, whereas average enemy AC seems to scale at roughly the same rate as their CR does.

Here's your chart

(I didn't compare the chart to your analysis)

EDIT: I don't know anybody who says Rogues have a really hard time hitting in the first few levels, but as levels rise the Rogue tends to fall further and further behind. In a separate thread, someone presented a fairly well optimized 10th level rogue (albeit without any to-hit ioun stones) and before haste it had a 50% chance to hit without flanking, 60% chance to hit with flanking. [Those numbers go up to 55% and 65% respectively, due to the 'Haste bonus' to hit] So... on a charge into flanking while hasted that Rogue gets 75% to hit.

Marthkus wrote:

Simon Legrande wrote:

Marthkus wrote:

jhofack wrote:

Pan wrote:

jhofack wrote:

Pan wrote:

I think I see the other side of the same coin....

Elaborate please

Group to left of me is saying "What no maths? How can you have fun without the maths?" Group to the right of me is saying "The fun isnt in the maths dont worry about the maths." Just a rehashing of the tired old "role vs. roll" argument.

It's not so much the roll for roll idea im preaching, it simply seems some people get to caught up in making the "perfect character" just make a character and role with it for better or worse

And some people talk about having fun with a character without providing any mechanical basis for people to understand how and why.

And some people feel no need to justify the amount of fun they have to strangers on the Internet. So, I hear you don't like rogues. Please, tell us more...

No. I love rogues. I just want to know how people have fun playing them.

I want to figure it out.

Is it wrong for me to want to have fun?

As the OP points out, not everyone sits down at the table to play Mathfinder. There are two easy steps to have fun playing a rogue:

1. Make a rogue
2. Enjoy playing it

If you love rogues, how come you can't enjoy playing them? Are you confusing "rogue" with "spinning death machine"? If you want your rogue to work the way you think it should, why don't you give the rogue a rewrite for your games? You're allowed to do it, there is a rule that says so.

So I take this to mean that you have played no rogue characters and had fun with them or that you just don't feel like sharing.

Marthkus wrote:

Simon Legrande wrote:

Marthkus wrote:

jhofack wrote:

Pan wrote:

jhofack wrote:

Pan wrote:

I think I see the other side of the same coin....

Elaborate please

Group to left of me is saying "What no maths? How can you have fun without the maths?" Group to the right of me is saying "The fun isnt in the maths dont worry about the maths." Just a rehashing of the tired old "role vs. roll" argument.

It's not so much the roll for roll idea im preaching, it simply seems some people get to caught up in making the "perfect character" just make a character and role with it for better or worse

And some people talk about having fun with a character without providing any mechanical basis for people to understand how and why.

And some people feel no need to justify the amount of fun they have to strangers on the Internet. So, I hear you don't like rogues. Please, tell us more...

No. I love rogues. I just want to know how people have fun playing them.

I want to figure it out.

Is it wrong for me to want to have fun?

I CAN Powergame/munchkin like you...but I don't LIKE playing that way.

Perhaps that's why I ENJOY playing a Rogue...because I don't have to powergame/munchkin to have fun.

In addition, in a group of four players...it's just dumb (or not) in the way we play to have a bunch of abilities overlap. If you have a Rogue, why try to find someone to upscale the rogue or do the same thing...when you could instead focus on having another character concept that fills another void?

It's called Teamwork. It's called...not being a jerk and a glory hog and having to be the only one that wants the DM's attention.

It's called, working together. So if one wants to be a Rogue...you don't automatically decide to be a Ninja because you think it would be a better optimization choice and you will do better than that player who chose to be a Rogue, or be a Wizard that focuses on getting spells to do the same thing as a Rogue instead of researching or gaining spells that may do something that the Rogue or others cannot.

However, a party full of wizards or Druids can be fun as well...but it's much more fun if you do it as a TEAM instead of a glory hog that has to one up anyone else who plays.

Perhaps THAT's the REAL reason many can enjoy playing a Rogue but which you cannot understand?

So I take this to mean that you have played no rogue characters and had fun with them or that you just don't feel like sharing.

Here's your chart

(I didn't compare the chart to your analysis)

EDIT: I don't know anybody who says Rogues have a really hard time hitting in the first few levels, but as levels rise the Rogue tends to fall further and further behind. In a separate thread, someone presented a fairly well optimized 10th level rogue (albeit without any to-hit ioun stones) and before haste it had a 50% chance to hit without flanking, 60% chance to hit with flanking. [Those numbers go up to 55% and 65% respectively, due to the 'Haste bonus' to hit] So... on a charge into flanking while hasted that Rogue gets 75% to hit.

Ooh, not bad, looks like I wasn't far off. A few jumps in AC faster than I'd anticipated at 4th, 9th, and 12th level, but that's not overly game-changing. Just means sneaking a few extra sources of +1 bonuses in, which again isn't particularly hard.

At 10th level it's an average of 24 AC for your average enemy, so you need a +14 to hit for a 50/50 chance, right? So... 7 of that is covered by your BAB, 2 by flank, let's be modest and say only another 1 by a magic weapon (though at 10th level a +2 weapon isn't unreasonable), 1 by something like weapon focus, maybe, and let's say another 1 from a 12 Str (or Dex/weapon finesse), and a final 2 from something like Bull's Strength or Cat's Grace.

I low-balled the weapon modifier and ability scores there (and skipped out on my favourite rogue feat), but that's an easy 50/50 chance to hit an average CR 10 enemy with a 10th level rogue who's not been particularly optimized at all.

Speaking of my favourite rogue feat...

Nice simple way to compensate for some to-hit bonuses without needing to work too hard at optimization: Take the Outflank teamwork feat as soon as possible, and convince your resident Fighter/Barbarian/Paladin/Ranger to take it at the same time you do (6th level for a rogue/fighter team, 7th level for the other pairings).

If they've already figured out that flanking with you as much as possible is a good idea, then they're probably doing that already, and should realize that a +4 bonus to hit for both of you (and also critical hits that give your buddy a free AoO) when you do that is a wonderful thing. Especially when the 'catch' (the teamwork part) is nothing but a requirement to keep doing what you've already been doing.