Let me preface by saying that I don't subscribe to the idea that all classes should be equally good at everything. If they are, then to my mind classes are pointless; just make all class features be feats and be done with it. If classes are to be retained (and without them, as someone once said, "it just ain't D&D"), then they should retain different areas of focus -- wizard a spellslinger, fighter a physical combat expert, rogue a "skill monkey."
The latter is my case in point. The rogue's HD have been bumped to d8's. OK; that's consistent with a standardized BAB/HD system. Sneak attack is still out of control, however. From being a cool way for the rogue to get in a good shot when a rogue sneaks up on someone totally unaware, or maneuvers behind a guy whose locked in combat with someone else, it's almost become an "automatic" +Xd6 on any number of attacks per round, all the time. Expanding sneak attack to make it work on everything makes it work more often, but doesn't reduce its effectiveness.
With rogues having d8 HD, super-duper-unlimited sneak attacks, and now combat feats as talents as well, they're front-line combatants. Their skills have become secondary, especially inasfar as the number of proposals outstanding to bump clerics, etc. to 4/level, and drop rogues to 6/level.
I'd really like to see sneak attack nerfed to 1/round, and be useable only if the opponent is caught flat-footed or the rogue is flanking him. Then the rogue could get bonus NON-combat feats at levels 1-10, and 6 skill points/level, and be a perfectly useable archetype again. If I to play a super-fighter, I should immediately want a fighter, not a rogue.
The Rogue is one of the few classes which actually pulls its weight as things currently stand. Why would you kick over the apple cart of one of the most popular and effective pieces of design in 3rd edition?
-Frank
That's the $64,000 question! My answer: just to restore some semblance of purpose to "classes." If sneak attack as written is THE premiere melee combat ability, rename it and give it to fighters. Then the fighter will pull his weight again. Then restore the rogue to a "skill monkey" by providing him with all manner of skills, feats, and useful non-combat options. He should be able to fight, but if he's outfighting the Fighter, something is wonky.
Or, if the current "rogue" is meant to be a lightly-armored precision combatant, not a skill monkey, then rename him the "rake" or something (because "swashbuckler" is already taken), bump up his BAB to full, drop his skill points and trapsense, etc., and be done with it. And then designate a new skill monkey. Maybe make it a "bard."
See my point? If everyone is supposed to be expert at melee and expert at skills, why have classes?
I'd really like to see sneak attack nerfed to 1/round, and be useable only if the opponent is caught flat-footed or the rogue is flanking him. Then the rogue could get bonus NON-combat feats at levels 1-10, and 6 skill points/level, and be a perfectly useable archetype again. If I to play a super-fighter, I should immediately want a fighter, not a rogue.
O.k., so I'm a bit confused.
per Alpha:
The rogue’s attack deals extra damage any time her
target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue f lanks her target.
You want sneak attack to only work when the opponent is caught flat-footed (denied dex) or when flanked. O.k., so that's how it works. How is this a nerf?
As for the skills... if a rogue is a skills only class in a combat heavy game system... who is going to play the class? It has to have something to contribute in combat. Personally, I don't see a problem with rogues that are skill monkeys and that are effective in combat. Which is what they are currently.
Sure you could add "skill focus" as an alternative to talents... but the talents that exist are good.
O.k., so I'm a bit confused. You want sneak attack to only work when the opponent is caught flat-footed (denied dex) or when flanked. O.k., so that's how it works. How is this a nerf?
Currently:
(1) You can use it as many times per round as you care to. I'd limit that to 1/round.(2) You can use it whenever the opponent is denied Dex, NOT just if he's flat-footed. If you're invisible, you get it. If you're blinking, you get it. If he's grappled, you get it. Etc. I'd put some restrictions on that.
As for the skills... if a rogue is a skills only class in a combat heavy game system... who is going to play the class? It has to have something to contribute in combat.
Again, two replies:
(1) the rogue should be able to contribute to combat, but not to actually out-fight the Fighter, which he currently is easily able to do; and(2) the game might be combat-heavy, but it's not combat-ONLY. In fact, with our group, it's consistently far more skill-heavy than combat-heavy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, Fighters aren't good. But Rogues are. They cover the vast majority of heroes in modern fantasy writing. They have a decent in-combat technique (massive burst damage), and decent out-of-combat stuff to do (skill ranks, rogue abilities). And that works. That apple cart should stay where it is.
The Fighter doesn't work. He has nothing to do outside of combat and his in-combat abilities come up lacking pretty quickly as well. The Fighter needs an out-of-combat shtick, he needs an in-combat shtick, and most of all he needs to let the Rogue be, because it isn't the Rogues who are examples of crap design.
-Frank
The Fighter doesn't work. He has nothing to do outside of combat and his in-combat abilities come up lacking pretty quickly as well. The Fighter needs an out-of-combat shtick, he needs an in-combat shtick, and most of all he needs to let the Rogue be, because it isn't the Rogues who are examples of crap design.
That's an exceptionally valid point -- and one that should have been addressed in 3.0, but wasn't. At the present time, if we leave the rogue a superhero, and power-up the fighter accordingly, and power-up the sorcerer as well, then we also have to seriously modify all of the old Dungeon adventure's we've been dying to run, because they will be no challenge at all for a party of these new higher-HD, super-combat, skill-loaded superheroes. Backward compatibility, in terms of being able to actually USE the stacks of adventures we already have (without massively converting them) is totally lost.
|
Yeah, Fighters aren't good. But Rogues are. They cover the vast majority of heroes in modern fantasy writing. They have a decent in-combat technique (massive burst damage), and decent out-of-combat stuff to do (skill ranks, rogue abilities). And that works. That apple cart should stay where it is.
The Fighter doesn't work. He has nothing to do outside of combat and his in-combat abilities come up lacking pretty quickly as well. The Fighter needs an out-of-combat shtick, he needs an in-combat shtick, and most of all he needs to let the Rogue be, because it isn't the Rogues who are examples of crap design.
-Frank
I agree with Frank's view, but I would also be wary of an unbalancing "arms race" between the classes. If only one class needs to be changed, as opposed to all-but-one-class, then it's probably better off to edit the rogue no matter how good it is.
I agree with Kirth. I'm not sure what the solution is, but powering up everything does not serve backward compatibility, that's for sure. So, here's a question. Is Paizo trying to make a game that is (a) blanaced going forward for Pathfinder (in which case, sure, power everything up as long as it all stays balanced) or, for example, (b) that fixes the balance issues of 3.5 AND that I could use with all of my Eberron material.
I'd really love to see (b). To that end, some of the things that I thought were unbalanced with 3.5:
- Fighters need more interesting stuff to do, cooler high level feats, and other things. Alpha 2 is a start, but I think they need still more.
- Rogues sneak attacking potentially 3, 4, or 5 times in one round (as can happen when wielding two weapons at as low as 3rd level) is too much. Limit it to once a round or once per weapon per round, but no more. Giving them more hit points was a bad move, because rogues did not need to be powered up, in my opinion.
- Low level wizards were kinda boring and had nothing to do after using their few spells. Unlimited cantrips and a first level at will spell are great ideas.
- High level wizards can do a hell of a lot already. Adding even more abilities to their arsenal through the specialist powers was too much, in my opinion. Just make sure they get a few at will things to keep them in the game when they blow through all of their spells.
- Sorcerers were boring and didn't have enough flavor and spell selection. I'd like to have seen sorcerers get more skills, I love the bloodlines, but I would have liked to see them have more umph to them, such as a power per spell level. I don't like sorcerers not getting higher level spells until a level after wizard, but, if that's to be kept for backwards compatibility, make it up with some more umphy bloodline powers.
- Paladins and monks could use smite points and ki points like the barbarians got. Paladin powers could still be expanded in my opinion.
Another major balancing issue is, how do you balance the classes when some games are "15 minute adventuring day" games where there are only 2 to 4 encounters per day (admittedly more fun to me; I like the cinematic Eberron thing) versus dungeon crawl games where characters can get beat down until they have no powers left and are relying only on their at will powers. And don't say 4E, because I don't like how far it is going way from 3.5. I'd like to see some sort of bridge beteween 3.5 and 4.0 that addresses these issues creatively but doesn't dump the whole 3.5 mechanic.
My group have found that the best way to play the thief is through the rules layed out in Unearthed Arcana pg. 126. That being that the only way that a thief gains the sneak attack damage is when the foe is flat-footed or the thief attacks from behind. This way the thief needs no ally directly opposite from it for it relies totally on its own skills and not placement of another character. We find that these rules fall closer in line with the overall history of the class.
My group have found that the best way to play the thief is through the rules layed out in Unearthed Arcana pg. 126. That being that the only way that a thief gains the sneak attack damage is when the foe is flat-footed or the thief attacks from behind. This way the thief needs no ally directly opposite from it for it relies totally on its own skills and not placement of another character. We find that these rules fall closer in line with the overall history of the class.
I like the idea Guy, but then rules of facing have to come into play. Yes, I know that most of us keep track of it with miniatures, but it is still more rules; and more rules means more loopholes for power gamers.
I too have the feeling that the rogue class has lost some of its old essence and turned to be a lot more combat-centered character.
It's entirely possible that rogues are well designed and fighters (for instance) are not, but I feel like the fighting classes got shafted when the rogue and some other classes were given much more all-around combat efficiency than in previous editions. Someone remembers the OD&D thief? That's what I think a rogue should look like... the true skill monkey (the only one at that), and also able to do tremendous damage in combat, but having to work around and wait for the right time to pull it off. This screams D&D to me more than the current version of the rogue...
Frankly, I don't know what's the best solution, and perhaps leaving things as they are now is for the better... I'm certainly wary about an "arms race" between core classes that lead to a power creep similar to what we have already seen in some splatbooks.
Actually I think maybe some people aren't getting that they are making Fighters the "Tank" and rogues the "DPS" to coin MMO terms. The Rogue still can't take as many hits as the fighter or wear as good of armor. I found I had to be a dex monkey to really avoid being hit as a Rogue and to get the most bang for my buck I had to have a 22 Dex or so and a Mithril Chain shirt so for a few lvls I'm not at my best for AC since a shield is out of the question for a rogue most of the time. So I was stuck at a 19 AC at best while the Fighter had somewhere in the 20s.
The new rogue doesn't actually say "sneak attack works all the time" It DOES say that there are still things it does not work on. I had not read however that it now works whenever someone loses their dex bonus and not just flat-footed or flanked.
I would also ask if anyone criticizing the new rogue has actually even PLAY TESTED it?
I would not mind seeing sneak attack written as a full-round action...allowing only a single attack using it and a 5-foot adjust. Also allowing it only once against a given target without a major repositioning. Only a truly remarkably stupid foe is not going to be caught off-guard more than once the rogue's sneak attack ability. To do that trick again the rogue would need to disengage and reposition himself. This encourages the strike and fade technique that rogues should both excel at and rely upon to a large part in my view.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
I would not mind seeing sneak attack written as a full-round action...allowing only a single attack using it and a 5-foot adjust. Also allowing it only once against a given target without a major repositioning. Only a truly remarkably stupid foe is not going to be caught off-guard more than once the rogue's sneak attack ability. To do that trick again the rogue would need to disengage and reposition himself. This encourages the strike and fade technique that rogues should both excel at and rely upon to a large part in my view.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
Yes, attacking only as a full-round action *clearly* encourages hit and run tactics...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
D&D is first and foremost a combat game. A class that isn't good in combat... isn't good. At least not in most campaigns. And in a campaign where combat is rare, it hurts nothing to have the rogue good at fighting.
If it seems like the Rogue's skills are secondary, that's because they *are.* Skills are a little extra add-on to the system that all characters get. They aren't feats. They aren't class features. They aren't *meant* to be the majority of a character's power. To the extent that Rogues feel more skill-based than others characters, it's largely because they, more than any other class, have skills which *are* combat abilities. Hide, Tumble, UMD, and Bluff all provide real, tnagible benefits when blades are drawn.
Honestly, every noncasting character *needs* to be a harcore combatant and also a skill-monkey. Clerics and Wizards have spells for owning monsters and spells for troubleshooting, and martial characters also need both combat and non-combat abilities.
If the rogue's can't fight well without stepping on the fighter's toes, the answer is seriously to tear the fighter right out of your PHB.
D&D is first and foremost a combat game. A class that isn't good in combat... isn't good. At least not in most campaigns. And in a campaign where combat is rare, it hurts nothing to have the rogue good at fighting.
If it seems like the Rogue's skills are secondary, that's because they *are.* Skills are a little extra add-on to the system that all characters get. They aren't feats. They aren't class features. They aren't *meant* to be the majority of a character's power. To the extent that Rogues feel more skill-based than others characters, it's largely because they, more than any other class, have skills which *are* combat abilities. Hide, Tumble, UMD, and Bluff all provide real, tnagible benefits when blades are drawn.
Honestly, every noncasting character *needs* to be a harcore combatant and also a skill-monkey. Clerics and Wizards have spells for owning monsters and spells for troubleshooting, and martial characters also need both combat and non-combat abilities.
If the rogue's can't fight well without stepping on the fighter's toes, the answer is seriously to tear the fighter right out of your PHB.
Disagree with the statement that D&D is first and foremost a combat game. It only becomes that if that is what a given group wishes to run. To me, D&D and any game is story driven first.
Combat is an occcasional way to advance that story. It is not essential and given that the XP awarded is for defeating a creature, not just killing the creature, it is not the only means of advancing a character. If a bard who fast talks the party's way past the ogre guards in an encounter then the party should receive the reward for defeating them.
Secondly, every noncaster does not need to be a hardcore combatant. Most can do very well in a party with secondary or tertiary combat abilities.
If what I mainly wanted was combat in a game I would be playing Guild Wars on weekends not D&D and other roleplaying games.
As for my misstatement regarding a half thought alteration to sneak attack, simply include in it the ability to move 10 feet or only take a move equivalent action. That restores strike and fade. Regardless, I disagree with sneak attack more than once in a single round, especially against a single opponent.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
D&D is first and foremost a combat game. A class that isn't good in combat... isn't good.
Compare the praise that "Prince of Redhand" received against the (non-comic book-related) feedback from "Graymalkin Academy." The former required almost NO combat (indeed, attacking the BBEG was suicide), and got a large outpouring of rave reviews. The latter was a standard room-to-room hackfest. Most people, as near as I can tell, didn't even play it.
If your idea of D&D is a bunch of combat, with skills unimportant in comparison, I'm REALLY glad I don't play with your group. If all I want a lot of fights and not much else, I can play "Space Invaders."
A rogue with maxed out Bluff Skill, Skill Focus (Bluff) and Improved Feint was walking death in 3.5. Given fighters tended to have a low Sense Motive (if any at all), a good rogue could feint pretty regularly (even with the fighter adding his BAB to his roll) as a move action and get his sneak attack damage (and whateer his weapon itself did) on the fighter. I would like to see this scenario disappear. So I wouldnt mind the if sneak attack was changed to flatfooted or rear attacks only as was suggested.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
D&D is first and foremost a combat game. A class that isn't good in combat... isn't good.Compare the praise that "Prince of Redhand" received against the (non-comic book-related) feedback from "Graymalkin Academy." The former required almost NO combat (indeed, attacking the BBEG was suicide), and got a large outpouring of rave reviews. The latter was a standard room-to-room hackfest. Most people, as near as I can tell, didn't even play it.
If your idea of D&D is a bunch of combat, with skills unimportant in comparison, I'm REALLY glad I don't play with your group. If all I want a lot of fights and not much else, I can play "Space Invaders."
I'd say that people love combat, as shown by their love of Maure Castle. Its a hackfest with little to no plot and people love it.
I think the few "social" adventures have gotten high praise simply because they let you use your skills for once. Its not that people want it to be the norm, but it makes for nice variety.
That being said, I think every class should have a role both in combat and out of it. The Rogue and most spellcasters are perfect examples of this, and its the characters who don't do that who need help.
For example, the three fighting classes (Fighter, Paladin, Ranger) are embarrassing in both combat and out-of combat, and they need to be brought into line with the rest of the game on at least some of those points.
D&D is first and foremost a combat game. A class that isn't good in combat... isn't good.Compare the praise that "Prince of Redhand" received against the (non-comic book-related) feedback from "Graymalkin Academy." The former required almost NO combat (indeed, attacking the BBEG was suicide), and got a large outpouring of rave reviews. The latter was a standard room-to-room hackfest. Most people, as near as I can tell, didn't even play it.
If your idea of D&D is a bunch of combat, with skills unimportant in comparison, I'm REALLY glad I don't play with your group. If all I want a lot of fights and not much else, I can play "Space Invaders."
I'd say that people love combat, as shown by their love of Maure Castle. Its a hackfest with little to no plot and people love it.
I think the few "social" adventures have gotten high praise simply because they let you use your skills for once. Its not that people want it to be the norm, but it makes for nice variety.
That being said, I think every class should have a role both in combat and out of it. The Rogue and most spellcasters are perfect examples of this, and its the characters who don't do that who need help.
For example, the three fighting classes (Fighter, Paladin, Ranger) are embarrassing in both combat and out-of combat, and they need to be brought into line with the rest of the game on at least some of those points.
Well it's a hackfest but it's a hackfest with oodles of flavor. It's very Greyhawk, and that in itself means that it's going to make lots of people oogle over it who have an old affinity to the setting.
There is also the fact that it's and obvious "drop" and not a campaign unto itself.
While it is mostly hack, it's a great hack IMO. It give's a forboding sense that you are in a place that you shouldn't be and are about to see things you may not want to see. I love that feel in a game...a similar drop I could compare it to is the "mudsorcerer" adventure which I also think had the same foreboding feel to it.
I think alot of people think drops like that lack flavor because they lack the setting backround, but to ignore that would mean for the most part they would't be drops then.
I'm emphatically *not* saying that D&D as played by any particular group is all about combat. In the game I run, it happens to revolve around combat, since we're a big fan fo the tactical complexity and the way characters' personalities are developed through combat. Also the sheer variety of scenarios and tactics that can happen in D&D are far bigger than in almost any other game, not to mention the fact that the plot and NPC interaction can be used to heighten the emotional significance of the fight.
But obviously your group doesn't ever have to fight at all. Still, it's demonstrably true that the game, or maybe I should say the game *system* is primarily a combat resolution engine. The vast majority of all rule material published is about killing fools before they kill you. Everything else is, mechanically, an afterthought, and often not a very good afterthought at that.
Maybe that bothers you, and maybe you want to see elaborate mechancis for the intricate dance of courtly intrigue. Go ahead and suggest some. But by and large, noncombat stuff is (IMHO) easier for individual groups to hash out on thier own. My chief concern in fixing up the game is making sure they fulfill their primary purpose, as a balanced and fun platform for fantasy warfare.
Besides, if your game isn't about fighting, why do you care how many HP rogues get?
A rogue with maxed out Bluff Skill, Skill Focus (Bluff) and Improved Feint was walking death in 3.5. Given fighters tended to have a low Sense Motive (if any at all), a good rogue could feint pretty regularly (even with the fighter adding his BAB to his roll) as a move action and get his sneak attack damage (and whateer his weapon itself did) on the fighter. I would like to see this scenario disappear. So I wouldnt mind the if sneak attack was changed to flatfooted or rear attacks only as was suggested.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
Ditto. And, for the record, other than Sneak Attack being slightly overpowered I think both the rogue and the fighter work fine as originally written. I've had several players in several groups play both classes, and I've never had a problem with either of them.
|
I also find the Rogue's Sneak Attack ability unbalancing. I would like to see it either require a full round action, or be usable only against flat-footed opponents.
Either that, or the fighter should get an equivalent ability that allows him to add massive amounts of damage to attacks on a regular basis. The weapon mastery ability could do something like this. If a fighter got an extra die of damage with a weapon group every four levels, and could add that damage bonus with every attack, that would balance out the sneak attack ability without unbalancing the game.
After an impressive display by a 20th level spelltheif (not even a rogue, a spelltheif!) with greater two-weapon fighting, improved invisibility (which at high level is a must if you are a stealth character, regardless of combat role), and the swords that boost your sneak attack damage, I saw one thing.
Sneak attack is retardedly powerful. And not in the special olympics way. A full attack action was dishing out upwards of 200 points of damage on anything vunerable to sneak attack. And now, in Pathfinder, a lot more things are vunerable to sneak attack.
So I came up with this, and it works great. Yeah, its a nerf, but even my more powergamey rogue players felt is was tolerable.
Sneak attack requires precision. Speed is the enemy of precision, aka "haste makes waste". So here is what I did. When you make an attack as a standard action, you gain full sneak attack if your target would qualify for sneak attack (flat footed, flanked, etc). If you make more than one attack in the round, whether as a special standard action (multishot), or a full attack action, you only gain 1/2 (round down, minimum 1d6) your normal sneak attack damage dice.
This worked out just fine, and encouraged the rogue to make more standard action attacks, and drew more attention to Spring Attack/Shot on the Run (which can be awesome if you can move between two things that give you cover to hide behind). Any ideas or opinions on it?
Dude, at level 20 we fight Pit fiends.
A pit fiend has true seeing, so you'll need something better than invisibility to ice him. Assuming you take advantage of one of the dozens of ways of getting sneak attack, you have to deal with the fact that you probably aren't using a silver holy sword. So right away your 200 is more like 150. He has *over* 200 hit points, so he's not dead. Also you're making four DC 26 fort saves or losing Strength.
But yes, a level 20 rogue can make CR 20 monsters go pop in two rounds. Congratulations, you're as good as a caster popping off 50/50 SoDs.
Well it's a hackfest but it's a hackfest with oodles of flavor. It's very Greyhawk, and that in itself means that it's going to make lots of people oogle over it who have an old affinity to the setting.
There is also the fact that it's and obvious "drop" and not a campaign unto itself.
While it is mostly hack, it's a great hack IMO. It give's a forboding sense that you are in a place that you shouldn't be and are about to see things you may not want to see. I love that feel in a game...a similar drop I could compare it to is the "mudsorcerer" adventure which I also think had the same foreboding feel to it.
Having DMed Maure and played through Mud Sorcerer's Tomb (and survived!), I agree 100%
I agree, a lot of it is splatbook power creep that might have been responsible for our Spelltheif sneak attack slaughter. The biggie was the Hat of Anonymity (caster level check to actually see through your invisibility/disguise spells). But even without splatbook crep, at that level, it doesn't take much to get what you need for your weapons, between scrolls, wands, or hired cohorts/henchmen. Top it off with cold iron weapons and a few vials of Silversheen, and you're good to go.
And the pit fiend can be critted too, I wasn't even factoring in that. Keen weapon on a rapier tacks on a fair bit more damage.
Okay, yes, you've demonstrated that level 20 characters are capable of fighting level 20 enemies. Explain why this is bad?
While it is not likely to change, the argument that his been put forth against most peoples desire to see fighter simply doing more damage is that it is role currently fulfilled by the rogue. If what we all want fighter to do is be able to dish boat loads of damage then that seems like what the fighter should be designed to do. Lay smackdown in liberal quantities. Flavourwise it seems the fighter should do what the rogue does.
...
The flavour of rogues is sneaky tricks to mess up the opponents ability to fight well. So to replace a diminished ability to do direct damage give them the crazy blinding, stunning, distracting, magic breaking abilities that Frank & K have suggest should belong to the fighter to give them a niche that fits.
Fighters can do damage in 3.5, they just do it in a different way without it being stated flat out in the class feature list like the rogue's is. It also seems to me that the fighter should be the one with the blinding, stunning, and distracting abilities. If he is supposed to be the last line between the enemy and his allies, those abilities could contribute to confounding the enemy.
The fighter can stun: Imp Unarmed Strike + Stunning Fist + Snap Kick means that if the fighter wants he can add a kick anytime he swings his sword. Once per day every four levels he can also attempt to stun the opponent while doing so. Or just IUS + Stunning fist + Ki focus weaponDistracting: Improved trip can be pretty distracting to most humanoids if you build for it.
Blinding: I'm sure there is some blind the enemy feat out there already.
Rogues encompass more than simply the 2e thief. They cover Mat Cauthon, Solid Snake, and Jack Styles. All characters who could do well in a stand up fight.
If you want to look at the problem, look at PF neutering fighter feats with the one per round limit, or power attack being limited to str mod.
Level 20 PCs should be able to fight level 20 enemies as a group of 4. That is good.
A level 20 PC on his own being able to solo a CR 20 is not good, because it steals the show from other players, especially when that PC has no real limitations on how often he can do it, and by the very nature of his role (stealth/scout) he is often in a position to make the first attack.
End result: follow 200 feet behind the rogue in the dungeon, carrying the loot and hoping something un-sneak attackable shows up to alleviate the boredom.
Thats is why I think it is bad.
But that's The Game. The game is that parties come in various sizes, with larger parties fighting more and stronger enemies and smaller parties fighting less and weaker enemies. The book extends all the way down to parties of just one person. The game tells us that a party of just one character should be so challenged by a monster of their level that they win and lose half the time (on average). So if you're saying that a single 20th level character should not be able to fight a CR 20 monster, you are telling us that the game is supposed to break down for smaller parties.
It sounds like you are just unhappy with the 3e D&D challenge rubric - which holds that characters beat the crap out of monsters (and vice versa) really fast, and longer combats are made by stringing these fast smackdowns together to form bigger battlefields.
4e has a challenge mechanic where combats take a long time and everyone has to beat on monsters together for several rounds before they drop. Is that what you want? They are seriously making a game for people who want combats to be like that.
-Frank
But all this is getting away from the original idea under discussions: rogues are not supposed to be combat machines. The argument that various roguish characters from fantasy fiction can fight well is pointless, since one could just as easily suggest those characters have fighter levels. Additionally, while there should be some limited ability for certain classes to simulate the abilities of certain other classes, no class should completely steal the thunder of another. And the 20th level rogue vs. the CR20 creature concept is also flawed. The DMG itself says that the system is specifically designed for a balanced 4-PC party and breaks down for any other arrangement. So while you might argue that a 20th level rogue should eventually be able to beat a CR20 creature under the right circumstances, having one beat that creature in 2 rounds without breaking a sweat is proof of an imbalance. Adding things to other classes so that they outshine the broken rogue is also a bad idea. This is how power creep makes its way into the game.
|
But that's The Game. The game is that parties come in various sizes, with larger parties fighting more and stronger enemies and smaller parties fighting less and weaker enemies. The book extends all the way down to parties of just one person. The game tells us that a party of just one character should be so challenged by a monster of their level that they win and lose half the time (on average). So if you're saying that a single 20th level character should not be able to fight a CR 20 monster, you are telling us that the game is supposed to break down for smaller parties.
It sounds like you are just unhappy with the 3e D&D challenge rubric - which holds that characters beat the crap out of monsters (and vice versa) really fast, and longer combats are made by stringing these fast smackdowns together to form bigger battlefields.
4e has a challenge mechanic where combats take a long time and everyone has to beat on monsters together for several rounds before they drop. Is that what you want? They are seriously making a game for people who want combats to be like that.
-Frank
Actually, the game says that a group of four adventurers should be able to defeat fairly handily a creature with a CR equal to its level. I can't remember if it says that it assumes a balanced party, but I think it is implicit if it is not. This isn't the same as what you state, because it allows for specialism within the roles of the party - blaster, healer, and so on.
It is also somewhat untrue as an NPC of CR equal power to a PC will have a lesser chance of beating said PC, due to inferior equipment. that, though, may be more of an issue with the CR system than a problem with your suggestion.
But, stating that The Game says this is untrue - that is actually your spin, and the underpinning of your basic assumption that damage output of all classes needs to be upped to a standard equal to the blaster-type mages. It is a valid way of looking at the game, but it isn't the only one.
As for parties less than four - well, it does require more balance and finessing the challenges, so partly, yes, the assumption you make does break down to some extent. Is that a problem? Depends on your style of play, perhaps.
|
I don't know...I'm with Kirth Gersen here.
I have a ninja, a samurai, and a ranger in a party with a cleric and a wizard.
- The ninja does on average 2-3 times the damage of the samurai
- The cleric (in melee) is about as powerful as the samurai
- The ranger does probably less than half the damage of the samurai
- The wizard never gets to use his best spells because the ninja is always in the way
Granted, most of this is caused by a disturbing obsession with non-standard classes, overall lousy teamwork, and less than efficient character tracking. All of this is soon to be corrected (since Tiamat is going to eat them all).
However, rogues should not be the most powerful character in the party. If you want to be the supreme dealer of damage, you should want to be the fighter (or barbarian? sigh...).
Finally, I'm more impressed with the Scout class, but notice it only gets half the precision based damage...
No Aubrey, the DMG really does extend itself to parties of one character. The default party size is four, but the game has never claimed to be exclusive to four player characters. Nor should it be.
I've explained logs several times on this board and it is beginning to sound shrill and annoying. If you seriously don't understand it, you are welcome to email me on the subject, and I'll write out the math in long form and short words.
-Frank
No Aubrey, the DMG really does extend itself to parties of one character. The default party size is four, but the game has never claimed to be exclusive to four player characters. Nor should it be.
I've explained logs several times on this board and it is beginning to sound shrill and annoying. If you seriously don't understand it, you are welcome to email me on the subject, and I'll write out the math in long form and short words.
I agree with your math, but I wouldn't overlook the fact that this kind of test is heavily biased towards certain classes:
* Offensive specialists. Merely withstanding attacks or increasing the power of your allies will never win a one-on-one fight, so the test rates pure "tanks" and "buffers" very low (even if they could arguably pull their weight in a 4-5 person party).
* Classes with a few powerful attacks per day over many less powerful attacks per day. I could be wrong, but it looks like you're assuming in your playtest that spellcasters start every fight with a full complement of spells. If that's the case, then it inflates the power of spellcasters.
I think it's still useful data, of course. But it should be taken with a grain of salt.
If you seriously don't understand it, you are welcome to email me on the subject, and I'll write out the math in long form and short words.
Common, Frank, there's no need to be snide or offensive...
|
|
<shrug>
I'll get annoyed if he doesn't send me the email, but that's pretty low-key for Frank.
Alternatively, he can link where in the board he mentioned it before, which might be quicker. It may surprise Frank to realise that I don't pore over his every pronouncement, and have never seen him mention logs before here (I presume he means logarithms, which I have heard of).
|
If you seriously don't understand it, you are welcome to email me on the subject, and I'll write out the math in long form and short words.Common, Frank, there's no need to be snide or offensive...
Hey give frank some credit. He's going to take it of line. he may be terse in that last misive, but he is doing the right thing.
No doubt about it, but wouldn't it be better if we tone down the unneeded aggressivity?
As much as it doesn't make sense that a rogue would be a better front line warrior, Pathfinder can pretty much be expected to keep the rogue as is. For the most part, the trend has been to not take things away once they are in place. While I, personally, wouldn't mind seeing sneak attack limited to perhaps a standard action, it's just not going to happen. The only real option is to increase the effectiveness of the fighter.
Although this doesn't necessarily mean that the problem is related to the ability to subtract HP's. Thinking about things only in terms of raw damage output is approaching the problem one dimensionally. Rogues have an "assassin" quality about them, and it should be no surprise that they can kill something with one swift strike. The reasons why people choose to play fighters revolves around the numerous feat selection, thus, they can get really good at one thing or kind-of good at a number of things. I've seen a lot of characters multi-class and take two levels of fighter. In fact, I had one campaign in which every single character was a second level fighter. Why? For the feats of course. All that really needs to happen is an offering of incentives to stay with the fighter, or pick them in the first place. Something special that only they can do.
If most characters can only manage one combat feat a turn, then perhaps the fighter can manage two at 5th level, and three at tenth, etc. These may still not make the fighters damage quite as high as the rogues, but they could completely own the battlefield, as they should.
And a couple of more skills wouldn't be game breaking.
Frank goes into detail, on his third post of the thread in particular, right about here...
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/feedback/alpha1/general/playtestStrategies
I agree with upping the fighter. He should be able to use more combat maneuvers in a round. He should probably get some sort of "precise strike" feat allowing him to give up iterative attacks for maybe +2d6 damage per iterative attack given up (so a 16th level fighter could attack once for +6d6 damage). He should probably get 4 skill points/level.
The thing is, it's easy to add stuff. It's harder to take it away. And the more stuff that gets added, the less backward compatibility we have.
We've already substantially increased the number of feats and class features that everyone gets. We could easily declare that all classes get 8 skill points/level, that wizards get 3/4 BAB, that paladins get full spellcasting. But the more stuff we add, the harder it is to use all those previous Paizo APs I've been anxiously waiting to play.
But if we buff the fighter a bit, and then tone down the sneak attack a bit, etc. -- in short, keep the overall power level more or less in line with 3.5 -- then we end up with characters that can play in all the 3.0/3.5 adventures as written and still have an interesting challenge. With unchecked power creep, I'd hate to see a system where, at the end of the day, everyone needs two separate sets of characters: one for "Pathfinder" adventures and one for "Pre-Alpha" adventures.
No doubt about it, but wouldn't it be better if we tone down the unneeded aggressivity?
Wouldn't it be even better if people didn't flame me in passive voice on threads that I'm actually participating in? Or if people didn't repeatedly use "Common" when they mean "Come on!"?
Yeah. That would be better.
By the way, the email is sent.
-Frank
|
Frank goes into detail, on his third post of the thread in particular, right about here...
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/feedback/alpha1/general/playtestStrategies
The url above is linkified here
This is really really important for game balance concerns [...] The game assumptions are that a party of 4 against will use up just 20% of their "disposable resources" against an enemy with a CR equal to the APL. It says that a Party of Four going up against a monster with a CR of APL + 4 is considered so deadly that it has a 50% chance of killing the party (that is: it is of roughly equal power to the entire party).
It also says that a party which is twice the size counts as a party of four of APL + 2 for purposes of encounter design, and a party which is half the size counts as a party of four of APL - 2 for purposes of encounter design. So a "party" of one level 8 character is considered to be a party of APL 4, and a monster of CR 8 is therefore an encounter of APL + 4 which has a 50% chance of killing the party.
I agree that this is what the DMG says. However, there is a serious issue with this thinking.
Your belief: "CR is CR is CR". That is, you assume CR to be a constant as you move back and forth on the party size-vs encounter scale logarithmic function presented in the DMG. I fervently disagree with this belief though I concede that this is what the DMG says. CR is not a constant, we are provided only one value for CR for a creature and that is the value derived from playtesting (which assumes a 4-person party with 10min.level and above buffs in place – like protection for evil, stoneskin and the like) and comparison against other monsters whose CR's were determined using the playtesting approach. While assuming CR is constant makes for ease of encounter building, it makes the things written in the DMG on pages 36-40 highly suspect from a mathematical standpoint.
The challenge a monster imposes on a group in reality is a function of the party size, composition, preparedness, current health, encounter distance and the like, but no game designer is his right mind is going to try and derive those figures. What they did do is try to break down this multivariate problem by separating the challenge of an encounter into two components CR (an absolute measure of monster power) and EL (a relative measure given all other encounter factors). They hoped to account for all of the variability in the encounter under the heading EL, but this attempt failed because certain key aspects of CR determination (party size, composition, health and buffs) were inherently built into the CR assessment, leaving only a few things like special circumstances (eg fighting on a bridge against bullrushers) and foe count (2 monsters vs 1) to EL. This meant that CR was itself multivariate in nature but was determined empirically only at one point on the multivariate CR-party map. Your position assumes that the CR is constant at all points on this map. Remove this assumption, which is clearly erroneous, and pages 36-40 of the DMG become laughable in their inaccuracy and therefore provide no basis for mathematical assessment of individual character effectiveness. In fact, what the DMG table does is try to reduce a multivariate space into a 2-variable space by holding CR constant. This is the same as representing 3-D data (x,y,z) using 3 2-D (xy,xz,yz) graphs but the DMG only provides one such graph. Given that the number of variables is far in excess of 3, the single table in the DMG is basically useless unless all other things associated with all other variables not on the table are held constant. Clearly, having 1 character rather than 4 is a change in the underlying assumptions of the table, and therefore the table in the DMG does not hold.
I don't think you can be faulted for your approach, Frank, because the DMG pgs 36-40 clearly provides you with false information or at the very least fails to note that the table represents the assumption that CR is held constant. However, basing any sort of individual character comparisons on this table is an exercise in mathematical futility.
D&D the game and its focus:
D&D is totally combat-focussed. That is undeniable, and it's not a bad thing, either. And it doesn't say that it can't handle anything but combat. But combat has a special place in the game. If that were different, it would cease to be D&D.
The Fighter and the Rogue:
Leave sneak attack as it is. I found that sneak attack being over-powered is a myth.
I learned this both in game and by doing the numbers - and I did that before PF Alpha, when the fighter wasn't as good as he is now.
With Alpha, the rogue didn't get that much combat power, except the d8, which means +1 HP per level (plus 1 for first level).
The fighter, on the other hand, gained better attack rolls, better damage, and higher AC.
The rogue has several disadvantages over the fighter:
- Not as many hit points, meaning he can't eat up as much damage (though that has indeed been lessened)
- The AC isn't as good as a fighter's. Fighters can get bigger armour than rogues, and they get an armour bonus on top of what the armour grants. If you want, you can even throw in a shield (though that lowers his damage output unless it's animated)
- The fighter will have better attack rolls. Better BAB, feats like weapon focus, and now weapon training will make a big difference. To top it all, a rogue will probably want to use two-weapon fighting to get as many sneak attacks in as possible, and that means an even bigger gap
- A rogue will have to manoeuvre in order to get his bonus damage from sneak attacks. Mostly that means flanking (since invisibility is not that hard to counter, and the rogue can't become invisible on his own). If the fighter doesn't flank, he uses +2 attack. The rogue loses so much more
- The fighter's general damage output will be better than the rogue's. The rogue will probably use dexterity to capitalise on his other traits (he'll need two-weapon fighting, high dexterity for AC, and good skill bonuses and reflex saves are good, too), which doesn't grant damage bonuses. The fighter will have his high strength, plus the two-handed damage bonus, plus feat bonuses, plus weapon training.
In the end, I found that the fighter isn't that far behind the rogue even if the rogue has all those neat little extra dice, and if you calculate statistical average damage (taking into account how likely their attacks will hit), the fighter has the rogue.
And all that on top of the fact that the fighter has a more consistent damage output (can stay in the fight longer, has more reliable ways of dealing damage, etc).
I don't think upping the fighter is the way to go, but a bit of "un-focusing" of the rogue's combat options would help IMO.
I've had many players go more wheeler/dealer/explorer rather than "knife in the dark" and the Talents don't offer mutch in that area before you get to Skill Mastery at 10th level.
A 1/round Sneak Attack (or spliting the d6s on multiple attacks) would be good and a selection of Combat Feats to choose from as Combat Tricks could limit the "taking over the fighter's role".
But social or explorer talents would be good for a lot of the rogue palyers I know.