Ultimate Combat: The Ninja


Product Discussion

201 to 250 of 313 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:

*Smashes head against the desk violently until passed out from the clear and obviously deliberate hatred of rogues by paizo*

I think paizo is trying to FIX the rogue.

Like the automobile "fixed" the horse and carriage?


Anybody got any cool plans for Ninja characters? I am hoping to perhaps do something of a Jubei Kibagami style katana iaijutsu master.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zark wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:

Ok after having gotten to look over the archetype ( I am guilty of looking over the linked PRD stuff). I have to say it has not changed my mind. I plan to rework it. Off the top of my head I shall do the fallowing changes.

The archetype shall be split in two.[...]

I think you are making a mistake. Boosting the rogue and not letting the ninja take the Ki Pool Rogue Talent would be a better option.

IMHO.

Ninjas can not take rogue talents that have the same name as their own class features or ninja tricks.


Quote:
Like the automobile "fixed" the horse and carriage?

Yes.

There's no way a mustang can compete in a world that goes 80 miles per hour and doesn't need the all terrain qualities of a horse. So they start by introducing the ford mustang. If people like it and it doesn't blow up , it will soon be synonymous with mustang.


Anburaid wrote:
Anybody got any cool plans for Ninja characters? I am hoping to perhaps do something of a Jubei Kibagami style katana iaijutsu master.

I want to strip away the asian flavor and see if it works as a Mountebank/scarlet pimpernel or daring dragoon style robber who disappears in a puff of smoke and a twirl of his cape.


Zark wrote:


I think you are making a mistake. Boosting the rogue and not letting the ninja take the Ki Pool Rogue Talent would be a better option.
IMHO.

But it's your game so I'm not going to try to convince do anything you obviously don't want do.

I am not sure what you mean by this really.


BigNorseWolf wrote:


...daring dragoon...

"I would've knocked but my fists had other plans."

or
"He's a guy! The only honor he's interested in is jumping honor."

Yep, Charisma is the perfect choice for that kind of Ki Pool.

LLBC
(Long Live Bruce Campbell)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:

*Smashes head against the desk violently until passed out from the clear and obviously deliberate hatred of rogues by paizo*

I think paizo is trying to FIX the rogue.

Like they fixed you?

Oh, wait, you're not really a wolf, only your avatar is. :p


magnuskn wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

*Smashes head against the desk violently until passed out from the clear and obviously deliberate hatred of rogues by paizo*

I think paizo is trying to FIX the rogue.

Like they fixed you?

Hey now, there's a non disclosure agreement on that incident...

Quote:
Oh, wait, you're not really a wolf, only your avatar is. :p

Depends on the lunar phase.


magnuskn wrote:

Like they fixed you?

Oh, wait, you're not really a wolf, only your avatar is. :p

Standing with a "Kiss the Demonlord" apron. Curved sword and hot Iron in hand

"Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww...No dog fixing?"

Liberty's Edge

BigNorseWolf wrote:

*Smashes head against the desk violently until passed out from the clear and obviously deliberate hatred of rogues by paizo*

I think paizo is trying to FIX the rogue.

It wouldn't suprize me if you are right bignorsewolf. No offense, as i respect your opinion a great deal but it seems like they are doing everything in their power to do just the opposite from their actions.

I have a feeling there is some little man sitting behind a desk at paizo who despises rogues and is sabotaging them before print as best he can.

Its the only way i can explain how badly done by they are, specially considering the great monk fix.


Sigil87 wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

*Smashes head against the desk violently until passed out from the clear and obviously deliberate hatred of rogues by paizo*

I think paizo is trying to FIX the rogue.

It wouldn't suprize me if you are right bignorsewolf. No offense, as i respect your opinion a great deal but it seems like they are doing everything in their power to do just the opposite from their actions.

I have a feeling there is some little man sitting behind a desk at paizo who despises rogues and is sabotaging them before print as best he can.

Its the only way i can explain how badly done by they are, specially considering the great monk fix.

I think you amd many others keep forgetting that the ninja is the rogue, it is as much a rogue as the sniper or posioner, but everyone treats it as a seperate class, sure its really different, but have you seen the quigong monk lately?

Liberty's Edge

Shadow_of_death wrote:
Sigil87 wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

*Smashes head against the desk violently until passed out from the clear and obviously deliberate hatred of rogues by paizo*

I think paizo is trying to FIX the rogue.

It wouldn't suprize me if you are right bignorsewolf. No offense, as i respect your opinion a great deal but it seems like they are doing everything in their power to do just the opposite from their actions.

I have a feeling there is some little man sitting behind a desk at paizo who despises rogues and is sabotaging them before print as best he can.

Its the only way i can explain how badly done by they are, specially considering the great monk fix.

I think you amd many others keep forgetting that the ninja is the rogue, it is as much a rogue as the sniper or posioner, but everyone treats it as a seperate class, sure its really different, but have you seen the quigong monk lately?

I am sorry but i can never accept this. The ninja is NOT the rogue. It is an OP class that ripped off the good parts of the rogue then added in more OP stuff for seemingly no other reason than to remove the rogue from existence. I wouldn't care if the ninja was all powerful if the rogue was up to scratch. But its not. And to me that just seems like laziness. Not just laziness but to a point where it looks like they are just trying to remove the rogue from existence and replace it with the ninja cause they can't be bothered fixing it.


Sigil87 wrote:


I am sorry but i can never accept this. The ninja is NOT the rogue. It is an OP class that ripped off the good parts of the rogue then added in more OP stuff for seemingly no other reason than to remove the rogue from existence. I wouldn't care if the ninja was all powerful if the rogue was up to scratch. But its not. And to me that just seems like laziness. Not just laziness but to a point where it looks like they are just trying to remove the rogue from existence and replace it with the ninja cause they can't be bothered fixing it.

What if we took away the iconic picture a renamed it the psionic spy? Now its just an arctype with a ki pool instead of trap stuff.

Liberty's Edge

Shadow_of_death wrote:
Sigil87 wrote:


I am sorry but i can never accept this. The ninja is NOT the rogue. It is an OP class that ripped off the good parts of the rogue then added in more OP stuff for seemingly no other reason than to remove the rogue from existence. I wouldn't care if the ninja was all powerful if the rogue was up to scratch. But its not. And to me that just seems like laziness. Not just laziness but to a point where it looks like they are just trying to remove the rogue from existence and replace it with the ninja cause they can't be bothered fixing it.

What if we took away the iconic picture a renamed it the psionic spy? Now its just an arctype with a ki pool instead of trap stuff.

heh nope. if they change its skill points to that of a fighter i would be instantly happy. That way a real argument can be made that the ninja isn't stepping on the rogues toes.

My problem is that the ninja is just to much like the rogue yet they went out of their way to make it much better than the rogue. Which basically removes the rogue from the game. If they cut down its skill points to that of a fighter the rogue is obviously then superior in skills again and they are sufficiently different. As it stands the ninja is just better at everything (an argument can be made that rogues are still SLIGHTLY better at traps due to their trap skills but its not even CLOSE to enough to justify the ninjas OP abilities.)

PS: That fixes my problem between ninja and rogue, but the rogue is still majorly underpowered compared to the other classes.


It is an OP class that ripped off the good parts of the rogue then added in more OP stuff for seemingly no other reason than to remove the rogue from existence

-Its NOT overpowered though. Its only overpowered compared to the rogue.
The fact that the ninja sits at "about right" compared to the other classes yet blows the rogue away clearly spells out the problem: rogues were useless. They needed near constant sneak attacks to be relevant but the systems prohibitive stealth rules didn't allow that and they didn't have a mechanism to get it. If you pumped their talents into trap detection they could be the best at that but... so what? Traps aren't as big a deal as they used to be.

Liberty's Edge

BigNorseWolf wrote:

It is an OP class that ripped off the good parts of the rogue then added in more OP stuff for seemingly no other reason than to remove the rogue from existence

-Its NOT overpowered though. Its only overpowered compared to the rogue.
The fact that the ninja sits at "about right" compared to the other classes yet blows the rogue away clearly spells out the problem: rogues were useless. They needed near constant sneak attacks to be relevant but the systems prohibitive stealth rules didn't allow that and they didn't have a mechanism to get it. If you pumped their talents into trap detection they could be the best at that but... so what? Traps aren't as big a deal as they used to be.

That may be 100% true. But as long as the rogue is that far below the ninja it makes rogues 100% useless. That is why i say the ninja is OP. Because it removes a class from the game. That is horrible design.

I see many people defending the ninja by just saying its the rogue that needs work. I agree totally...BUT as long as the rogue doesn't get that work done to it there shouldn't be a ninja. Rogue should of been fixed first before they even came up with the ninja.

And until the rogue is fixed i think many people will continue to hate the ninja, call it OP and various other things that the forums have been full of for ages.

Amazingly though it has a fairly simple solution... paizo needs to fix the rogue. The fact that they haven't and continue to deny there is even a problem with the rogue is like having a blunt object to the head.

THAT is why i am so angry and against the ninja, cause it appears that they have just gone "buy this new shiny book, cause buying more stuff will just replace the old crappy stuff!"

I love the rogue, its fluff, style, ideas are all both legendary and very cool but as long as the rogue is way underpowered and the ninja exists the rogue mays well not exist. And it will be a cold day in hell before i accept that.


Amazingly though it has a fairly simple solution... paizo needs to fix the rogue. The fact that they haven't and continue to deny there is even a problem with the rogue is like having a blunt object to the head.

- Here's a very simple fix. Run a ninja and call it a rogue. Call it the dashing swordsman, the montebank, the trickster, the spy, the skirmisher.... run the mechanics and make your own flavor. DO you hate oriental overpowered cheese as much as i do? GOOD. Take the ninja, strip off the stupid black kabuki theater paint and color it how YOU see it.

Liberty's Edge

BigNorseWolf wrote:


Amazingly though it has a fairly simple solution... paizo needs to fix the rogue. The fact that they haven't and continue to deny there is even a problem with the rogue is like having a blunt object to the head.

- Here's a very simple fix. Run a ninja and call it a rogue. Call it the dashing swordsman, the montebank, the trickster, the spy, the skirmisher.... run the mechanics and make your own flavor. DO you hate oriental overpowered cheese as much as i do? GOOD. Take the ninja, strip off the stupid black kabuki theater paint and color it how YOU see it.

Thats a horrible solution. And it still doesn't change the fact that its replacing 1 class with another by paying money for a new book.

People always reply with just change the name without realizing that its not the same. The rogue has been around for all the other editions before pathfinder came about, i don't see why just because paizo is being lazy that we have to mash up some new money grabbing idea just to make it functional again.

Its NOT about the name. Half of the problem is the principle. The other half is this: i don't want a stupid ninja. Just because its more powerful does NOT make it a good/fun class to play. I want a rogue, the rogue i have loved and played with many times before.

Without a boost to rogues as they are that's basically impossible, even using them just for fluff is a b+%+$ to do due to them being useless in a game. It takes the fun out of it.

I also don't see why people are so against the idea of making the rogue useful again? Would it really hurt everyone to gain another viable option again?


Sigil87 wrote:


Thats a horrible solution. And it still doesn't change the fact that its replacing 1 class with another by paying money for a new book.

People always reply with just change the name without realizing that its not the same. The rogue has been around for all the other editions before pathfinder came about, i don't see why just because paizo is being lazy that we have to mash up some new money grabbing idea just to make it functional again.

Its NOT about the name. Half of the problem is the principle. The other half is this: i don't want a stupid ninja. Just because its more powerful does NOT make it a good/fun class to play. I want a rogue, the rogue i have loved and played with many times before.

Without a boost to rogues as they are that's basically impossible, even using them just for fluff is a b~*!% to do due to them being useless in a game. It takes the fun out of it.

I also don't see why people are so against the idea of making the rogue useful again? Would it really hurt everyone to gain another viable option again?

I don't even understand all this talk of rogues are useless, players in my group play rogues all the time.


Kenjishinomouri wrote:
I don't even understand all this talk of rogues are useless, players in my group play rogues all the time.

+1 This.

Yep been using PF since Beta and every party i have has a rouge and not just for the old school thought of oh god traps. If the rogue is subpar i think im doing something wrong.

Liberty's Edge

ok, i am not a troll, i really don't want to be offensive so if it comes out that way please forgive me.

But if you both truly believe that have you actually played a rogue?

Does your group actually build strong characters or just kinda makes sub par builds? Cause if thats the case i could prob see how a rogue would almost be equal if no effort went into making the other classes.

There is at least 1 other class that does the things that the rogue does but better. I rather not get into that discussion as there are endless threads already dedicated to it.

But if you try and make a strong party, each player makes a strong class the rogue simply doesn't stand up, not in skills, not in damage, not in feats, not in uniqueness.

And now with UM and UC there are many archtypes that can fill the rogues jobs, even trap finding (which is almost not worth having in pathfinder)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

OK, seriously: the rogue gets all the Ninja Tricks they want and one Master Ninja Trick of their choice. They can get a Ki Pool to power those Ninja tricks (not quite so good a one, admittedly, and I'd personally change that). I'm pretty sure a rogue can get Poison Use as a Rogue Talent, and if not, he can get it as an archetype. What a Ninja has that a rogue doesn't is No Trace, Light Step, and Hidden Master. Which are all good, but not remotely enough in quantity or quality to justify 'The Ninja has all this awesome rogue stuff that the Ninja doesn't!' 90% of what a Ninja can do, a rogue can do if he wants to.


Revan wrote:
OK, seriously: the rogue gets all the Ninja Tricks they want and one Master Ninja Trick of their choice. They can get a Ki Pool to power those Ninja tricks (not quite so good a one, admittedly, and I'd personally change that). I'm pretty sure a rogue can get Poison Use as a Rogue Talent, and if not, he can get it as an archetype. What a Ninja has that a rogue doesn't is No Trace, Light Step, and Hidden Master. Which are all good, but not remotely enough in quantity or quality to justify 'The Ninja has all this awesome rogue stuff that the Ninja doesn't!' 90% of what a Ninja can do, a rogue can do if he wants to.

Well said, there is very little difference between the two, but apparently its enough to break out the "ninja Is OP" discussion.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

*shakes head*

first off, as you mentioned the rogue ki pool is not even close to as good as the ninja, 1 it takes a talent just to get the pool and then you don't even get half the ki points a ninja does. Then you have to choose the ninja talents you want to use it. That on top of the "90%" stuff which frankly should be cause for concern to begin with bumps it up even more.

But it seems although i was trying to not troll and give opinions in a clear and constructive manner with others such as bignorse and shadow ect. some still arn't as concerned about being obvious trolls. Thanks


Two weapon rogue who works off of flanking comes to mind and every party ive seen one is when compared to the other martials they hold their own just fine. yes they have to postion right to keep damage high its still up there with the others if you want it to be.


Sigil87 wrote:

*shakes head*

first off, as you mentioned the rogue ki pool is not even close to as good as the ninja, 1 it takes a talent just to get the pool and then you don't even get half the ki points a ninja does. Then you have to choose the ninja talents you want to use it. That on top of the "90%" stuff which frankly should be cause for concern to begin with bumps it up even more.

But it seems although i was trying to not troll and give opinions in a clear and constructive manner with others such as bignorse and shadow ect. some still arn't as concerned about being obvious trolls. Thanks

I feel no need to debate this 1 its a ninja thread, 2 Its been debated time and again, I have my opinion you have yours. Obviously no matter what is said, that opinion wont change.

I haven't done much playing since pathfinder came out, Ive played in two games and in both games Ive played an alchemist, I love that class.
In each other game ive gm'd I have had a player play a rogue with one exception in one game their was a bard. I just don't see any issue with rogue. In my games the rogue never seems miserable or left out. He fills whatever role he wants to fill, skill monkey, trap finder, assassin... etc. I can see the argument that you could build other classes to do exactly what the rogue does and make them do it better than a "rogue" but the same is true for any class. An alchemist can do a better job at raging than a barbarian. A magus can be a better mid level caster than a bard. A witch is a better mage than a wizard...Etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

You have to choose the Ninja Tricks you want to use--in exactly the same way that the Ninja has to choose to take them. Like I said, I agree that the Ki Pool rogue talent should be identical to the Ninja feature. But Light Step, No Trace, and Hidden Master are the only thing Ninja's have that Rogue's don't have in any capacity. That's it. Rogue's can have any of the other things. That simply does not qualify as taking all the cool stuff away from rogues. On the contrary, that's making lots of cool stuff available to rogues.


Quote:
Thats a horrible solution. And it still doesn't change the fact that its replacing 1 class with another by paying money for a new book.

Its replacing the same class with itself. Its saying that the rogue, as presented doesn't work (which you agree with) Its saying here is a rogue class that works (which you apparently agree with because you think its overpowered) So here is the new rogue class. Its a lot like the old one but has a lot more cool charisma based tricks.

What on earth is the difference between the new rogue and the old rogue except the name?

Quote:
People always reply with just change the name without realizing that its not the same. The rogue has been around for all the other editions before pathfinder came about, i don't see why just because paizo is being lazy that we have to mash up some new money grabbing idea just to make it functional again.

If they were being lazy they wouldn't be offering the fixes.

Quote:
Its NOT about the name. Half of the problem is the principle. The other half is this: i don't want a stupid ninja. Just because its more powerful does NOT make it a good/fun class to play. I want a rogue, the rogue i have loved and played with many times before.

What did you like about the rogue? What was fun about the rogue?

Quote:
I also don't see why people are so against the idea of making the rogue useful again? Would it really hurt everyone to gain another viable option again?

If i didn't want the rogue to be viable I'd be arguing against the ninja.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Zark wrote:


I think you are making a mistake. Boosting the rogue and not letting the ninja take the Ki Pool Rogue Talent would be a better option.
IMHO.

But it's your game so I'm not going to try to convince do anything you obviously don't want do.

I am not sure what you mean by this really.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
*opens UC PDF, marks out Ninja and writes in Rogue*

this.

The ninja is fine. If you don't agree, fine. It's your game.

Liberty's Edge

Thank you for the reply bignorsewolf, you actualy made me sit down and think about it abit more :)

1)"What on earth is the difference between the new rogue and the old rogue except the name? "

I guess two things make the difference for me. Firstly the real rogue does not use magic, mysticism or other crazy sources of power. He uses his intelligence, dexterity and charisma to outsmart, out-speak and come out on top in a variety of situations. He is martial. Bringing in ki-pools and such seems like a violation to me. Its a way of saying that anyone without some type of magic is crap. Rogues where one of the few that used "real world" means to accomplish their goals and it had a certain charm to it. Secondly the old rogue class still exists even if i did decide to rename ninja. The fact that it exists but would not be used seems to me like the taking away of content. And buying a book/resource that's meant to give more content that ends up removing some as well seems very wrong to me.

2)"If they were being lazy they wouldn't be offering the fixes. "

I see what they did for monks (like 80% of the new book)and then i see the pitiful effort put towards rogues. That says to me laziness. That or them having simply decided its not worth being a class any more. I find that disturbing.

3)"What did you like about the rogue? What was fun about the rogue? "

As i said i enjoyed the rogues non magical solutions to problems. He was versatile yet oozed character. Many rogues that i myself play where highly charismatic rogues who focused on dexterity to be an acrobat of sorts, using stealth, intelligence and quick movement to overcome foes and solve problems. I get that your trying to push me towards the conclusion that a ninja could do all these things just as well if not better but its the supernatural way in which the ninja functions that puts a sour taste in my mouth. It feels wrong and lazy to simply use supernatural means to improve the rogue when with a bit more effort many cool new things could fit into his martial persona and make him so unique and indispensable. I guess because i love the idea of a rogue so much that i learn towards a rose hued image of them. *shrugs*

4) "If i didn't want the rogue to be viable I'd be arguing against the ninja."

I wasn't aiming that comment at you directly and i apologize if it came out that way. My last wish is to offend. I enjoy these discussions that many of us can have amid the trolls and i hope at the least i could show some at least why i have such strong feelings and i strive to see yours and others opinions.

My real hope is that my explain why i feel this way about the rogue that others will also consider it in a new light and hopefully even convince some devs to put some more work into such a beloved class.


Sigil87 wrote:


3)"What did you like about the rogue? What was fun about the rogue? "

As i said i enjoyed the rogues non magical solutions to problems. He was versatile yet oozed character. Many rogues that i myself play where highly charismatic rogues who focused on dexterity to be an acrobat of sorts, using stealth, intelligence and quick movement to overcome foes and solve problems. I get that your trying to push me towards the conclusion that a ninja could do all these things just as well if not better but its the supernatural way in which the ninja functions that puts a sour taste in my mouth. It feels wrong and lazy to simply use supernatural means to improve the rogue when with a bit more effort many cool new things could fit intohis martial persona and make him so unique and indispensable. I guess because i love the idea of a rogue so much that i learn towards a rose hued image of them. *shrugs*

If this is what you love about the rogue then i see no reason what so ever that the PF rogue is failing you. It does all these things and it does them well.

Liberty's Edge

Talonhawke wrote:
If this is what you love about the rogue then i see no reason what so ever that the PF rogue is failing you. It does all these things and it does them well.

I and many others in these forums would have to disagree with you. I feel that the rogue is a great deal underpowered in all areas: skills, combat and utility. I would simply like to see them powered up using non magical means. I have come to my conclusions of power by playing rogues through 2nd ed onwards to pathfinder, playing most of the other classes, reading and participating in play tests and building and watching others build all the classes. Of course others will disagree with me, but that said many do agree with me, vetted by the many threads saying just that on the forums.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I believe that somewhere between HiPS, feats that grant feint as swift action and things like Knife Master archetype Rogues made it out like bandits (cheap pun intended) in UC.

Liberty's Edge

Gorbacz wrote:
I believe that somewhere between HiPS, feats that grant feint as swift action and things like Knife Master archetype Rogues made it out like bandits (cheap pun intended) in UC.

HiPS: This is the ranger version. The rogue can only choose 1 terrain to use it in making it almost useless for a rogue. Giving them the shadow dancers and the assassins version would indeed have been a big buff

Feats: I couldn't see any feats that would improve the rogues standards more than any other class? But if you saw something i diden't please let me know.

Knife Master/archtypes: Knife master was the ONLY worthwhile archtype for rogues in that book. And EVERY single archtype for the rogue in that book only changed 2 options compared to the usual 3 or 4 for every other class. It was highly disappointing. The knife masters loss of its trap advantage...as limited as that is makes it a no go for me however.

Pun: Very nice :)

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Sigil87 wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
I believe that somewhere between HiPS, feats that grant feint as swift action and things like Knife Master archetype Rogues made it out like bandits (cheap pun intended) in UC.

HiPS: This is the ranger version. The rogue can only choose 1 terrain to use it in making it almost useless for a rogue. Giving them the shadow dancers and the assassins version would indeed have been a big buff

Feats: I couldn't see any feats that would improve the rogues standards more than any other class? But if you saw something i diden't please let me know.

Knife Master/archtypes: Knife master was the ONLY worthwhile archtype for rogues in that book. And EVERY single archtype for the rogue in that book only changed 2 options compared to the usual 3 or 4 for every other class. It was highly disappointing. The knife masters loss of its trap advantage...as limited as that is makes it a no go for me however.

Pun: Very nice :)

Class Tribalism much? I mean, what you want is ROGUE and ROGUE ONLY options?

Rogue archetypes have fewer options, because Rogues have talents that allow them for customization. Look at Barbarian archetypes from APG, for example - some of them change only 1 feature.

EDIT: Ah, now I read your posts about Rogues, in particular the "Rogue can't do anything better than anyone else" and "Rogues are Tier 5 below everybody else".

I guess we won't get much of a constructive discussion, then.

Liberty's Edge

Gorbacz wrote:
I guess we won't get much of a constructive discussion, then.

We certainly won't when you act like that. I view things how i see them and then change my views based on the evidence i see. Changing them without evidence would be insanity.

As for class tribalism.. no, that's not the case. The reason i was making a point about "rogue only" things as you call it is because if the options are available to all then any power increase they grant would also increase the power of every class that can use them. If that's the case those classes power increases equally... which then wouldn't increase the power of the rogue compared to the other classes.

I am more than happy to have logical discussions but every other post of yours seems to be a statement of offensiveness for almost no reason.

I have never tried to hide my views and in fact this entire thread i have tried among many troll comments to explain WHY i believe them so discussions and opinions can continue. The reasons for my other posts is the same reason you decide to post about how rogues are fine. Because we both feel that we are correct, and if we do not post our opinions the people of actual importance (the devs) might not see what we the customers think and go down the wrong path. So i find it highly offensive that you seem to label me for something you your self have been doing and then using that as an excuse to not give any real logical discussion at all.

I am more than happy to discuss things logically and in a civil manner, but i expect the same back. My views will always represent what i can observe as the best source of truth, if you or someone else gave an argument that proved me wrong i would happily change my mind. But so far (although bignorsewolf has engaged in a great conversation which see has pushed me to consider my points closer) i see no evidence against my position.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Sigil87 wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
I guess we won't get much of a constructive discussion, then.

We certainly won't when you act like that. I view things how i see them and then change my views based on the evidence i see. Changing them without evidence would be insanity.

As for class tribalism.. no, that's not the case. The reason i was making a point about "rogue only" things as you call it is because if the options are available to all then any power increase they grant would also increase the power of every class that can use them. If that's the case those classes power increases equally... which then wouldn't increase the power of the rogue compared to the other classes.

I am more than happy to have logical discussions but every other post of yours seems to be a statement of offensiveness for almost no reason.

I have never tried to hide my views and in fact this entire thread i have tried among many troll comments to explain WHY i believe them so discussions and opinions can continue. The reasons for my other posts is the same reason you decide to post about how rogues are fine. Because we both feel that we are correct, and if we do not post our opinions the people of actual importance (the devs) might not see what we the customers think and go down the wrong path. So i find it highly offensive that you seem to label me for something you your self have been doing and then using that as an excuse to not give any real logical discussion at all.

I am more than happy to discuss things logically and in a civil manner, but i expect the same back. My views will always represent what i can observe as the best source of truth, if you or someone else gave an argument that proved me wrong i would happily change my mind. But so far (although bignorsewolf has engaged in a great conversation which see has pushed me to consider my points closer) i see no evidence against my position.

Logical discussion with Class Tribalists is impossible, because no matter what you say they always end up shouting "BUFF WARLOCKS PLX!".

And yes I did play WoW and so am familiar with this particular style.

Liberty's Edge

Gorbacz wrote:
And yes I did play WoW and so am familiar with this particular style.

Somehow that doesn't surprise me in the least and it explains a lot.

Since you have decided to be irrational there is no need to continue.

I will wait for others of logic and continue the discussion with them.


Zark wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Zark wrote:


I think you are making a mistake. Boosting the rogue and not letting the ninja take the Ki Pool Rogue Talent would be a better option.
IMHO.

But it's your game so I'm not going to try to convince do anything you obviously don't want do.

I am not sure what you mean by this really.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
*opens UC PDF, marks out Ninja and writes in Rogue*

this.

The ninja is fine. If you don't agree, fine. It's your game.

No what I did not get is, How am I not boosting the rogue? By rolling the tricks into talents (as they should be) and moving The Ki pool to it's own archetype I keep the ninja and allow more archetype stacking.

Want a Ninja without the mystic stuff? Done Want a Ninja trapsmith, done, want a mystic Pirate, done, Skimsher ki warrior? Acrobat mystic? Mystic bugler ninja? want to play a mystic ninja?

I really do not see how this does anything but boost the rogue.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Sigil87 wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
And yes I did play WoW and so am familiar with this particular style.

Somehow that doesn't surprise me in the least and it explains a lot.

Since you have decided to be irrational there is no need to continue.

I will wait for others of logic and continue the discussion with them.

I'd say it's you who went irrational in this very post, which explains a lot.

You rate Ninja above Cleric, Druid and Witch in tier ranking. Somehow you got the idea that Ninja is more versatile and powerful than full caster classes. I'm not sure even what to say about that, except that it shows you have little grasp on how class power and optimization work.

And that's confirmed by what you write about Cleric: "tanky healer". Let's stop here for a moment. One, there's no "tanking" in Pathfinder. That's a MMO term, and it shows where you are coming from. Second, Clerics never were about healing or undead killing. Clerics are a full caster class that makes Wizard cry in several areas, and that makes them a tier1 class.

Next, Druid. "Summons are very powerful". No, they aren't, and they never were in 3.5. Wild shape is a pale shade of 3.5 one. Still, Druid has full casting and abilities that make them tier 1.

How does Ninja come out above those, I can't really understand. And there's Rogue on tier 5, with tier 4 empty, likely to drive the point home. And the home is that you love rogues, want them to be unique and better at something than anyone else, and you have a deep grudge against a class that steps on his toes. I guess that Wizard and Sorcerer players should be tearing each other apart then, due to these classes being so similar.


Sigil87 wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
I believe that somewhere between HiPS, feats that grant feint as swift action and things like Knife Master archetype Rogues made it out like bandits (cheap pun intended) in UC.

HiPS: This is the ranger version. The rogue can only choose 1 terrain to use it in making it almost useless for a rogue. Giving them the shadow dancers and the assassins version would indeed have been a big buff

Feats: I couldn't see any feats that would improve the rogues standards more than any other class? But if you saw something i diden't please let me know.

Knife Master/archtypes: Knife master was the ONLY worthwhile archtype for rogues in that book. And EVERY single archtype for the rogue in that book only changed 2 options compared to the usual 3 or 4 for every other class. It was highly disappointing. The knife masters loss of its trap advantage...as limited as that is makes it a no go for me however.

Pun: Very nice :)

HiPS might be the ranger version but that doesn't make it that much weaker. Both the ranger version and the shadow dancer/assassin version have built in situational limitations. For shadow dancers/assassins, they require areas of dim light light in order for their HiPS to work. A ranger/rogue just needs a favored terrain. Thus a rogue who chooses "urban environment" can disappear in broad daylight on a crowded street. Its more focused, but but allows for more use when you are in that terrain.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

TIER FISHY!


TriOmegaZero wrote:
TIER FISHY!

Wait. What kind of fish? we talking Catfish here?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
TIER FISHY!
Wait. What kind of fish? we talking Catfish here?

Rogue fish, obviously.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
TIER FISHY!

AIRBREATHERS! (as a robot, I don't require an oxygenating circulatory system)

Edit - TOZ, you are the man :D


*Pops head in and scans thread, with a harpoon in his hand*

Arrrrrrrrr.....


Dons his "Kiss the Demonlord" Apron and puts oil in the fryer

"Fish fry time!"

Shadow Lodge

Anburaid wrote:
Edit - TOZ, you are the man :D

Indeed, I am a man. You are stunningly perceptive, sir. ;)


TOZ wrote:
Anburaid wrote:
Edit - TOZ, you are the man :D
Indeed, I am a man. You are stunningly perceptive, sir. ;)

Its because I am a wisdom-based ki-pool ninja :)

201 to 250 of 313 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / Ultimate Combat: The Ninja All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.