Having received the Ultimate Combat PDF, and remembering quite a bit of discussion about the Ninja and the following two items, I was quite curious how they would turn out and imagine some others might be as well.
-Ki based on CHA
-Vanishing Trick
Looking through the Ultimate Combat PDF, They stuck with Ki based off CHA.
Although, there is also a Rogue Talent that allows a Rogue to gain a Ki Pool based off of wisdom. With the way that the Ninja Ki Pool is worded, I wonder if this would allow the Ninja to take this talent, giving him 1/2 Ninja Level + Wisdom as his Ki Pool. Seems a reasonable trade off for a Talent, if you'd prefer to have a higher wisdom.
Vanishing Trick is almost unchanged, except that it (and most, if not all of the other tricks) does not come with 1 free use per day.
|
Having received the Ultimate Combat PDF, and remembering quite a bit of discussion about the Ninja and the following two items, I was quite curious how they would turn out and imagine some others might be as well.
-Ki based on CHA
-Vanishing TrickLooking through the Ultimate Combat PDF, They stuck with Ki based off CHA.
Although, there is also a Rogue Talent that allows a Rogue to gain a Ki Pool based off of wisdom. With the way that the Ninja Ki Pool is worded, I wonder if this would allow the Ninja to take this talent, giving him 1/2 Ninja Level + Wisdom as his Ki Pool. Seems a reasonable trade off for a Talent, if you'd prefer to have a higher wisdom.
Vanishing Trick is almost unchanged, except that it (and most, if not all of the other tricks) does not come with 1 free use per day.
The changes sound fine. Removing the free use per day for the tricks is a fairly modest nerf but one that was most likely needed. The base class based on charisma with taking a talent to move the ki to a stronger stat (ala wisdom) sounds like a good compromise as well.
Any word on invisible blade?
Any word on invisible blade?
Just got rid of the one free use per day.
Any word on invisible blade?Just got rid of the one free use per day.
So you can still run around invisible for entire encounters? Crazy... wonder how that stuck
How about forgotten trick?
Looks to be the same as the playtest, but the cost jumps to 2 + Cost of the trick emulated.
oh wells.. can't say i didn't see it coming... *pulls out the DM ban hammer*
+1 for sure.
Three ki points minimum, broken does not make. Seriously no ones going to abuse this, you can use it like 3-4 times at tenth level
I feel like if I were to allow Ninjas in a game, I would remove the Ki Pool and require buying that trick to access it... with choice of CHA/WIS. Besides that, players could choose either the other Ninja ability set, along with `default` access to Ninja Tricks, or the standard Rogue ability set, along with `default` access to Rogue Tricks. I feel like Rogues/Ninjas would be balanced in that scenario.
i had a long list of dislikes on this one, I knew early on they had no plans to fix em so knew I was gonna have to Ban it anyhow. It seems I was correct, not a huge lose.
|
|
How about forgotten trick?Looks to be the same as the playtest, but the cost jumps to 2 + Cost of the trick emulated.
That is a huge improvement. Now, it is far more efficient to take the actual trick that you want. The choice of Cha as the main stat limits the power builds of ninja quite well. Since rogues can get a Ki pool as well, the two seem a lot closer in power now.
|
|
i had a long list of dislikes on this one, I knew early on they had no plans to fix em so knew I was gonna have to Ban it anyhow. It seems I was correct, not a huge lose.
*nods* agreed. I hope they at least buffed the rogue a bit (besides with ninja crap). I might be able to get a half decent rogue out of the book at least *crosses fingers*
i had a long list of dislikes on this one, I knew early on they had no plans to fix em so knew I was gonna have to Ban it anyhow. It seems I was correct, not a huge lose.*nods* agreed. I hope they at least buffed the rogue a bit (besides with ninja crap). I might be able to get a half decent rogue out of the book at least *crosses fingers*
Wait, what?
The ninja isn't so much better than the rogue that you can say one is so overpowered as to be ban-worthy, and the other is so underpowered as to need buffing to be "half decent."
|
i had a long list of dislikes on this one, I knew early on they had no plans to fix em so knew I was gonna have to Ban it anyhow. It seems I was correct, not a huge lose.*nods* agreed. I hope they at least buffed the rogue a bit (besides with ninja crap). I might be able to get a half decent rogue out of the book at least *crosses fingers*Wait, what?
The ninja isn't so much better than the rogue that you can say one is so overpowered as to be ban-worthy, and the other is so underpowered as to need buffing to be "half decent."
This. I for one welcome the ninja as a decent class instead being as useless as the rogue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This. I for one welcome the ninja as a decent class instead being as useless as the rogue.i had a long list of dislikes on this one, I knew early on they had no plans to fix em so knew I was gonna have to Ban it anyhow. It seems I was correct, not a huge lose.*nods* agreed. I hope they at least buffed the rogue a bit (besides with ninja crap). I might be able to get a half decent rogue out of the book at least *crosses fingers*Wait, what?
The ninja isn't so much better than the rogue that you can say one is so overpowered as to be ban-worthy, and the other is so underpowered as to need buffing to be "half decent."
Here, here. The Ninja is fantastic. The Rogue got a huge buff by being able to take Ninja tricks.
Here, here. The Ninja is fantastic. The Rogue got a huge buff by being able to take Ninja tricks.
Ah yes, the Asian Rogue talents that are better because they are Asian. What you mean is the ninja took all the good rogue talents as if they are so good they must be Asian.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah yes, the Asian Rogue talents that are better because they are Asian. What you mean is the ninja took all the good rogue talents as if they are so good they must be Asian.Here, here. The Ninja is fantastic. The Rogue got a huge buff by being able to take Ninja tricks.
So THAT'S what this is about? Not game balance, or mechanical implications, but ethnocentrism? Grow up.
No its about making things more complex then they need be for the sake of a name. They seem to not have fixed the issues because they wanted that name to be its own class and better then its parent class. And that is about mechanics and balance, the playtest version was an archetype made to be something else so it could be stronger then the parent class, in place of just boosting the parent class.
If you note they did the same thing with the sammy on the name, its just an archetype, but it is a balanced archetype unlike the ninja.
I'll give it a look over when I get the book, but if what has been said here is true I'll have to ban it or try and make it into what it should have been.
So THAT'S what this is about? Not game balance, or mechanical implications, but ethnocentrism? Grow up.Ah yes, the Asian Rogue talents that are better because they are Asian. What you mean is the ninja took all the good rogue talents as if they are so good they must be Asian.Here, here. The Ninja is fantastic. The Rogue got a huge buff by being able to take Ninja tricks.
+1 . The asia hate is growing really thick on these boards.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No its about making things more complex then they need be for the sake of a name. They seem to not have fixed the issues because they wanted that name to be its own class and better then its parent class. And that is about mechanics and balance, the playtest version was an archetype made to be something else so it could be stronger then the parent class, in place of just boosting the parent class.
If you note they did the same thing with the sammy on the name, its just an archetype, but it is a balanced archetype unlike the ninja.
I'll give it a look over when I get the book, but if what has been said here is true I'll have to ban it or try and make it into what it should have been.
I'm surprised you'd consider banning it. On the surface it looks better than the rogue which was frankly very underpowered compared to alot of other classes. The ninja in the playtest seemed about middle of the road in power. If you are banning the ninja, does that mean you are banning half the other classes from pathfinder? Sorry if I'm coming over a bit strong, but it seems like you are using an aristocrat or expert as your benchmark.
Its not a hate of Asia or Asian things. It is a hate of "Its Asian so must be both different and better then Non-Asian stuff" even if they do the very same things.
The samurai caviler archetype I really dislike it is called and Alt class just because of its name. I however do not mind the archetype and liked it well. The Ninja on the other had is a rogue archetype made to one up the normal rogue.
If it had been done like the samurai I would have no issue. There is a clear power increase over its parent class just to be different.
I would have the same issue no matter what it was called as it is a balance issue.
|
|
The Ninja was WAY overpowered in the play test and from what i am told it still seems to be a LOT stronger than the rogue. I personally will be banning the class because rogue was around first and letting a ninja into my game would remove the rogue from existence. Which is total BS. They should of just fixed the rogue.
I also do not consider giving the rogue ninja stuff a buff. Thats stupid! It basically means that a rogue has to take another classes scraps to be worthwhile. *shakes head*
ps: why would anyone care if its called something asian or not? Seeker is trying to say a valid point and some people just jump on him seemly just because they like to call racism. Its not.
I'm surprised you'd consider banning it. On the surface it looks better than the rogue which was frankly very underpowered compared to alot of other classes. The ninja in the playtest seemed about middle of the road in power. If you are banning the ninja, does that mean you are banning half the other classes from pathfinder? Sorry if I'm coming over a bit strong, but it seems like you are using an aristocrat or expert as your benchmark.
I'll most likely ban it as written yes. Its not a class so no biggy. I will In all likely hood rework it and most likely roll all of the "Ninja" tricks into rogue talents as that is what they are. I will also most likely remove the need for the Ki pool for most of them as well.
I will most likely keep the need for the ki pool in some {dark vision and the like}
It's possible I misunderstood, Seeker, and your last few posts have sounded more reasonable (that is, willing to give the class a chance before wielding the banhammer)
And I understand that you think it's strange to introduce a new alt-class that is more powerful than the parent class, but the fact is, the ninja being stronger than the rogue isn't a balance issue. The rogue was underpowered. The ninja was more powerful than the rogue. By extension, the rogue was made more powerful.
Yes, it's a strange, roundabout way of buffing the class, but it's still buffing the class, regardless of whether you like the way it's flavored. Put simply, they were killing two birds with one stone.
People wanted a ninja. People also wanted a better rogue. So instead of creating a "ninja" in a vacuum as a wholly different class with basically the same goals as the rogue, and then coming up with a separate way to buff the rogue up to middle-of-the-road, they found it much simpler to make a ninja, based on the rogue, but more powerful, and give the rogue some of its abilities. Two birds, one stone. They had a LOT of other stuff they needed to accomplish with UC, so they had to make some things simple.
And it's your world, flavor it how you want. If you have a quasi-euro fantasy world, then of COURSE there shouldn't be ninjas, but that doesn't mean a rogue can't get reflavored ninja tricks.
It is not buffing the class, it is taking away from the class and giving it to what they are trying to make Rogue 2.0 based solely off the name.
My issue is mainly the "ninja tricks" and I will never allow them as they seem to be written. They will be rolled into rogue talents the need to the ki pool eliminated and most of the super natural ones that mimic spells shall be added as minor and major magic options.
That solves most of my issues with this so called class.
The Ninja was WAY overpowered in the play test and from what i am told it still seems to be a LOT stronger than the rogue. I personally will be banning the class because rogue was around first and letting a ninja into my game would remove the rogue from existence. Which is total BS. They should of just fixed the rogue.
I also do not consider giving the rogue ninja stuff a buff. Thats stupid! It basically means that a rogue has to take another classes scraps to be worthwhile. *shakes head*
ps: why would anyone care if its called something asian or not? Seeker is trying to say a valid point and some people just jump on him seemly just because they like to call racism. Its not.
Ninja wasn't overpowered in the playtests. If you think it was, your scale is weird (and it looks like your scale is: Is it more powerful than the rogue? Which applied to almost every class before UC)
Part of my previous post was relevant to this as well. Making rogues more powerful via ninja stuff isn't stupid. It's not taking another classes' scraps. Honestly, a ninja would be significantly worse without the ability to take from rogue.
Like I said, people wanted a ninja, people wanted a rogue buff. Paizo had a LOT they needed to retool with this book, and the rogue was a priority. But you don't seem to be respecting their limits. The rogue and ninja etc. were priorities, but so was the monk. So was silencing the "martials can't have nice things" complaints. So were the alt rules (don't care if dueling and siege weaponry aren't needed everyday, I like them and plan to use them). So was screwing with guns. They had a lot to take care of, and it seems they've done a good job.
Now, you can either accept the buffing of the rogue as what it is, or you can keep looking a gift horse in the mouth and ban a class for irrational reasons.
It is not buffing the class, it is taking away from the class and giving it to what they are trying to make Rogue 2.0 based solely off the name.
My issue is mainly the "ninja tricks" and I will never allow them as they seem to be written. They will be rolled into rogue talents the need to the ki pool eliminated and most of the super natural ones that mimic spells shall be added as minor and major magic options.
That solves most of my issues with this so called class.
\
Ninja isn't a class, it's an alternate class (a fluffier archetype).
They are buffing the class, they didn't "take" anything away from rogue, any more than vivisectionist or eldritch heritage "took" from other classes. They borrowed, perhaps, but the rogue abilities weren't taken away. And their reason for doing so wasn't BECAUSE of the name "Ninja." It was called ninja because people wanted a ninja, and the tricks fit the flavor. People also wanted a pirate, and they DELIVERED.
And if you don't allow ninja tricks, then you're doing a disservice to rogues and rogue players. If you screw with the ki-pool, then you're going to get unintended consequences. Certain ninja tricks, if they are made into rogue talents without a need for expendable resources, become way too powerful. And I guess you could make some of them major/minor magic options, but those are less powerful on average, since they typically have fewer uses/day than the ki abilities.
Your game, but it all seems very silly to me. Not to mention that your proposed solution looks needlessly complicated. Anyway. At least wait 'til you get the book to make judgment calls.
First off, without the tricks its word count and ability swaps are smaller then many archetypes. They could have kept all the "flavor " of the name by simply doing as I said above, but in stead they took talents that should have been rogue options and limited them to an archetype so it could be called an alt class.
And no I do not plan to allow unlimited use, I'll allow 1/day or 2/day options just like major magic. I am not doing a disservice to my players but doing what should have been done by not forcing them to make ninja's or spend an extra feat to be better rogues.
First off, without the tricks its word count and ability swaps are smaller then many archetypes. They could have kept all the "flavor " of the name by simply doing as I said above, but in stead they took talents that should have been rogue options and limited them to an archetype so it could be called an alt class.
And no I do not plan to allow unlimited use, I'll allow 1/day or 2/day options just like major magic. I am not doing a disservice to my players but doing what should have been done by not forcing them to make ninja's or spend an extra feat to be better rogues.
Yes, they could have made it a small archetype, but Ninja tricks (due to ki) are mechanically way different, so it was easier to put them in a different section, such that it was easily distinguishable which talents were and were not ki-based. If it wasn't done this way, it could have become confusing, and quickly.
1/day gimps most of the tricks badly. The point of Ki-abilities is that you get to use the one that's right for the situation, and if you need to, you get to use it again. Vanish is cute for rogues of any caliber, but having to choose one time in a day to use it, as opposed to the 3/4 times they'd normally get, is a substantial nerf to the trick, hence to any rogue who would take it. Not to mention this book is out right around the Jade Regent AP, which means they needed to flesh out the "asian-y" stuff.
And because of how rogues get ninja stuff, nobody is forcing anybody to make a ninja. You can have a rogue, with trapfinding, but also with vanishing trick. But anyway. Have a look at the other archetypes and the new "rogue talent" rogue talents. If you can't get over your ninja-hate by comparison to new rogue archetypes and talents, that's your deal. I just do not see this as ban-worthy for any reason aside from setting concerns, and even then, it could be reflavored. But I've wasted enough time debating this narrow viewpoint.
Yeah I am gonna disagree totally with that view point. You are caught up on the name while I am disliking the way it was done. I see no need to be forced to have a ki-pool. I see no need mechanically to deny rogues these new rogue talents based off the name on the sheet.
|
|
The Ninja was WAY overpowered in the play test and from what i am told it still seems to be a LOT stronger than the rogue. I personally will be banning the class because rogue was around first and letting a ninja into my game would remove the rogue from existence. Which is total BS. They should of just fixed the rogue.
I also do not consider giving the rogue ninja stuff a buff. Thats stupid! It basically means that a rogue has to take another classes scraps to be worthwhile. *shakes head*
ps: why would anyone care if its called something asian or not? Seeker is trying to say a valid point and some people just jump on him seemly just because they like to call racism. Its not.
Ninja wasn't overpowered in the playtests. If you think it was, your scale is weird (and it looks like your scale is: Is it more powerful than the rogue? Which applied to almost every class before UC)
Part of my previous post was relevant to this as well. Making rogues more powerful via ninja stuff isn't stupid. It's not taking another classes' scraps. Honestly, a ninja would be significantly worse without the ability to take from rogue.
Like I said, people wanted a ninja, people wanted a rogue buff. Paizo had a LOT they needed to retool with this book, and the rogue was a priority. But you don't seem to be respecting their limits. The rogue and ninja etc. were priorities, but so was the monk. So was silencing the "martials can't have nice things" complaints. So were the alt rules (don't care if dueling and siege weaponry aren't needed everyday, I like them and plan to use them). So was screwing with guns. They had a lot to take care of, and it seems they've done a good job.
Now, you can either accept the buffing of the rogue as what it is, or you can keep looking a gift horse in the mouth and ban a class for irrational reasons.
if your truly believe the ninja was not overpowered in play test then you have the warped sense of balance. Just looking for the forums showed dozens of posts of play tests showing them to be insane. They where broken. And a rogue taking the ninjas stuff is taking scraps. The ninja even now after nerfs is far better than the rogue and i, as a rogue fan find that offensive.
The class has to much potential to be stuck with scraps. It should have its own unique abilities (trap finding can be done by others almost as well not to mentions traps are purely optional in a game, with many DMs only putting them in IF there is a rogue).
The ninja at the moment leaves no desire to play a rogue other than fluff. The rogue was underpowered (haven't seen the new book yet so don't know now) but like i said giving them other peoples abilities is not the way to improve them, its lazy.
Note: Not having the book i truly do hope that there are many more options for rogues that aren't ninja stuff and i hope some of it makes the class as powerful as it should be. If the book does just that without touching the ninja stuff then i retract the lazy comment
|
|
The class has to much potential to be stuck with scraps. It should have its own unique abilities (trap finding can be done by others almost as well not to mentions traps are purely optional in a game, with many DMs only putting them in IF there is a rogue).
If that's your opinion, just take the ninja and replace its name with rogue. You now have a rogue class with interesting and unique abilities that is actually good at what it does.
It's similar to what the ToB did with Fighters, Monks and Paladins.
|
|
The class has to much potential to be stuck with scraps. It should have its own unique abilities (trap finding can be done by others almost as well not to mentions traps are purely optional in a game, with many DMs only putting them in IF there is a rogue).If that's your opinion, just take the ninja and replace its name with rogue. You now have a rogue class with interesting and unique abilities that is actually good at what it does.
It's similar to what the ToB did with Fighters, Monks and Paladins.
*shakes head* Also a lazy idea. The ninja shares some things a rogue should have but at the same time its different. I don't want a rogue to be a ninja. I want a rogue to be a rogue but to the balance level of other classes in the game. Is that so wrong to hope for? Why should paizo adding another class remove an old one?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
*opens UC PDF, marks out Ninja and writes in Rogue*
The separation between Ninja and Rogue is made by thought alone, young grasshopper.
|
*opens UC PDF, marks out Ninja and writes in Rogue*
Didn't anybody teach you not to use the permanent marker on the monitor, it's kinda hard to clean it afterwards...
... but yeah it is, Rogue fix, 11 years in making. Seems like Paizo has a policy of "one book = one class fixed" (Paladin in Core, Mystic Debacle in APG, Eldritch Awkwardnight in UM), slooow and steady there, no need to rush things ;)
don't have the book either, but I've heard that rogues get some nice thing. They finally get HIPS as an advanced trick.
I like the ninja, very much. Best DnD ninja so far. Very handy in combat. Very stealth capable. Hits the ninja tropes well enough. The removal of the free uses was a good thing. All in all, I am a happy shinobiphile.
As for ninjas being OP, that's not what I saw in the playtest threads. They were good but not better than the full on martial characters. And usually any confusion has to do with invisibility, and not knowing how to run it. Vision rules in pathfinder are somewhat involved, and inexperienced GMs find them overwhelming at times. In case you didn't know, ninjas are good at FIGHTING IN THE DARK or while INVISIBLE! That's their turf. Fight on their turf? Expect to get schooled.
*opens UC PDF, marks out Ninja and writes in Rogue*Didn't anybody teach you not to use the permanent marker on the monitor, it's kinda hard to clean it afterwards...
... but yeah it is, Rogue fix, 11 years in making. Seems like Paizo has a policy of "one book = one class fixed" (Paladin in Core, Mystic Debacle in APG, Eldritch Awkwardnight in UM), slooow and steady there, no need to rush things ;)
Sounds frighteningly like WoW's one patch, one class fixed dev cycle. My hope is that this isn't true.
I will say that even with playtesting, there is no way to know what way the game will develop like over time. Powercreep is insidious in that it, well ... creeps.
|
|
*opens UC PDF, marks out Ninja and writes in Rogue*Didn't anybody teach you not to use the permanent marker on the monitor, it's kinda hard to clean it afterwards...
... but yeah it is, Rogue fix, 11 years in making. Seems like Paizo has a policy of "one book = one class fixed" (Paladin in Core, Mystic Debacle in APG, Eldritch Awkwardnight in UM), slooow and steady there, no need to rush things ;)
Sounds frighteningly like WoW's one patch, one class fixed dev cycle. My hope is that this isn't true.
I will say that even with playtesting, there is no way to know what way the game will develop like over time. Powercreep is insidious in that it, well ... creeps.
I'm not sure about that one at a time thing. APG also fixed barbarians and it seems like monks got better in UC, too, without making them archers, drunkards or soul eaters.
Still waiting on the Monk fix, sadly. And with this book being largely the Asia themed one, I fear I'll continue waiting.
That's not to say that there were no Monk helping things in here, but the core issues remained unadressed.
I wouldn't call it "power creep", I would call it "fixing things that should have been fixed in 3.5" (or ones that got broken in 3.5).
It is power creep. It is happening.
The sky is not falling however. A little bit of power creep is a good thing; keep the classes on a rotating cycle.
Let's just not watch Pathfinder turn into Rifts.
Rifts was power sprint.
The wizard stuff in UM was power creep.
Rogues getting replaced by a better class? That's just fixing problems.
Are you talking about arcane discoveries?