|
From what I've witnessed at the table...
- Rogues have low HP & AC for a predominantly melee class.
- Rogues have a harder time hitting due to legacy-based to-hit bonus.
- Sneak Attack doesn't do as much damage as you'd think it would.
- Ranged Sneak Attacks are hard enough to perform without considering the miniscule max range limit.
- Rogues don't have any particularly interesting signature ability besides SA. Others are just as skillful (see the Bard) and can find traps just as easily.Better HD & BAB would help the first two points (see the Ranger). Making Rogue SA do more damage would be an easy enough houserule (I'd be tempted to really amp SA up, but limit the weapons you can use for it). Ranged SAs that do both more damage and have a max range that improves with level would make sniping less of a joke.
For the last point, I'm kicking the idea around for an Action Point-style ability called 'Luck of Thieves.' Before you roll 1d20, announce using the ability; roll 1d6 (2d6 and take the best roll at 8th, 3d6 and take the best roll at 16th) and add it as a Luck bonus to the roll. Get one use per day at 1st, 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, and 20th levels. If you really need your next attack to hit, or your next skill check to succeed, a few times a day you can rely on a bit of luck...
Point 3 can be helped by using the TWF specialist ability I mentioned earlier - by being able to attack twice even after moving it enables the Rogue to always get a chance of doubling his SA. 2x 3D6 (at lvl 5) plus 2D6 (the two weapons) most rounds helps keep the Rogues damage at a good lvl
get rid of the feat tax of weapon finesse by making it a property of the weapon or give it as a bonus feat at 1st level.
drop the requirements for the TWF feat tree by 2, ie TWF needs a 13 DEX not 15...I find it odd that the requirement for multiweapon attack only needs a DEX of 13 (and an extra arm :P)
In general...there's nothing they can do that someone else can't do better.
Trap Finding? there are spells for that.
Damage dealing? Fighters do more and more often.
Sneaking? A level 2 spell gives you +20 to Stealth.
Skill monkeys? Rangers, Bards, Alchemists, etc.
Between actually using the skill feats and skill focus feats, in conjunction with the rogue abilities I would have to disagree.
Level 10, with 2 feats they can get a +10 to a skill, and with a rogue talent always be able to take 10 on that skill. Add in the probable 1 or 2 from stats, and the +3 from the class skill, and if it is finding traps they are looking at a auto 30 on finding traps, which with the right talent, they don't even need to roll for, just be near the trap.
Most spells that give others bonuses to sneak work even better on a rogue.
NO other class gets as many skill ranks or class skills.
In general...there's nothing they can do that someone else can't do better.
Trap Finding? there are spells for that.
Damage dealing? Fighters do more and more often.
Sneaking? A level 2 spell gives you +20 to Stealth.
Skill monkeys? Rangers, Bards, Alchemists, etc.
Between actually using the skill feats and skill focus feats, in conjunction with the rogue abilities I would have to disagree.
Level 10, with 2 feats they can get a +10 to a skill, and with a rogue talent always be able to take 10 on that skill. Add in the probable 1 or 2 from stats, and the +3 from the class skill, and if it is finding traps they are looking at a auto 30 on finding traps, which with the right talent, they don't even need to roll for, just be near the trap.
Most spells that give others bonuses to sneak work even better on a rogue.
NO other class gets as many skill ranks or class skills.
Agreed. Rogues are not without their own bits of magic too. They can use scrolls and wands with a good UMD skill (wands are particularly easy with the static DC). They often take magic items that aid them in sneaking or perceiving. So it might be a little disingenuous to compare a naked rogue to an invisibility spell.
So, let me ask again. What are the simplest ways to power up a rogue?
Also, what are the easiest ways to power up Stealth, thus benefitting the Rogue?
I've always thought the hard counters to stealth were a poor design. I think the rogue should get the following ability (based off 3.5 design, as I'm not that familiar yet with Pathfinder):
Stealth Training (Ex): Your specialized training allows you to fool even non-standard senses. You gain the following benefits as you gain levels.
Hide Scent (3rd) - By rubbing yourself with special oils and herbs, you can mask your scent. When you have prepared yourself in this fashion, creatures with the Scent ability must make a Spot check to detect your scent. Preparing to do this requires 1 minute of preparation, and the effects last for 30 minutes.
Still Movement (9th) - You have learned to move without disturbing the ground beneath you. When you choose to use this benefit, creatures with Tremorsense must make a Listen check (opposed by your Move Silently) to detect you. You take a -5 penalty to any Hide rolls while moving in this fashion.
Vanishing Moves (15th) - You have learned mystical secrets of movement and concealment that allow you to fool even those with Blindsense. While using this benefit, creatures with Blindsense must make Spot and Listen rolls to detect you. Because of the difficulty of the movements and techniques, all Hide and Move Silently rolls you make while using this benefit suffer a -8 penalty.
While I like the ideas, you might want to consider actually using Pathfinder rules (this being a Pathfinder site and all).
Lets consider Level 11. Everyone can have Weapon Focus etc... so I count just things that are harder for others.
Ranger: Instant Enemy gives +6 to hit. Spirit Ranger has decent number of uses.
Fighter: Weapon Spec has +3 from training, +1 from Greater Weapon Focus, +2 Gloves of Duelling (really good equipment witch brings fighters back to game) Total: +6
Barbarian: Greater Rage +3, Reckless Abandon +3, Total +6
Inquisitor: Starts at -3 BAB, Judgement +3, Bane +2, Divine Favor +3 Total: +5
Rogue: -3 no easy ways to improve...
So that is why I see Rogues have also been dropped off the boat (more than they used to be... not that great in 3.5 either). 9 difference in attack bonus is hard to catch.
-----
Also in scouting (meaning Perception & Stealth) rogues do not get any bonuses above their level (like for example Rangers in their favoured terrains). And nearly 1/3 of classes have more incentive to put higher Wis, so Rogue is in the middle pack regarding perception (unless its about traps). I admit that regarding traps Rogues are still the best, but as mentioned traps have been nerfed to a minor nuisanse. Getting 10 is good against traps, but in Stealth-Perception contest isn't good. Further everone can get +10 to perception with 2 feats and for some classes its easier than to Rogue (as familiar grants Alertness).
In general...there's nothing they can do that someone else can't do better.
Trap Finding? there are spells for that.
Damage dealing? Fighters do more and more often.
Sneaking? A level 2 spell gives you +20 to Stealth.
Skill monkeys? Rangers, Bards, Alchemists, etc.
Between actually using the skill feats and skill focus feats, in conjunction with the rogue abilities I would have to disagree.
Level 10, with 2 feats they can get a +10 to a skill, and with a rogue talent always be able to take 10 on that skill. Add in the probable 1 or 2 from stats, and the +3 from the class skill, and if it is finding traps they are looking at a auto 30 on finding traps, which with the right talent, they don't even need to roll for, just be near the trap.
Most spells that give others bonuses to sneak work even better on a rogue.
NO other class gets as many skill ranks or class skills.
Agreed. Rogues are not without their own bits of magic too. They can use scrolls and wands with a good UMD skill (wands are particularly easy with the static DC). They often take magic items that aid them in sneaking or perceiving. So it might be a little disingenuous to compare a naked rogue to an invisibility spell.
Last I checked, rogues are also the only class that can take 10 on a UMD check, which considering the possible problems and backlashes from a failed or 1 roll, is a very significant thing.
Last I checked, rogues are also the only class that can take 10 on a UMD check, which considering the possible problems and backlashes from a failed or 1 roll, is a very significant thing.
News to me...got a link for that?
News to me...got a link for that?
Last I checked, rogues are also the only class that can take 10 on a UMD check, which considering the possible problems and backlashes from a failed or 1 roll, is a very significant thing.
Skill MasteryNews to me...got a link for that?
Last I checked, rogues are also the only class that can take 10 on a UMD check, which considering the possible problems and backlashes from a failed or 1 roll, is a very significant thing.
An advanced skill talent...which is quite an investment IMO. Interesting though. Thanks.
EDIT: although under the UMD skill description is specifically says you can not take 10 with it...is this clarified anywhere?| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't buy any of it, just like I don't buy that the monk is under-powered. It's very tempting to pit the fighter, whose main job is fighting, against the rogue and see that the rogue comes up lacking, but the rogue is not just a combatant. He has other abilities, some of them close to unique.
It's tempting to pit magic against rogue abilities and see that the magic is equal or better every time, but spells have a finite number of uses per day and skills do not. If his skills allowed him to do things that were the equivalent of using a level 1 spell at will, people would think that was broken.
Rogues have a mixture of things; they well rounded, not pointy like fighters or wizards. They don't need a full BAB because this is not an MMO and rogues are not designed to just be DPR. There are ways of tweaking them within the rules to do that, as people have pointed out, but it seems some people just want the rogue to simply be better at combat without sacrificing other things. The reason the fighter is better at combat is that that's all he gets. Take a fighter out of combat and his 2 skills and no class abilities or feats that aren't related to combat don't allow for very much.
If you don't roleplay and you have hardly any traps, then the rogue is going to seem less powerful than he should. That's because you've eliminated the things that make a rogue good, not because it's not a balanced class, and I've had some players--even first time players-- figure out quickly how to make their rogues shine as an important party member.
So I don't see the point in changing to rules to beef them up, as long as the GM is writing quests with the rogue's abilities in mind, but a good GM should be taking into account everyone's abilities. And as for simplifying stealth, what's so hard about an opposed roll? I actually like the suggestion for circumventing the things that overcome stealth (scent, tremorsense, etc.), and I think that would make a great rogue talent, but I don't see why you would need to change the rules. Rogue rolls a d20 and adds his bonus. That becomes the DC to see him. How hard is that?
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Skill MasteryNews to me...got a link for that?
Last I checked, rogues are also the only class that can take 10 on a UMD check, which considering the possible problems and backlashes from a failed or 1 roll, is a very significant thing.
An advanced skill talent...which is quite an investment IMO. Interesting though. Thanks.
EDIT: although under the UMD skill description is specifically says you can not take 10 with it...is this clarified anywhere?
The ability specifically by-passes the current rule just like any other feat or class ability. If you question this then you got to question everything else that other class abilities and feats that alter rules.
The ability specifically by-passes the current rule just like any other feat or class ability. If you question this then you got to question everything else that other class abilities and feats that alter rules.Skill MasteryNews to me...got a link for that?
Last I checked, rogues are also the only class that can take 10 on a UMD check, which considering the possible problems and backlashes from a failed or 1 roll, is a very significant thing.
An advanced skill talent...which is quite an investment IMO. Interesting though. Thanks.
EDIT: although under the UMD skill description is specifically says you can not take 10 with it...is this clarified anywhere?
Not that it directly affects Pathfinder, but in 3.5, Skill Mastery still won't help UMD. Only warlock who got a speficic ability to affect UMD could do it.
So I don't see the point in changing to rules to beef them up, as long as the GM is writing quests with the rogue's abilities in mind, but a good GM should be taking into account everyone's abilities.
A GM doesn't have to to out of their way in any way to make a fighter, cleric, or wizard useful (for example). If anything, he'd have to go out of his way to make any of these classes NOT useful.
"Rogues are fine as long as you don't use published adventures and tailor the adventure so they're good, even though most classes are just fine always" isn't a very compelling position.
Skill Mastery doesn't grant you the ability to take 10 on a UMD check. It just grants you the ability to take 10 when distractions and stress would normally prevent it. Skill Mastery doesn't rewrite the UMD description to say "you can take 10 on this skill".
So I don't see the point in changing to rules to beef them up, as long as the GM is writing quests with the rogue's abilities in mind, but a good GM should be taking into account everyone's abilities.A GM doesn't have to to out of their way in any way to make a fighter, cleric, or wizard useful (for example). If anything, he'd have to go out of his way to make any of these classes NOT useful.
"Rogues are fine as long as you don't use published adventures and tailor the adventure so they're good, even though most classes are just fine always" isn't a very compelling position.
Fighters are designed to kill. You put a monster in front of a fighter--any monster--and they kill it. If you run a quest without combat (which I've run and played in several), then the fighter is next to useless. If all you look at is the dungeon part of the published adventures, you will miss the parts where the fighter is useless. That doesn't mean that they aren't there.
The cleric's main role is to heal. They have lots of other minor things that they can do, but the reason that the cleric is always useful is largely the same reason that the fighter is perceived that way: he heals the damage that the fighter takes while fighting monsters. Of course the cleric is a more well-rounded class, because it does allow for some non-combat options.
Wizards are more versatile, but they have a certain number of spells per day and that's it. A skilled character being able to use social skills in lieu of charm and sneak in lieu of invisibility and detect and disarm a trap in lieu of those spells has just saved the spell caster four spells that can be used on other things. By the way, anti-magic spells and effects make the wizard useless in a moment.
I'm not saying that the other classes are worse than the rogue; rogue isn't even my favourite class. I'm just saying that it has it's purpose in the group just like any other class, and it is better at skills than anyone else is. I don't think it's under powered over all, so much as it may be under powered in the very specific act of combat. I suppose if your GM doesn't include traps, doesn't lock doors in dungeons, and doesn't ever allow for stealthy tactics and such then the rogue falls behind further, but that's the GM's fault, not the game designers'.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the rogue becomes less underpowered the further you can get Pathfinder away from being a 'pen and paper computer game'. It is the GM's job to try and engage every character in turn, wherever possible. If you have a rogue at your table that doesn't feel useful, chances are you can fix it with a single adventure. The examples aren't hard to imagine, and many good ones have already been listed in this thread.
That being said, the rest of the argument starts getting pretty thin. It basically boils down to 'my character can be out munchkined' or 'my friends are playing a competitive (rather than cooperative) game'. I'd suggest that ANY character choice is susceptible to these types of issues.
|
One of the easy ways to make rogues better at their perceived role (traps, perception, stealth, etc) is to add rogue levels to the skill check for those "rogue" skills. It's a simple and effective way of make the rogue more important when those "rogue required" challenges appear.
Adding back all the 3.5 sneak attack tricks would help their fighting abilities significantly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the rogue becomes less underpowered the further you can get Pathfinder away from being a 'pen and paper computer game'. It is the GM's job to try and engage every character in turn, wherever possible. If you have a rogue at your table that doesn't feel useful, chances are you can fix it with a single adventure. The examples aren't hard to imagine, and many good ones have already been listed in this thread.
That being said, the rest of the argument starts getting pretty thin. It basically boils down to 'my character can be out munchkined' or 'my friends are playing a competitive (rather than cooperative) game'. I'd suggest that ANY character choice is susceptible to these types of issues.
This is right on the money, and it kills me that so many of the posts on these boards are so focused on the idea that Pathfinder is a Pen and Paper computer game and it is your job to design your character for PvP against the other player characters. The things that I like about roleplaying games are the things that make them different from MMOs. If I wanted to use randomly generate numbers to kill a series of similar creatures for four hours to prove how big my numbers were, I'd go play a computer game. I want some real story and intrigue and skill use and things mixed into the combat. I can go sessions without combat and be happy. The rogue isn't the only class suited for that, but it's well suited for that, and when the plot is what matters, he's usually got a good story.
Of course we'll never use the ninja class no matter how good it is. We're playing in a European setting. We don't use the monk either, or any other Asian-themed super class. The basic problem with the Eastern classes is always the same: they make their western equivalents look bad because balance goes out the window to create an anime flare. That doesn't mean that the rogue is broken. To me it suggests that the ninja is, but that is what I would expect from an RPG.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
*bashes head against screen*
Clearly someone without ranks in disable device.
We don't use the monk either, or any other Asian-themed super class.
At this point I lost all ability to take your opinion on game balance remotely seriously. The monk is an super class? I geniunely cannot stop laughing.
We don't use the monk either, or any other Asian-themed super class.At this point I lost all ability to take your opinion on game balance remotely seriously. The monk is an super class? I geniunely cannot stop laughing.
Right. I've seen a lot of threads about how weak the monk is. I've read them carefully. I've never seen any credible evidence to suggest that flurry of blows is anything but OVER powered, especially when mixed with magical monk weapons. I have seen PF monks destroy PF fighters in combat at the local game store. The whole monks need a full BAB holds no water with me. They have a full BAB when they use flurry of blows, which they use all the time. BAB only really matters for them for feat prerequisites and CMB. The whole thing is smoke and mirrors put up by power gamers to complain about how monks, who should be able to do anything and kill anyone, can't.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Excuse me for being stupid, but what is the reason for this? :P
'European setting' 'anime flare' 'powergamers' 'rollplay vs roleplay' 'monks overpowered'
Just the same old arguments repeated ad nauseam. Rather than waste all our time rehashing them, I just choose to vent my frustration.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
First, I'll admit I have not read all three pages of this thread, though I skimmed through most of the first page. Forgive me if this has already been brought up.
Now, from the posts I've read so far, it seems like most of the weaknesses of the rogue are in the functions classically associated with the rogue (trapfinding, skill monkey, etc), plus the everybody-wants-it damage function.
No one seems to be talking, though, about the rogue talents. Some of them provide some pretty unique abilities, like taking a 5-foot step while prone and whatnot. Perhaps instead of seeing whether or not rogues can still do what they used to, we should see what it is they can do, and evaluate the power of that?
After reading over the suggestions and counterpoints, I agree that the Rogue's utility depends on how the campaign is run.
That said, the points on others doing the job as well cannot be wholly ignored. These are the changes I plan on making to my rogues in my campaign, though possibly not all.Firstly, this was a really good suggestion:
Stealth Training (Ex): Your specialized training allows you to fool even non-standard senses. You gain the following benefits as you gain levels.
Hide Scent (3rd) - By rubbing yourself with special oils and herbs, you can mask your scent. When you have prepared yourself in this fashion, creatures with the Scent ability must make a Perception check to detect your scent. Preparing to do this requires 1 minute of preparation, and the effects last for 30 minutes.
Still Movement (9th) - You have learned to move without disturbing the ground beneath you. When you choose to use this benefit, creatures with Tremorsense must make a Perception check (opposed by your Stealth) to detect you. You take a -5 penalty to any Stealth rolls while moving in this fashion.
Vanishing Moves (15th) - You have learned mystical secrets of movement and concealment that allow you to fool even those with Blindsense. While using this benefit, creatures with Blindsense must make Perception rolls to detect you. Because of the difficulty of the movements and techniques, all Perception rolls you make while using this benefit suffer a -10 penalty.
Furthermore, SA damage is multiplied on crits and there is no range limit. Also considering full BAB, and a feat or rogue talent that allows flanking at range.
Fixed and fun?
That depends on whether or not you want your rogues to out DPR your fighters regularly. The lower BAB (actually having a chance of missing, since it's the rogue BAB that is used to give a rough idea of AC by CR), and the restrictions on SA damage are what keep the rogue from being a BA combatant and a great skills character. If I were I fighter and you modded the rules for the rogue like that, I'd be demanding more skill points.
Right. I've seen a lot of threads about how weak the monk is. I've read them carefully. I've never seen any credible evidence to suggest that flurry of blows is anything but OVER powered, especially when mixed with magical monk weapons. I have seen PF monks destroy PF fighters in combat at the local game store. The whole monks need a full BAB holds no water with me. They have a full BAB when they use flurry of blows, which they use all the time. BAB only really matters for them for feat prerequisites and CMB. The whole thing is smoke and mirrors put up by power gamers to complain about how monks, who should be able to do anything and kill anyone, can't.
I'm sorry, but there isn't a sentence here that isn't not only wrong but ridiculous.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
OK, I went against my better judgment and read through this entire thread, despite the fact that it pretty much duplicates a much longer thread not that long ago. Here's my two cents:
I can't help feeling that the focus on making the rogue more effective in combat is misguided. I think doing so only steps on the fighter's toes, and I have the heretical belief that not every character in a party needs to be great at combat. I think they all need to be able to contribute, but that some will make larger contributions than others and I'm fine with that.
So my suggestions for making the rogue better revolve around demphasizing the importance of combat in adventures and campaigns. Don't get me wrong, I love me some combat. But a heavy emphasis on combat works to the disadvantage of rogue characters, while they tend to shine in non-combat challenges. So here are my simple recommendations for rogue love.
-- Design more social interactions, actually dangerous traps and useful stealth situations into your adventures and campaigns.
-- Design adventures and campaigns to encourage longer adventuring days, so substituting for a rogue's skills with spells becomes less practical.
-- Use larger party sizes. A six, seven or eight person party can more easily afford to have specialists who aren't combat gods.
-- I do like the idea of giving the rogue tools to counter scent, tremorsense, blindsense, etc. These make sense to me. A good rogue who makes the proper choices should be able to be stealthy, against all senses.
And for those of you who want to continue playing combat-dominated campaigns, I'm forced to agree that the rogue is not an optimal choice and you have to strain to make him competitive. My point is that that is the result of adventure/campaign design choice, however, not inherent weaknesses in the character class.
Excuse me for being stupid, but what is the reason for this? :P'European setting' 'anime flare' 'powergamers' 'rollplay vs roleplay' 'monks overpowered'
Just the same old arguments repeated ad nauseam. Rather than waste all our time rehashing them, I just choose to vent my frustration.
I feel your pain, TOZ. We all have overused phrases on these boards that make us see red. My own personal list is a bit different from yours though and includes things like: "broken", "gimped", "useless", "nerfed", "storytime", "GM fiat", "DM dickery", etc.
|
|
Excuse me for being stupid, but what is the reason for this? :P'European setting' 'anime flare' 'powergamers' 'rollplay vs roleplay' 'monks overpowered'
Just the same old arguments repeated ad nauseam. Rather than waste all our time rehashing them, I just choose to vent my frustration.
Welcome to RPG discussions? All of these topics have been covered time and time again by literally thousands of people. They're STILL compelling discussion topics.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Excuse me for being stupid, but what is the reason for this? :P'European setting' 'anime flare' 'powergamers' 'rollplay vs roleplay' 'monks overpowered'
Just the same old arguments repeated ad nauseam. Rather than waste all our time rehashing them, I just choose to vent my frustration.
I feel your pain, TOZ. We all have overused phrases on these boards that make us see red. My own personal list is a bit different from yours though and includes things like: "broken", "gimped", "useless", "nerfed", "storytime", "GM fiat", "DM dickery", etc.
My favorites are Paizo + balanced in combinations stating that Paizo is really good at balancing (hint hint, they are mediocre to bad at it).
Or the ever popular "if you want balanced, go play 4E".
I'm sorry, but there isn't a sentence here that isn't not only wrong but ridiculous.
Right. I've seen a lot of threads about how weak the monk is. I've read them carefully. I've never seen any credible evidence to suggest that flurry of blows is anything but OVER powered, especially when mixed with magical monk weapons. I have seen PF monks destroy PF fighters in combat at the local game store. The whole monks need a full BAB holds no water with me. They have a full BAB when they use flurry of blows, which they use all the time. BAB only really matters for them for feat prerequisites and CMB. The whole thing is smoke and mirrors put up by power gamers to complain about how monks, who should be able to do anything and kill anyone, can't.
I agree with you Dire Mongoose.
I don't buy any of it, just like I don't buy that the monk is under-powered. It's very tempting to pit the fighter, whose main job is fighting, against the rogue and see that the rogue comes up lacking, but the rogue is not just a combatant. He has other abilities, some of them close to unique.
It's tempting to pit magic against rogue abilities and see that the magic is equal or better every time, but spells have a finite number of uses per day and skills do not. If his skills allowed him to do things that were the equivalent of using a level 1 spell at will, people would think that was broken.
Rogues have a mixture of things; they well rounded, not pointy like fighters or wizards. They don't need a full BAB because this is not an MMO and rogues are not designed to just be DPR. There are ways of tweaking them within the rules to do that, as people have pointed out, but it seems some people just want the rogue to simply be better at combat without sacrificing other things. The reason the fighter is better at combat is that that's all he gets. Take a fighter out of combat and his 2 skills and no class abilities or feats that aren't related to combat don't allow for very much.
If you don't roleplay and you have hardly any traps, then the rogue is going to seem less powerful than he should. That's because you've eliminated the things that make a rogue good, not because it's not a balanced class, and I've had some players--even first time players-- figure out quickly how to make their rogues shine as an important party member.
So I don't see the point in changing to rules to beef them up, as long as the GM is writing quests with the rogue's abilities in mind, but a good GM should be taking into account everyone's abilities. And as for simplifying stealth, what's so hard about an opposed roll? I actually like the suggestion for circumventing the things that overcome stealth (scent, tremorsense, etc.), and I think that would make a great rogue talent, but I don't see why you would need to change the rules....
Finally someone making sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Excuse me for being stupid, but what is the reason for this? :P'European setting' 'anime flare' 'powergamers' 'rollplay vs roleplay' 'monks overpowered'
Just the same old arguments repeated ad nauseam. Rather than waste all our time rehashing them, I just choose to vent my frustration.
Anime hate is so silly. Ninja and Monks have been here since at least 2nd ed, if not 1st. Always have, always will. Why did they come to this game knowing that they are here and complain about it, when they chose to play the game.... I really couldn't tell you. In the end all these are Godwin statements of the TT-RPG world.
Anyway. Yeah things have gotten into circular motion. So it might be best to:
/thread
A rogue character is only as underpowered as the player makes them. The same goes for every other class. Fnord.
There's only one problem. Rogues aren't the only skill class.
That's also my observation.
The APG in a sense helped rogues by giving them some better options as rogue talents, but it simultaneously gave away all the class features people used to point to when trying to argue for the rogue being mandatory.
And it's not like someone who plays urban ranger instead of rogue won't have the occasional moment of "Man, a rogue could do this better than me", but it pales before the number of times the rogue would have the inverse feeling.
I'm not saying they're useless, but there's little, if anything, they can do that someone else doesn't do better, and it's not like they're "second best" at several important things others find hard to cover.
|
|
I feel your pain, TOZ. We all have overused phrases on these boards that make us see red. My own personal list is a bit different from yours though and includes things like: "broken", "gimped", "useless", "nerfed", "storytime", "GM fiat", "DM dickery", etc.
You may have noticed that I no longer argue those topics anymore.
I don't buy the argument that a big skill list and high skill points are that great. Skills are useful, but how many skill points would you need to play a class with d6 HD, poor BAB, poor saves and no spells?