| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A rogue character is only as underpowered as the player makes them. The same goes for every other class. Fnord.
Absolutely not. You need to work at it to make a rogue adequate. Put the same amount of thought into a fighter and you'll be a terror. Put the same amount of thought into a wizard and you'll be a god.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At the current campaign I'm playing I created my Rogue as a mean to find out the lack of the Monk class.
Before I get the confused look, I'm currently attempting to recreate the monk from scratch and I'm playtesting several classes as monk-wannabes according the feedback I've received from co-players and the several "the monk is meh" threads here at the forums.
The character is so far MAD-addicted so it can't be totally taken seriously as an example for a rogue, also note that the feats following are not placed at the normal order at this post.
Rogue (Thug archetype)
Feats (included feats gained from Rogue Talents)
Improved Unarmed Strike, Enforcer(APG), Weapon Focus (Unarmed Attack),
Dazzling Display, Shatter Defenses, Two Weapon Fighting,
Improved Two Weapon Fighting, Stunning Fist, Dastardly Finish(APG),
Shadow Strike(APG), Intimidating Prowess
The point of the feat selection is to give a feel of martial arts to the character taking advantage of the huge skill pool of the rogue, maxing Intimidate and taking advantage of two-weapon fighting.
Also Unarmed Strikes can deal non-lethal damage without penalty taking advantage of the Enforcer feat as an opener for battle.
(Charge opponent dealing non-lethal damage and gain a free Intimidate check against him, Thug archetype increases the duration of demoralize by 1 round allowing you to "Shatter" his defenses until a buddy of yours can come and flank your opponent, if he survives)
So far it works as a charm plus it has several crowd control capabilities for a non-caster non-mystical character.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
-- 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.There's only one problem. Rogues aren't the only skill class.
etc.
This. Those who argue the Rogue is fine have a habit of saying 'you can't compae to a FIghter, of course the Rogue will suck in combat compared to them' the problem is, it is not the Fighter we compare the Rogue to - they are existing in entirely different circles.
It's Rangers and Bards in particular that highlight the inadequacy of the Rogue.
Larger parties don't help the Rogue either - I play a 6 man campaign and with a Bard, Ranger and Rogue in the group there really is nothing the Rogue can do to shine - his perception is inferior to both, the Bard is better with social skills, the Ranger matches him with the other skill....lucky for him neither bothered taking an archtype to detect magic traps.
The simple sad fact is that a 4, 6 or 8 man party are better off without a Rogue.
As for those who complain about the Ninja being overpowered, the only people who believe this are those die hard Rogue fans - they are overpowered compared to the Rogue because the Rogue falls short - they are much more in line power wise with Rangers, Bards and the other classes which is where they should be, as should the Rogue.
What I do not understand is why people get so defensive about their beloved Rogue, if you enjoy the ROgue so much then why are you bothered that so many people want them to be improved?
@Asteldian Caliskan
Anyone can detect magic traps (a couple of spells being the exception), but only someone with the trapfinding can disable them.
|
|
You may have noticed that I no longer argue those topics anymore.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.
Not sure you argue any topic. You usually just do a drive-by with a comment, and then leave.
|
I usually only sit down to argue when I see a clear cut answer. Too much is bogged down in playstyles and interpretations to make arguing the facts pointless. And plenty of people, myself included, aren't going to budge from their opinions, and arguing with them is a waste of energy. Fire off a humorous quip and laugh.
|
|
Not sure you argue any topic. You usually just do a drive-by with a comment, and then leave.I usually only sit down to argue when I see a clear cut answer. Too much is bogged down in playstyles and interpretations to make arguing the facts pointless. And plenty of people, myself included, aren't going to budge from their opinions, and arguing with them is a waste of energy. Fire off a humorous quip and laugh.
YOU ARE WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
RAGE!!!!!!
A rogue character is only as underpowered as the player makes them. The same goes for every other class. Fnord.Absolutely not. You need to work at it to make a rogue adequate. Put the same amount of thought into a fighter and you'll be a terror. Put the same amount of thought into a wizard and you'll be a god.
His answer is 5 tons of flax, man! I think Turin totally gets it -- thus the "fnord" at the end. In other words, people say that kind of nonsense, then try and make you uncomfortable arguing with them about it, so that you'll just accept it and move on, even though on some level you know it isn't right at all.
Or are you, like most people, not able to see the fnords?
Lots of interesting stuff.
You make some good points, and it leads to one of the small beefs I have with some of the archetypes and new classes. While they give players more options, they have also made it more possible to encroach on territory that had traditionally belonged to other classes. I agree that the fact that most of the new classes get lots of skills, and that certain archetypes can duplicate rogue abilities does erode some of what made the rogue special. If Paizo wants to do this (and they evidently do), I would support upping rogues to 10 skill points a level to preserve thier spot at the top of the skill monkey pyramid.
However, not everybody plays those archetypes, so I was really confining my argument to generic classes. It's much like the wizard. Sure, he can have a spell that duplicates about anything any other class can do, but will he? And there is an opportunity cost to trying to duplicate those skills rather than doing something uniquely wizardly or rangerly or bardly.
The thing about wizard scouting is that the rogue brings a lot more than Stealth to the table, he also is likely to be far more Perceptive than the ranger, to notice things like traps, and to be able to act on what he sees, if necessary or useful. The wizard's scouting is kind of like using a UAV to scout: excellent in many situations, but sometimes you need boots on the ground to get the real story. And as for any class going invisible to scout, that's great. Your typical wizard now has about +22 on Stealth. Or you can put invisibility on the rogue, and you now have probably +35 or more, depending on level.
As for your thematic argument about rogues and counters to Scent, Tremorsense and the like, I disagree. Real world thieves and fantasy thieves have been finding ways around guard dogs and the like for years. It is just a part of their tool kit and it ain't rocket science. And in what way are Urban Rangers or Sandman Bards, which you use in your argument, thematic? If you want to go down the thematic road at all.
the rogue brings a lot more than Stealth to the table, he also is likely to be far more Perceptive than the ranger
How do you figure? It's a class skill for both, they're both almost 100% likely to max it out -- but the ranger has Wisdom as a much-needed attribute, whereas the rogue can dump his.
Also, there's a point of diminishing returns. 6 skill points are nearly as good as 8. 10 skill points aren't enough better to make up for the loss of full BAB. Really, I think the root of the problem is that the skill system is anemic and weak. Skills, no matter how many ranks, really don't let you do heroic stuff, so that a class that's based on them pretty much doesn't get to do heroic stuff.
Or are you, like most people, not able to see the fnords?
What the heck is a fnord?
The only thing comming to mind is a lab mouse asking another one where to find rubber pants in their size...
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.
Brian, you forgot 'strawman!', the go-to gotcha catchword that gets misused ad nauseum.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the rogue brings a lot more than Stealth to the table, he also is likely to be far more Perceptive than the rangerHow do you figure? It's a class skill for both, they're both almost 100% likely to max it out -- but the ranger has Wisdom as a much-needed attribute, whereas the rogue can dump his.
While I am overall a fan of PF's streamlined skill system, combining Search and Spot into one Wis-based skill, while logical, really stepped on the rogue. I guess they had to decide whether to screw the rogue or the ranger, though; one of them was going to have to have one fewer dump stat to be able to do what they had always done.
Brian, you forgot 'strawman!', the go-to gotcha catchword that gets misused ad nauseum.That's a strawman and you know it!
See what I mean!???
My main problem with the rogue is how dependent it is on full attacks to deal any kind of damage. As a class that needs to stay mobile, this is the rogue's biggest problem. Two talents that would allow the rogue to be awesome:
- A talent to make attacks with two weapons at once using the attack action/charge. This would allow them to deal a lot of damage in surprise rounds and vital striking. This would also allow them to be a lot more mobile.
- A talent to feint as a swift action. The rogue is more dependent on its teammates than any other class, and this would alleviate that problem big time.
Until then, if you want to be a trap finder and damage dealer, go for a ranger with the urban ranger and guide archetypes. It's wonderful.
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?
Consider that rogues used to (in 3.5) not have rogue talents at all, used to get advanced rogue abilities every 3 levels after 10, and didn't have a capstone ability.
The only major change I see to the base class that would be considered a weakness for the rogue is the change to trapfinding. It used to be that only a rogue could *find* traps with a DC 21+. By giving all classes the ability to find all traps, the rogue is suddenly less important. Even the ability to disarm magic traps has also been given to other classes through alternate class versions.
But I think a bigger problem for the rogue has been the consolidation of skills. It used to be in 3.5 that a archetypical rogue would typically take spot, listen, search, hide, move silently, disable device and open lock. This wasn't horrible because a rogue had more skill points to work with. By consolidating 7 skills into 3, a lot of the luster about having 8 + Int skill points vanished. Now pretty much any class with a trait and/or feat and with a positive Int bonus can get those with no problem. The rogue is now no longer valuable as the skill guy. In fact, the bard's versatile performance makes the bard eventually surpass the rogue in terms of overall skills known.
I'm not really sure how to fix the problem. My first instinct was to buff the skill-centric rogue talents, but anyone can splash a couple of levels of rogue and take the Extra Rogue Talent feat to get them. Maybe make more rogue talents with level requirements like oracle revelations? In that way you'd have to take many actual rogue levels to get to them and they can buff the rogue itself substantially.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I am overall a fan of PF's streamlined skill system, combining Search and Spot into one Wis-based skill, while logical, really stepped on the rogue. I guess they had to decide whether to screw the rogue or the ranger, though; one of them was going to have to have one fewer dump stat to be able to do what they had always done.
I've had the same feeling seeing it in play. Now most characters in most of my groups are pretty great at Perception and therefore Searching. Typically everyone maxes it whether it's a class skill or not.
Also, now ridiculous things like the T-Rex Animal Companion, technically, are expert trap spotters. IMHO it's a sign that Search as an INT skill made more sense that back then you didn't need to houserule down T-Rex, P.I.
(Yeah, it's huge, blah blah blah, pick something smaller if you want.)
I kind of liked the idea of giving them the 1/2 class-level bonus to a few more "roguish" skills, maybe Stealth and Sleight of Hand? Maybe Acrobatics and Climb? Obviously archetypes do this too, but those would mighty tasty talents to round out a rogue who is not any specific archetype.
What the heck is a fnord?EDIT: And I've been ninja'd again! (P.S. No one ever says "Rogued!" I think that's all the proof we need...)
Also, the rogue should get its dexterity bonus to damage when wielding light or finesse weapons, and half its dexterity bonus when dual wielding such weapons.
Also, the rogue should get its dexterity bonus to damage when wielding light or finesse weapons, and half its dexterity bonus when dual wielding such weapons.
When making sneak attacks? Perhaps. When not making sneak attacks? no. You don't want to encourage rogues to participate in a stand-up fight. Still, I could see this as a possible rogue talent.
|
|
Also, there's a point of diminishing returns. 6 skill points are nearly as good as 8. 10 skill points aren't enough better to make up for the loss of full BAB. Really, I think the root of the problem is that the skill system is anemic and weak. Skills, no matter how many ranks, really don't let you do heroic stuff, so that a class that's based on them pretty much doesn't get to do heroic stuff.
Another Paizo change was combining skills, which affected a lot of the skills a rogue was known for. Stealth versus Hide and Move Silently. Acrobatics versus Balance, Jump and Tumble. When Stealth was two skills, keeping it maxxed out was more of an investment than it is now.
the rogue brings a lot more than Stealth to the table, he also is likely to be far more Perceptive than the rangerHow do you figure? It's a class skill for both, they're both almost 100% likely to max it out -- but the ranger has Wisdom as a much-needed attribute, whereas the rogue can dump his.
Also, there's a point of diminishing returns. 6 skill points are nearly as good as 8. 10 skill points aren't enough better to make up for the loss of full BAB. Really, I think the root of the problem is that the skill system is anemic and weak. Skills, no matter how many ranks, really don't let you do heroic stuff, so that a class that's based on them pretty much doesn't get to do heroic stuff.
Sorry. Brain not connected to keyboard. Meant to say wizard. I agree the ranger is likely to be as perceptive as the thief, and perhaps more so at early levels, due to greater likelihood of a good Wisdom score.
As for the rest, I guess it depends on your definition of heroic, and could be very GM/table specific. Some playstyles haev skills palying absolutely vital roles, while others don't. I don;t think the skill system is anemic or weak, although I do think it is more important at lower levels, and the numbers get kind of wonky at high levels, when even non-skill monkeys can have pretty high scores.
It's Rangers and Bards in particular that highlight the inadequacy of the Rogue.Larger parties don't help the Rogue either - I play a 6 man campaign and with a Bard, Ranger and Rogue in the group there really is nothing the Rogue can do to shine - his perception is inferior to both, the Bard is better with social skills, the Ranger matches him with the other skill....lucky for him neither bothered taking an archtype to detect magic traps.
The simple sad fact is that a 4, 6 or 8 man party are better off without a Rogue.
As for those who complain about the Ninja being overpowered, the only people who believe this are those die hard Rogue fans - they are overpowered compared to the Rogue because the Rogue falls short - they are much more in line power wise with Rangers, Bards and the other classes which is where they should be, as should the Rogue.
What I do not understand is why people get so defensive about their beloved Rogue, if you enjoy the ROgue so much then why are you bothered...
That's your experience, and I respect that. Mine has been very different.
I have to admit that we haven't tried a party with both rogue and bard, because our group has a pretty strong aversion to bards, rooted in a deeply-held prejudice against them from older editions. I'm the only one in our group that has ever even tried to play a bard, and that was in a short-lived 2nd edition game more than a decade ago. We have the ranger/rogue combination pretty consistently, though, and I haven't noticed the ranger outshining the rogue or stepping on his toes. Perhaps that is because we don't build our characters or play them to be in competition with each other, but rather to act as a unit in opposition to whatever adversaries the game throws at us. The only time I have ever heard someone complain about their rogue character being underpowered was the one guy who tried to build a WOW-inspired combat rogue and was disappointed that he couldn't outfight the fighter.
I'm actually not terribly defensive about rogues, nor do I really love them. I haven't played one regularly in years, not because I feel they are underpowered, but because the flavor has never much appealed to me. I'm more the LG fighter/cleric/paladin type most games.
I merely respond on these threads because I think, even though the game has evolved in some ways to make the rogue less unique and indispensable than he once was, I still pretty much always want one in my party if I'm playing, and if I'm GMing I view the lack of one as a potential weakness in a party.
People like the rogue because they think it comes with pre packaged flavor: the devil may care na'er do well who doesn't have these silly notions about Honor, fighting fair or playing by someone elses rules.
|
|
It's Rangers and Bards in particular that highlight the inadequacy of the Rogue.Larger parties don't help the Rogue either - I play a 6 man campaign and with a Bard, Ranger and Rogue in the group there really is nothing the Rogue can do to shine - his perception is inferior to both, the Bard is better with social skills, the Ranger matches him with the other skill....lucky for him neither bothered taking an archtype to detect magic traps.
The simple sad fact is that a 4, 6 or 8 man party are better off without a Rogue.
As for those who complain about the Ninja being overpowered, the only people who believe this are those die hard Rogue fans - they are overpowered compared to the Rogue because the Rogue falls short - they are much more in line power wise with Rangers, Bards and the other classes which is where they should be, as should the Rogue.
What I do not understand is why people get so defensive about their beloved Rogue, if you enjoy the ROgue so much then why are you bothered...
That's your experience, and I respect that. Mine has been very different.
I have to admit that we haven't tried a party with both rogue and bard, because our group has a pretty strong aversion to bards, rooted in a deeply-held prejudice against them from older editions. I'm the only one in our group that has ever even tried to play a bard, and that was in a short-lived 2nd edition game more than a decade ago. We have the ranger/rogue combination pretty consistently, though, and I haven't noticed the ranger outshining the rogue or stepping on his toes. Perhaps that is because we don't build our characters or play them to be in competition with each other, but rather to act as a unit in opposition to whatever adversaries the game throws at us. The only time I have ever heard someone complain about their rogue character being underpowered was the one guy who tried to build a WOW-inspired combat rogue and was disappointed that he couldn't outfight the fighter.
I'm...
Yeah, we never played with Bards because they just always seemd crappy to us in D&D editions. But Pathfinder improved them (Also in our games if you are the Bard you need to be prepareed to sing or make up little rhymes if you want to be using oyur abilities - just like Clerics best have a prayer ready for their god and Wizards best know the words for their spells)
But we play with Bard and Ranger now. I am surprised you didn't find that the Ranger stepped on the Rogue's toes. It's not about competing, it's about picking the skills that make sense to the character - of course the Ranger has Stealth and of course he has max perception. Because the Ranger has higher Wis he actually has a better Perception than the Rogue, as a result the Rogue tends to have the Ranger check for traps with him - obviously the Ranger has no Disable Trap skill but he can still find them.
When it comes to scouting it makes sense for both to go ahead, or if not then just the Ranger - because he is tough enough to handle himself.
When it comes to Bluff/Diplomacy etc. then the Bard outshines the Rogue due to charisma...even if we had no Bard the Cleric would likely be the face due to good Cha - or the Paladin if the situation did not require BLuff.
True, the Rogue is the only one in our party that can disable traps (but that was only because we intentionally avoided our Bard or Ranger getting any skills in it and not getting the Archtype to deal with Magic traps) and true our Rogue has Acrobatics that no one competes with. But that is hardly enough to make it worthwhile having one.
I mean the flavour of the Rogue is great, but the mechanics just don't support it. Whereas the Ninja has corrected the Rogue flaws - should have called it Rogue 2.0 and kept Evasion and Trapfinding ability and everything else the Ninja gets and quietly put the original Rogue to rest :)
Though like you I tend not to play those types of chars anyway, so have no personaly investment in them. I am Paladin all the way :)
(Also in our games if you are the Bard you need to be prepareed to sing or make up little rhymes if you want to be using oyur abilities - just like Clerics best have a prayer ready for their god and Wizards best know the words for their spells)
Please tell me you're joking or I'm going to die a little bit inside.
Please tell me you're joking or I'm going to die a little bit inside.
(Also in our games if you are the Bard you need to be prepareed to sing or make up little rhymes if you want to be using oyur abilities - just like Clerics best have a prayer ready for their god and Wizards best know the words for their spells)
Calm down, no one's asking you to sing :P
Please tell me you're joking or I'm going to die a little bit inside.
(Also in our games if you are the Bard you need to be prepareed to sing or make up little rhymes if you want to be using oyur abilities - just like Clerics best have a prayer ready for their god and Wizards best know the words for their spells)
Just sing everything in a language no one knows (: Gnoll-speaking bard ftw.
The only thing i dont like about the rouge is its saves.
Only good reflex saves is horrible.
I would consider giving the bonus to saves vs traps to all saves always or maybe a paladin chr to saves like ability with int?
Anyways i think rouges are fine with dmg, its just its saves that makes it a bad class to play in the long run.
Calm down, no one's asking you to sing :PPlease tell me you're joking or I'm going to die a little bit inside.
(Also in our games if you are the Bard you need to be prepareed to sing or make up little rhymes if you want to be using oyur abilities - just like Clerics best have a prayer ready for their god and Wizards best know the words for their spells)
It's not the singing that gets me (although that's separately a little horrifying, considering the singing voices of the people I tend to play with): it's the wizard bit.
|
Much of the Rogue's skill monkey niche is predicated on the fighter and cleric having almost none. Once you start doing things like playing rangers, cavaliers, oracles, druids, and barbarians the only thing the rogue has left is his no longer unique ability to disable magical traps.
Does it not seem odd to compare 'rogue vs splat' while fighter and cleric get a pass?
It seems to me from reading this thread, and others like it Rogues and Monks should have been full bab classes.
Not sure what breaks if anything if they are, but both of those classes are in kind of a screwy situation now as regards what exactly they are supposed to contribute to a party.
If the monk was a full BAB class it would quickly replace the fighter. 1 level of fighter, the rest monk nets you an armored tank with 3 good saves.
If the monk was a full BAB class it would quickly replace the fighter. 1 level of fighter, the rest monk nets you an armored tank with 3 good saves.It seems to me from reading this thread, and others like it Rogues and Monks should have been full bab classes.
Not sure what breaks if anything if they are, but both of those classes are in kind of a screwy situation now as regards what exactly they are supposed to contribute to a party.
Except that all of a monk's abilities stop functioning in armor, of course.
|
|
If by 'all' you mean 'only Fast Movement, Flurry of Blows, Evasion, and AC Bonus'.
Heck, Weapon Master trades Improved Evasion for WF and WS. Win-win.
Master of Many Styles trades out Flurry.
Sensei trades everything but AC Bonus.
So there are plenty of ways for a Monk to wear full plate and still have most of his abilities.
You know... wizards and sorcerers get +1/2 BAB, full casting.
Bards and inquisitors get +3/4 BAB, 3/4 casting.
Paladins and rangers get full BAB, 1/2 casting.
Clerics and druids break the system; they get +3/4 BAB and full casting. They're also the classes that people complain about being overpowered. Fighters get full BAB and no casting; in 3.5 they were a joke class.
Monks and rogues get 3/4 BAB and no casting. And they're the classes that people tend to think are too weak. Coincidence?
I dream of a game in which wizards, sorcerers and archivists get +1/2 BAB, full casting; rogues, bards, clerics, and inquisitors get +3/4 BAB and 3/4 casting; and fighters, rangers, paladins, and monks get full BAB and 1/2 casting.
The thing about the rogue is that what he's known for may not always be unique to the class (with the big glaring exception of many rogue talents), he's got a lot of good stuff that comes conveniently well-packaged together.
For example, Uncanny Dodge and Evasion. Barbies have the former, monks, high level rangers, and anyone with a ring of evasion the latter (along with some various PrCs). So, yeah, not unique. But the rogue gets all of them, and can get all of the best versions by 10th level. And those abilities are POWERFUL. Can't be flat-footed (remember that's not JUST avoiding flat-footed AC, it's also being able to AOO when others couldn't), can't be flanked. Improved Evasion--having seen it in action MANY times during a high level campaign I ran--is, given a typical rogue's reflex save, basically immunity to most evocation spells, traps, and dragon breath, amongst other AOE effects. I think in the whole campaign I ran the party rogue was hurt ONCE by a damage spell, and that's because he rolled a 1 (and it still hurt him less than everyone else). These defensive abilities can be amazingly helpful.
Yes, I know, everything's worthless that isn't DPS. Defense, what is this pansy nonsense? Silly me. I still say it's a great combo.
But let's talk about damage for a minute: Sneak attack even if circumstantial should not be underestimated. It's a GREAT way to deal with DR-bearing creatures when you don't have a way to bypass DR, because a substantial number of sneak attack dice will still HURT even if you soak some of the damage. And you can deal a lot of damage with a standard attack--you're not reliant on the full attack as much as some other classes (of course full attacks are always lovely). High level sneak attack hurts more than Greater Vital Strike, too.
Skillmonkey: Yes, Pathfinder made skills more accessible. 8 skill points a level is nothing to sneeze at, however, IMO--and moreso because Rogues have fewer skills they have to put in since 3.5 (no Listen, Search, Spot nonsense). If you want a well-rounded build it's a great way to go.
Rogue Talents: At 2nd level, a rogue can deal bleeding damage, not a lot of other classes can do that AT low level, and that's a great tactic to use against spellcasters because as long as they take damage from bleeding, they have to make Concentration checks to cast. Rogue talents offer a lot of versatility, and I'd say the Pathfinder rogue particularly gets a lot of uniqueness from the Rogue Talent pool. Some talents are better than others of course. And I haven't touched Ultimate Combat so do Ninja Tricks screw it up? I don't know. If rogues can also take Ninja Tricks like I heard, probably not.
Trapfinding: Forget the Perception part. +1 per level to Disable Device. Locked? What lock? This door wasn't locked. Any lock, trap, or mechanical doodad that gets in the way--handled, no problem, very little chance of failure. If it's NOT useful, then Disable Device bonuses need to be higher, probably. :)
I'd say the rogue excels at versatility (maybe as much if not more than the bard) while still playing a solid role in combat. You can also have very VERY differently designed rogue builds that are equally very effective. Different characters can do what a rogue can do but not all at once (although arguably, you might say that about any given class :)). But I think one needs to look how it all comes together, not just at a single aspect of the class. What you consider "overpowered" or "underpowered" probably depends to some degree on the nature of the campaign and the player, but IMO it can stand toe to toe with the other classes on its own merits, even if other classes can do some of what the rogue can do in different ways---it's the "different ways" part that... well, makes the difference. I'd say the bottom line is, if a rogue's in your party, your other party members will probably save a lot of resources and/or be able to use them elsewhere. Just my 2 cents.
I think Uncanny Dodge and Evasion are decent, but I'd easily trade either or maybe both for fast track Will or Fort save.
|
|
If the monk was a full BAB class it would quickly replace the fighter. 1 level of fighter, the rest monk nets you an armored tank with 3 good saves.It seems to me from reading this thread, and others like it Rogues and Monks should have been full bab classes.
Not sure what breaks if anything if they are, but both of those classes are in kind of a screwy situation now as regards what exactly they are supposed to contribute to a party.
Well, is that a genuine problem? Much of a system's growth replaces existing classes...
Well, is that a genuine problem? Much of a system's growth replaces existing classes...
Yes. If you have one class replace another then either something is broken with the new class or the old one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. If you have one class replace another then either something is broken with the new class or the old one.
...and if it's a problem with the old one, then that old class is better off being replaced.