RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Well, whatever the state of rogues is, I'm about to try one out in PFS for the first time. Going with either the Acrobat or Swashbuckler archetype (zero ACP and Acro rerolls verus MWP and Acro bonus), and going to run around in melee with a 16 STR and tumble around enemies to set up my flanks. Wish me luck.
Good luck! ;-)
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
-Unless what the rogue is doing is detecting and removing traps under a fairly narrow set of circumstances (namely the party is in a hurry) I don't find rogues to be all that versatile. Making a rogue a trap detecting machine uses up talents that the rogue needs to make up for his 3/4 bab and inability to use sneak attack as often as he'd like.
|
I'm not convinced. Assuming that monk and fighter filled precisely, exactly the same group role, they would still have different-enough flavor to draw players to them. It could well be that this would make the monk superior, but people are still going to want to play armored warriors from time to time, especially in a setting where Asian influence makes one an outsider.
If monk replaces fighter, in a game rules sense alone, I'm not seeing the issue.
Which surprise me, because I guess I'm okay with bard replacing rogue.
Neat!
|
|
| 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.
Most of the time it is power creep in the new classes. Although Paizo spends a lot of time on playtesting, no one is looking at whether Ninja obsoletes Rogue, but lots of people want the most powerful ninja character they can get and bring up perceived weakneses during the playtest.
Flavor comes from the player, not the mechanics.
Most of the time it is power creep in the new classes. Although Paizo spends a lot of time on playtesting, no one is looking at whether Ninja obsoletes Rogue, but lots of people want the most powerful ninja character they can get and bring up perceived weakneses during the playtest.
You know, I hear this a lot, but the most powerful classes by far (cleric, druid, wizard) are all from the core rules.
Everyone in 1st edition knew the thief was a lousy class because they couldn't fight, they couldn't cast spells, they couldn't heal or turn undead... all they could do that was unique was to Find/Disarm Traps. Then 3rd edition came along, and the skill system let everyone do those things, too, leaving the rogue without a solid niche -- except for the bizarre caveat "only rogues can find/disarm traps with DCs of 25+" or whatever. Which everyone knew at a glance was patently absurd (see OotS), but it was their last claim to a unique class feature.
Jason tried to fix that in Pathfinder, but things like kip up and ledge walking just aren't enough to base an entire class around, so the effort sort of failed. Now, if we made all assassin class features into rogue talents, and also made all of the Master Spy's class features into rogue talents, then maybe we could salvage the rogue...
And by talents you mean talent, singular. Right?
No, i don't. You have a deathtrap happy dm. Your rogues tend to have multiple trap finding talents pumped into them.
Rogue talents need a bit of work, as many aren't up to par with the level that they should be (a full feat), but each game is bad at things like this when they first make them.
A rogue has to pick his uses. The same rogue can't full multiple roles very well.
Honestly I'd like to see the talents be broken up into categories.. for example 'ninja tricks' could be one category, while 'combat tricks' (where many of the rogue & ninja tricks overlap) could be another, etc. Then you could design real archetypes for the rogue in which they alter the categories from which they can take talents, etc.
-That would be nice. I'm looking forward to trying out the ninja- as a montebanke that vanishes in a puff of smoke when he waves his cloak.
Not sure if i should name him Jack....
Rogue talents need a bit of work, as many aren't up to par with the level that they should be (a full feat), but each game is bad at things like this when they first make them. Hopefully the designers can look at the ones out there that are 'newbie traps' or just plain 'useless' and alter them into being worthwhile.
A second good save would be reasonable for a rogue, but the real place for the class to pick up is in the talents.
Honestly I'd like to see the talents be broken up into categories.. for example 'ninja tricks' could be one category, while 'combat tricks' (where many of the rogue & ninja tricks overlap) could be another, etc. Then you could design real archetypes for the rogue in which they alter the categories from which they can take talents, etc.
-James
Admit it -- you've been reading my house rules, haven't you?
No, i don't. You have a deathtrap happy dm. Your rogues tend to have multiple trap finding talents pumped into them.
I don't remember ever taking any 'trap finding' talent beyond trap spotter, care to list all of these?
- During the last incarnation, weren't you the one that thought the rogue should be able to autospot traps and move quickly while stealthed, and disarm the traps faster? My apologies if i got you mixed up with someone else, Or the aggregate of people that confused what the rogue class could potentially do with what any particular rogue could do.
Personally I think trap spotter can reasonably be fit into the mix, especially when a human rogue can pick up 1/6 of a talent via favored class (beyond the human bonus feat).I can't see any use for it. You would have to be looking for traps while needing to do so quickly AND the traps would have to be a real problem. That's not a situation i see often. It seems like the talent exists to keep the PLAYER from getting annoyed, rather than providing any benefit to the character.
A trap is not going to pull all 4 encounters of the dungeon down on your head at once. If a trap could do that, it would have to make more noise than the first encounter in the place.
A trap is not going to prevent a party from sneaking anywhere: the fighter in full plate already does that.
Traps during a fight are pretty rare, and with good reason. They stop your movement just as much as it does the adventurers, and you never know when you're going to get bull rushed onto them. You'd almost always be providing more challange with another mook in the way.
IRL, the difference between ambusher and ambushee is huge because humans are soft, squishy, and die in one shot. D&D adventurers have lots of hit points though, so between 3rd and 12th levels (after you have enough hp to survive a hit and before the SODs start being as commong as weeds) its not that much worse than loosing initiative.
-Note. Remarks about not doing it right, you don't know how to play, your character/build is "bad" etc. are not going to go well. If you can't make your criticism specific don't make it.
|
does anyone know why the new rogue talent to acquire a ki pool uses wisdom? The most useless dump stat ever for a rogue? Then on top of spending that talent to get the ki pool which seems to dilute your stats even more you have to spend more talents on the tricks that actually use it?
I would of thought you would automatically get a ki pool once you pick up a talent/trick that uses it and even then it would be charisma...
I would understand if the ninja ki pool was wisdom.. makes sense but its cha? so why throw such a kick in the teeth to the already down trodden rogue?
|
|
does anyone know why the new rogue talent to acquire a ki pool uses wisdom? The most useless dump stat ever for a rogue? Then on top of spending that talent to get the ki pool which seems to dilute your stats even more you have to spend more talents on the tricks that actually use it?
I would of thought you would automatically get a ki pool once you pick up a talent/trick that uses it and even then it would be charisma...
I would understand if the ninja ki pool was wisdom.. makes sense but its cha? so why throw such a kick in the teeth to the already down trodden rogue?
Wis a dump stat? Earlier in this thread someone pointed out to me that my team's Rogue having 10 Wis was a poor choice and it should be 12/14 (Though between Int, Dex, Cha, Con and Str I am not sure how he should manage that).
Also, did you not see the big thread with Ninja's complaining that Ki was Cha instead of Wis?
If anything the Ki being Wis based for Rogues was a kick in the face to Ninja's. You get Ki and get to boost your poor Will save.
The big issue with the Rogue is 'I am the best at trapfinding' is not a good enough reason for him to be lackluster. Unless a setting has LOADS of traps, he just doesn't have what it takes to shine, every other class tends to have his moments in a game, but the ROgue has to work hard just to try and keep up, letalone shine.
-----------------------
On a side note from earlier, yes I was serious, our Bards sing or do a rhyme or poem (usually a comedic song or a cheesy classic known by all, or a quip that mocks a team mate. A song our group looks forward to hearing from our Bard is something he wrote himself called 'Dangly Dilly' which sings not so flatteringly about me, the Paladin)
Yes our Wizards also have words if the spell has them. Nothing complex and again often a chance to install extra humour into the game. Obviously some like to just make guttural noises for a spell, but for 6 years now the words 'Die Piggy Die Piggy Die Die!' has become Iconic for Magic Missile.
Players not so familiar with our wierd way of doing things can take a while to get into the swing of things, but they are usually won over when casting Flaming Sphere because when it is suggested they say some spell words someone tends to offer up 'even the words Goodness Gracious Great Ball of Fire' will be perfectly fine ;)
Our Clerics pray in the morning and have words for their spells too, if the Cleric heals and gets a sucky roll you get comments like 'I'm sorry, your god is busy right no, please leave a message after the tone'.
|
|
Wis a dump stat? Earlier in this thread someone pointed out to me that my team's Rogue having 10 Wis was a poor choice and it should be 12/14 (Though between Int, Dex, Cha, Con and Str I am not sure how he should manage that).Also, did you not see the big thread with Ninja's complaining that Ki was Cha instead of Wis?
If anything the Ki being Wis based for Rogues was a kick in the face to Ninja's. You get Ki and get to boost your poor Will save.
I have seen the massive ninja cry threads about cha and wis. And to me i would prob agree with them. Wis is a more logical choice. BUT ninja was given CHA and then making rogue WIS just seems retarded.
That being said the reason i said WIS a dump stat is because in some games if you have a bard or someone better at skills and such than a rogue then many try and focus on staying alive, damage or being the face of the party with CHA. In these cases that makes WIS dump stat. You cannot afford DEX, CON, CHA AND WIS (yep, INT is very important to, much more so than WIS). Its spreading out your stats to much.
Personally i like my rogues to be charismatic and be able to be sneaky with their words, in other words the CHA skills. This leaves WIS as a dump unless you are planing to sit on the sidelines and do nothing in combat.
The reason all these stats have to be spread out to make a watered down character is one of the reasons rogues are so very very weak.
Perhaps you were the person that said that scouting was a doomed effort from the start or some such rubbish?
Yes i was. No one managed to show that it was rubbish under the raw though. I was accused of cherrypicking the cr 2? monsters that gave rogues trouble scouting when in fact it was a 100% sample size.
I'm not sure how many combat talents you need to build your fighter out of a rogue, perhaps we should both build rogues and compare them?
Depends on the rogue. You try to go for versatility and good trap removal.. which means a high dex, which pretty much requires combat expertise if you want to hit the broad side of an orc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have played and will continue to play rogues the same way. I have always seen them as masters of spatial awareness, tactical positioning, and timing. In and out of combat. That's why I believe them to be the only class that 'needs' all 3 mental scores. To really build a rogue that excels at everything a rogue can excel written you need every stat high. Which is why you need to specialize. But you can specialize in multiple aspects easily. I've never had a problem playing any kind of rogue I wanted to. The new feats and builds in UC just allow me to 'super-specialize' in one aspect of rogues I've been playing for years.
|
|
Funny dumping WIS seems the easiest way for a character to wind up on the sidelines and do nothing in combat, especially if the character is prone to attract WILL saves.
Personally I see it reasonable to distinguish the ninja & the rogue here in making one CHA and the other WIS.
Fighters attract Will saves. Rogues attract Fortitude saves.
And as far as Ki pool go, which would be more advantageous to a rogue, Charisma or Wisdom? Clearly Charisma and the Wisdom based Ki pool is more suitable to the Oriental Ninja, since it has more in common with a monk than a rogue does.
In regards to flavor, Charisma just makes more sense for the rogue. Charisma is also used for bluffing (feinting), diplomacy, and disguise giving the flavor of the silver tongued rogue. Using magic devices also requires charisma.
Thematically, wisdom just makes more sense for a ninja. Perception, Sense Motive, Will saves.
I think the problem with Rogue/Ninja is that Ultimate Combat's ninja can work with a high charisma and a decent dex (that ki pool does everything for them from giving extra attacks to boosting acrobatic abilities; they also get level bonuses to stealth) to be effective at everything in their niche while a rogues struggle between intelligence, dexterity, charisma, and wisdom. Rogues being focused towards traps in a game where traps are nerfed, just makes them less useful than the class that replaces trap mastery with poison use and level bonuses to stealth.
I think the Rogue class should just be put out to pasture. It's an anachronism from previous version of D&D going back to the Basic Edition red box.
The Rogue really should be a fighter archetype. Were they trade bonus feats for talents, evasion, and uncanny dodge. Lose bravery and armor training for skills. And lose weapon training for sneak attacks.
Ok why is the rogue 3/4 BAB class?
it could be useful a full BAB and an ability that maximizes sneackattack's dices..
maybe on a crit
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am kind of on the fence with whether or not the Rogue is underpowered.
First off, I do not consider rogues a full combat class. In my mind, a rogue is a light skirmisher, they should be dashing around getting the occasional big hit through sneak attacks. They should not be going toe-to-toe with an enemy as though they were a full-BAB martial class, they are primarily a skill class with a couple tricks to help them aid in combat. Too often on the forums I see arguments along the lines of "rogue don't do enough damage". As I see it, a rogue shouldn't be doing amazing damage, certainly not Fighter/Barbarian/Ranger caliber. This is not to say they couldn't use a power-boost in the damage department, but I think setting a reasonable expectation of how much damage they should be doing is important.
A somewhat valid argument I see for rogues being underpowered is that they lack a clear role where they can't be replaced. I understand, and share, the frustration inherent in having alchemists, ninjas, bards, and rangers being able to cover the rogue special abilities, but I also think that the flavor that the rogue brings to the table is worthwhile.
I do think the Rogue Talents are very lack-luster. I agree with gnomersy that some of the Talents probably should just be free for rogues. I also think splitting the Talents into clear themes could help give a lot of definition to the class. No more are they just a bunch of rogues, but through Talents they can be defined more as poisoners, burglars, pimps, etc, even without adding an archetype. I think a lot of the rogue archetype abilities would have been better suited as being defined sets of rogue talents, rather then replacements for trapfinding and uncanny dodge.
All this being said, the rogues in the campaigns I GM and play in are generally happy and certainly do not feel significantly underpowered. The one in the game I GM (Council of Thieves) was going for the feel of a burglar/information broker, and seems very happy. He is not a powerful force in battle (in part due to the dice hating him), but he didn't build his character to be amazing in combat; and he still is capable of pulling his own weight. The one in the game I play in (Skull and Shackles) has been invaluable. He is responsible for the accumulation of most of our allies, thus becoming a de facto leader, and in combat he is easily keeping up with the gunslinger and druid (at least thus far).
TLDR: I acknowledge the issues rogues have with having defined roles, and think the Rogue Talents could use tweaking/buffs to allow rogues to specialize better. However, the anecdotal evidence I have accumulated through personal experience causes me to think the underpoweredness of rogues is not as huge of an issue as these Forums might lead one to believe.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't fix all the problems, but my Revised Rogue is one attempt at making the Rogue work.
MA
Like so many others, I love the idea of Rogues. I love skills, I love their conceptual versatility. But in actual combat-oriented play, they suck. I have tried a very combat-oriented rogue, and it still doesn't work.
Next time I'm going to try a martial class, it's going to be a Ranger switch-hitter. If I'm ever going to try Rogue, it'll probably a single level for disable device and sneak attack on top of an otherwise entire Ranger build.
This is what i think has done in the rogue. (repost)
1) Traps aint what they used to be.
*rocks in chair* In my day we walked uphill both ways to the dungeon, and traps were TPKs. Miss a trap ? Die. Look at a trap. Die. Hear the sound of the trap closing, the trap is so awsome that the vibrations kill you! Muahahahahah! The entire room spins around, you're chucked through a 200 foot tall corridor filled from top to bottom with permanent blade barrier spells and dropped into a vat of acid and then attacked by acid breathing sharks!
The DM had to keep a bonfire going just to dispose of all the character sheets, and he filled his Olympic sized swimming pool with the players tears!
Now traps are CR balanced. Some of them are bad, some of them are an inconvinience, but you're far more likely to die from a really hard encounter.
-What this means for your character is that if you're only 85% as a rogue as a real thing its no big deal.
2) Skill parity
In 3.whatever The ability to have skills as a class skill really mattered as you got up in levels. At 20th level a class skill would be at 23 ranks and a cross class skill at 11 ranks. The pathfinder equivilant is a +3 bonus, which fades quickly in importance as you level.
Grabbing a single level or rogue let you max out the skills, but you still had to pay double the sp's to do it. Even wizards couldn't usually afford to do that with more than 1 or two skills.
Under pathfinder, you get 90% of the benefit of having rogue class skills in a single level. Take 1 level, grab +3 to most of the good skills.
-This means you can be a rogue 1/ whatever X and loose very little trap finding ability.
3) trait customization.
With the ever widening availability and diversity of traits its become very easy to get that +3 bonus on the skills that you really care about.
-Even without a level of rogue you can probably use your traits to get disable device and perception.
4) Skill consolidation
In 3.0 you needed 8 skill points for perception...
Yeah, you needed thieves and later rogues, or you would lose people to traps. I still sometimes run dungeons in this fashion, and don't allow the detection of traps with dcs of 20 or over if you don't have trapfinding. Don't like just giving it to everyone, oh the librarian wizard with no dungeoneering has a keen eye for trap spotting now does he?
They really get left behind in the power gaming aspect, but they can be pushed up high, and there are some strong rogue builds around. If you are not playing powergaming pathfinder, you may not notice weakness from a rogue char. I haven't.
First off, I do not consider rogues a full combat class. In my mind, a rogue is a light skirmisher, they should be dashing around getting the occasional big hit through sneak attacks. They should not be going toe-to-toe with an enemy as though they were a full-BAB martial class, they are primarily a skill class with a couple tricks to help them aid in combat. Too often on the forums I see arguments along the lines of "rogue don't do enough damage". As I see it, a rogue shouldn't be doing amazing damage, certainly not Fighter/Barbarian/Ranger caliber. This is not to say they couldn't use a power-boost in the damage department, but I think setting a reasonable expectation of how much damage they should be doing is important.
+1.
I am DMIng an dplaying several play by post games and the rogue seems to be one of the most used classes. The only people complaining about rogues in those games (and aparently in this forum) is the people who wants the rogue to be a pure combat/damage guy.
I personally would consider awful to give a rogue full BAB.
Yep, agreed. They aren't just combat monkeys swinging heavy wrenches around and beating their chests full of hp. I actually do like the rogue talents, and in the discussions of how crap the pf rogue is, they aren't getting mentioned much. There is a lot there and over the levels they get plenty of them.
Yep, agreed. They aren't just combat monkeys swinging heavy wrenches around and beating their chests full of hp. I actually do like the rogue talents, and in the discussions of how crap the pf rogue is, they aren't getting mentioned much. There is a lot there and over the levels they get plenty of them.
There are some really cool rogue talents, but for the most part, they're too small, too limited, and just not enough to make something out of them.
I'd love to be able to stand up as a free action, and I'd love that 5-foot-crawl talent (I forgot their names), preferably together, for ultimate melee mobility. But they're too circumstantial compared to a real feat. Compared to the fighter feats, the rogue talents just aren't quite good enough.
Maybe the rogue should get more of them. Give them one at every level, or something.
Proof that rogues are underpowered: Someone mentioned bards are better.
Well if there was less class ability spam (look what I get this level, and the next and the next after that!) then the rogue would be considered less underpowered.
Lower the tacked on bull, even it out and we have a solution. It is the problem with getting excited in designing classes--let's give it this and this and this. Well then, how does that balance to the other classes? Oh wait, someone got left behind.
Class ability bloat, one of the biggest problems pathfinder has; and the source of a lot of arguments.
Yep, I yearn for simplicity.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that there's no conceptual space for Rogues in D&D. They shouldn't be at all.
See, before the Thief, there were no rules for skills. You could just do anything that made sense, and you used your attributes to determine how good you were at it.
If the party wanted to sneak around, they just rolled Dexterity and moved on--the Fighter, the Magic User, and the Cleric could all do it just fine.
If someone was trying to climb, they just did it--or if the GM thought it was especially hard, they rolled Strength or Dex or something. If you had to pick a lock, again, roll Dex. Find a trap? Describe where you're looking (there was no perception roll--perception was added to Wisdom in 3rd edition).
Incidentally, this is why there are so many classic spells that duplicate Thief skills--because there were no Thief skills, so the spells didn't step on anyone's toes. They just changed the risky thing (rolling a stat) into a sure thing.
Then came the Thief and brought with it the unintended side effect of making everyone else suddenly less capable.
Before the Thief, a Fighter just rolled Dex to sneak around. After the Thief, he can't sneak around at all, because the Thief has Move Silently with a % roll for success and the Fighter doesn't. He can't even just roll his stat still, because it is extremely likely that, early on, such a roll would have a better chance to succeed than the Thief's skill check.
And just to clarify, the Thief was specifically the skill guy--he sucked in a fight. His THAC0 was worse than a Cleric and his weapons sucked. Backstab was a lot more fun and interesting (since it required you actually be behind them and created more descriptively interesting fights), but it didn't do a lot of damage considering it was multiplying sucky weapon damage.
So, they basically invented a new niche (Skill guy) and required it be filled by making sure only one class could do it.
People generally did not like this--that is why in 3rd edition, they made skills universal. However, bizarrely, they removed the niche, but kept the class that filled said niche.
To make it clear why it's ridiculous to have a skill system as they have in 3.x/Pathfinder AND a Rogue, it is comparable to giving every character the ability to cast spells (eventually, up to 9th level!) and then still having a Wizard class (who, I guess, just gets more spell slots and maybe slightly better Save DCs, I guess).
Anyway, my proposal is that the Rogue be removed entirely. Then, give Fighters more class skills (basically the Rogue list + the Fighter list), give the Fighter more skills (I'd say 6+Int, personally), and let them trade Bonus Feats for Sneak Attack dice or Rogue Tricks.
Oh, and Trapfinding would just disappear. It's stupid anyway--just the last remnant of the Skill niche that existed pre-3rd. A quick band-aid attempt to make the Rogue remain relevant despite having the previous purpose of the class removed.
Although i really like the idea of rogues, i agree with mplindustries. There are some nice feats and some funny stuff you can do with a rogue, but most of it can be done elsewhere and you are superspecialized, often far from good in most other situations.
I disagree, particulary because the poeple who most enjoy playing a rogue do it cause their concept.
But they can fill the same concept with another class? Somebody could reply, yeah but they still enjoy their rogues.
Now you make some good points but they do not prove your assertion. Rogues in PF are somewhat frustating not because their concept but cause a combination of several thing that make their mechanics Flawed.
If their mechanics were solid I think nodoby would complain about their niche IMHO.
If their mechanics were solid, they'd have a totally different niche. The "skill guy" niche is irrelevant in Pathfinder, but that is the niche the Rogue fills.
So, yes, if the Rogue were a totally different class, I would evaluate them differently.
I disagree againg. The skill guy is not that important in PF BECAUSE it have a mechanics (and the whole sytem agraviate this) . If the skill guy could make more impresive acts just beccause it skills there would not be a problem, IMHO of course.I disagree, particulary because the poeple who most enjoy playing a rogue do it cause their concept.
But they can fill the same concept with another class? Somebody could reply, yeah but they still enjoy their rogues.
Now you make some good points but they do not prove your assertion. Rogues in PF are somewhat frustating not because their concept but cause a combination of several thing that make their mechanics Flawed.
If their mechanics were solid I think nodoby would complain about their niche IMHO.
If their mechanics were solid, they'd have a totally different niche. The "skill guy" niche is irrelevant in Pathfinder, but that is the niche the Rogue fills.
So, yes, if the Rogue were a totally different class, I would evaluate them differently.
...Ok, so if the game system was different, I'd also re-evaluate them?
What are you proposing here? If the rules stay the same, there's no way to make a "skill guy" worth having, so if the Rogue stays a "skill guy," there's no reason to have a Rogue.
And people don't play the Rogue because they like the concept of "Skill guy," they play the Rogue because they like the concept of Han Solo or Malcolm Reynolds, and refuse to see how those guys could be Fighters with extra skill points.