|
The argument for combat viability stems from WoW's influence, after all. We may as well try and emulate that level of concept balance as far as combat is concerned.Argh, NO. Definitely not. It started when players were able to control their own characters and at 3.0 when things started getting more hitpoints.
True but it's only in the WoW years (like now) that their seems to be a one tracked minded approach to determining if a class is worth playing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would say it's also an issue that if you want to contribute to the adventure, you need to not be dead.
To not be dead, you need to kill things that want to kill you before they are able to accomplish such a goal.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
People have said that X class sucks since the dawn of time. the only difference is now they have a spreadsheet to prove it and the means of finding someone, somewhere, who will look at it.
|
|
I don't care about "lack of DPR". I do care about "useless in combat". If you contribute meaningfully, then that's great. We don't all have to be equal or even close necessarily. But if a character's in-combat contribution is 1d6+3 (or 3d6+9 on a full attack) and the monster has 250 hp, I'm ... not impressed. That character's ineffectiveness is likely to get someone else in the party killed, and that to me is unacceptable.
1) Rogue, Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Ranger
2) Bard, Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Ranger
Which...
Firstly, I say I find the fact that game designers have got us to the stage where you can make a statement like that is very sad. If I want to make a character that has a role outside of combat it appears I can't play D&D/PF any more. I thought d20's major break through was the ability to craft a character as YOU wanted to play?
In an adventure at sea, not having high swimming could get someone killed - should players who haven't maxed out swimming be banned from that game?
You single out what I think is the biggest mistake d20 made - unlimited hp rolls, this equates to needing monsters with stupid hp's and in turn requires 'boring' levels of damage. Damage output has become the d20 penis length - everyone bragging about size. Sigh.
As for the party - I would want to play in the group in which everyone was playing the character class/race they wanted and were having fun doing so. So (1) or (2) is fine by me. As GM I would attempt to provide challenges and entertainment for each player, independent of their 'incorrect' character choice.
S.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
..
Personally I dont think the Rogue should have competitive DPR. 75% DPR is about right, but not 95%.
I think he should be using non-magic attacks to inflict debuffs, crippling, disabling, or weakening the enemy in ways other than hitpoints.
Stop the enemy from being useful on their turn.
[Edit]They're not a fighter. They should be doing sneaky sneaky stuff, and fighting dirty, all the time.
But they do need the ability to contribute more in combat.
The argument for combat viability stems from WoW's influence, after all. We may as well try and emulate that level of concept balance as far as combat is concerned.Argh, NO. Definitely not. It started when players were able to control their own characters and at 3.0 when things started getting more hitpoints.
No, it started when gold was no longer a factor for Xp like it was in 1E and 2nd edition AD&D.
So you were forced to be able to fight for Xp.Thus, the players must all be combat viable to gain this.
..
Personally I dont think the Rogue should have competitive DPR. 75% DPR is about right, but not 95%.
I think he should be using non-magic attacks to inflict debuffs, crippling, disabling, or weakening the enemy in ways other than hitpoints.
Stop the enemy from being useful on their turn.
[Edit]They're not a fighter. They should be doing sneaky sneaky stuff, and fighting dirty, all the time.
But they do need the ability to contribute more in combat.
+1. Bleeding Attack* and Slow Reactions* are a step in the right direction. I think that Slow Reactions* is the best Rogue Talent out there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
More like that -5 hit is the most crippling part, not having the -15 iterative is just the twist of the knife.3. Low BAB: You have +15 BAB. Maximum 3 attacks.Well goodness, gracious -- how will they ever live with being cheated out of that -15 iterative?
+1
I have no idea why someone thought a scaling difference in BAB was a good idea. A +1 to hit is just as valuable at level 1 as it is at level 20.
A 5 point difference in BAB at level 20 is just poor design.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, it started when gold was no longer a factor for Xp like it was in 1E and 2nd edition AD&D.
So you were forced to be able to fight for Xp.Thus, the players must all be combat viable to gain this.
This might be true... if pc's could choose whether they wanted to hunt down traps or monsters for XP. This isn't what happens though. PC's have to deal with the (largely) rail roaded situation that the DM thrusts them into, and that is by and large combat with monsters.
More like that -5 hit is the most crippling part, not having the -15 iterative is just the twist of the knife.3. Low BAB: You have +15 BAB. Maximum 3 attacks.Well goodness, gracious -- how will they ever live with being cheated out of that -15 iterative?+1
I have no idea why someone thought a scaling difference in BAB was a good idea. A +1 to hit is just as valuable at level 1 as it is at level 20.
A 5 point difference in BAB at level 20 is just poor design.
Maybe it's a +5 BAB difference at level 20, but I think that classes with full BAB progression are "expected" to use feats that decrease their accuracy like Power Attack, Combat Expertise and such, while classes with 3/4 BAB progression are not. The Fighter gets extra damage from Power Attack, Weapon Training, Weapon Specialization and his extra iterative attack, while the Rogue get his extra damage from Sneak Attack. It turns out that Sneak Attack is not quite enough to make the Rogue "viable".
Maybe it's a +5 BAB difference at level 20, but I think that classes with full BAB progression are "expected" to use feats that decrease their accuracy like Power Attack, Combat Expertise and such, while classes with 3/4 BAB progression are not. The Fighter gets extra damage from Power Attack, Weapon Training, Weapon Specialization and his extra iterative attack, while the Rogue get his extra damage from Sneak Attack. It turns out that Sneak Attack is not quite enough to make the Rogue "viable".More like that -5 hit is the most crippling part, not having the -15 iterative is just the twist of the knife.3. Low BAB: You have +15 BAB. Maximum 3 attacks.Well goodness, gracious -- how will they ever live with being cheated out of that -15 iterative?+1
I have no idea why someone thought a scaling difference in BAB was a good idea. A +1 to hit is just as valuable at level 1 as it is at level 20.
A 5 point difference in BAB at level 20 is just poor design.
Here's the problem with that:every class that is expected to use those moves, also have a method of increasing their ability to hit, all the rogue can do either only make one attack or sell off their best attack, so that their other attacks might be able to hit, the biggest problem is that selling off their highest attack only removes the target's dex, which simply is not enough, and it doesn't compare to the ridiculous amounts of hit the other classes have.
The rogue should add int to hit, or get +1hit/d6 of sneak attack, but only when actually using sneak attack.
Actually, I meant "not doing magic" by "entirely confined to physics" in my original post.
I think bending what's physically possible is still being confined by physics, as opposed to the wizard's thought of "Physics? Oh yea, I had that for breakfast today with a side of froghemoth eggs."
And I'm asking you why.
Such as?
Beowulf, Hercules, Cuchullain, Roland, Siegfried, everyone involved in the Three Kingdoms, the list goes on.
Chances are, if it's a character from mythology or fiction, and it's a protagonist, it's a warrior or a rogue. In fact, I cannot off the top of my head think of any wizard protagonists from mythology, and a very decidedly few from fiction.
but to break the rules of physics you need magic.
Why?
|
|
but to break the rules of physics you need magic.Why?
That line between what is magic and not will never be defined except by a game designer saying 'here's the line guys' <insert new rule here>.
I think common sense can sort of provide guidance for the magic verses non-magic thing.
I would say if the effect is something that no one can do, it's magic. If the effect is an extension or extreme version of what someone can do then it's not magic. So flying = magic, lifting a tank = not magic (if physically done, not with say telekinesis). I'm sure people will point out shades of grey, but the GM is there to make calls on these shades of grey - it's in the job description.
Yes, it's a simple little World in my head...
S.
but to break the rules of physics you need magic.Why?That line between what is magic and not will never be defined except by a game designer saying 'here's the line guys' <insert new rule here>.
I think common sense can sort of provide guidance for the magic verses non-magic thing.
I would say if the effect is something that no one can do, it's magic. If the effect is an extension or extreme version of what someone can do then it's not magic. So flying = magic, lifting a tank = not magic (if physically done, not with say telekinesis). I'm sure people will point out shades of grey, but the GM is there to make calls on these shades of grey - it's in the job description.
Yes, it's a simple little World in my head...
S.
Perhaps I should clarify using 3e mechanics.
In 3e you have magical abilities, supernatural abilites, and extraordinary abilities. Why should all "change physics" mechanics lie in the first catagory?
I think people don't really get levels. Certainly at level 1 the rogue is just a skulking thief and pickpocket. And the wizard is just a newbie apprentice. The problem is that the "casters should be better" crowd thinks that is exactly where the rogue stays, even though the wizard eventually becomes the lovechild of superman and a demigod.
If the wizard goes from newbie apprentice to superman-demigod, why doesn't the rogue from skulking thief to stealing fire from the gods (and getting away with it)?
|
|
In 3e you have magical abilities, supernatural abilites, and extraordinary abilities. Why should all "change physics" mechanics lie in the first catagory?
I think people don't really get levels. Certainly at level 1 the rogue is just a skulking thief and pickpocket. And the wizard is just a newbie apprentice. The problem is that the "casters should be better" crowd thinks that is exactly where the rogue stays, even though the wizard eventually becomes the lovechild of superman and a demigod.
If the wizard goes from newbie apprentice to superman-demigod, why doesn't the rogue from skulking thief to stealing fire from the gods (and getting away with it)?
In the first case I would put Magical & Supernatural together and Extraordinary in another. The first two ignoring physics and the last bending physics.
You will get no argument from me other than to say magic is magic. If magic can't do things beyond 'normal' then what is so magical about it? It comes back to this mirage known as balance I guess?
Using 3.0 as a start point, it broke the thief (to use the old term), there were many things a thief could do that no other class could in 1e/2e. Along came skills and most of thief abilities became open to all cases. Sure even in the 1e AD&D days spells could replicate many thieving abilities, but spells were more horded by the casters. The chance of getting off a spell in combat was not good, the number of spells/day was less and go into unconsciousness and you lost all spells for that day. d20 gave casters way too much love in short.
I think the problem is more fundamental than 'rogue' - PF has the chance, again once it ditches any 3.5e connection, to make a really good game. The compatibility with 3.5e holds back PF from being truly great. I would like to think that PF 2.0 will be designed from the ground up and not need to have shoe horned 3.5e ideas into it.
Until then, we will see, I believe, fixes around the edges with core classes only.
S.
Beowulf, Hercules, Cuchullain, Roland, Siegfried, everyone involved in the Three Kingdoms, the list goes on.
What violations of the laws of physics are we reporting them for? Herculeus briefly carried the planet, but presuming the right cosmology its technically possible.
Beowulf, Hercules, Cuchullain, Roland, Siegfried, everyone involved in the Three Kingdoms, the list goes on.What violations of the laws of physics are we reporting them for? Herculeus briefly carried the planet, but presuming the right cosmology its technically possible.
Beowulf is inhumanly tough. The people involved in the Three Kingdoms think gravity is more of a suggestion than anything. I'm not sure which Siegfried is being talked about, I have a wild guess of Roland, but I can't recall what he did. I've never even heard of Cú Chulainn, before now, I suppose I could look him up, but he appears to be a Roman hero, so he will be amongst the least impressive on the list probably.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Firstly, I say I find the fact that game designers have got us to the stage where you can make a statement like that is very sad. If I want to make a character that has a role outside of combat it appears I can't play D&D/PF any more.
That's not the point.
The point is that the rogue can't do anything unique outside of combat anymore because his role has been eroded too much, and he isn't good at combat.
Nobody cares that the fighter doesn't have that much to do outside of combat because combat's his thing. People care that the rogue isn't good in a fight because other people can match and outperform him outside of combat as well.
In your game how balanced the classes are may not be important, but to a game designer it should be incredibly important. There shouldn't be trap classes that are a drag on the team; that is to say, if you want to make a character that's a drag on the team and the other players are fine with that, so be it -- but the game design shouldn't force that upon you for picking a rogue or monk or whatever.
Maybe it's a +5 BAB difference at level 20, but I think that classes with full BAB progression are "expected" to use feats that decrease their accuracy like Power Attack, Combat Expertise and such, while classes with 3/4 BAB progression are not. The Fighter gets extra damage from Power Attack, Weapon Training, Weapon Specialization and his extra iterative attack, while the Rogue get his extra damage from Sneak Attack. It turns out that Sneak Attack is not quite enough to make the Rogue "viable".More like that -5 hit is the most crippling part, not having the -15 iterative is just the twist of the knife.3. Low BAB: You have +15 BAB. Maximum 3 attacks.Well goodness, gracious -- how will they ever live with being cheated out of that -15 iterative?+1
I have no idea why someone thought a scaling difference in BAB was a good idea. A +1 to hit is just as valuable at level 1 as it is at level 20.
A 5 point difference in BAB at level 20 is just poor design.
Here's the problem with that:every class that is expected to use those moves, also have a method of increasing their ability to hit, all the rogue can do either only make one attack or sell off their best attack, so that their other attacks might be able to hit, the biggest problem is that selling off their highest attack only removes the target's dex, which simply is not enough, and it doesn't compare to the ridiculous amounts of hit the other classes have.
The rogue should add int to hit, or get +1hit/d6 of sneak attack, but only when actually using sneak attack.
I would prefer Rogues Talents that give you:
- Weapon Training (see Fighter) with light weapons;- Solo Tactics (see Inquisitor, good with Outflank or Precise Strike);
- the ability to make a touch attack as a standard or full-round action instead of a melee or ranged attack when your target is flat-footed, flanked or denied of its Dexterity bonus to AC.
The Alchemist receives as much Discoveries as the Rogue receives Rogue Talents. Discoveries are often better than feats, so the devs shouldn't be afraid of releasing strong Rogue Talents too, and the best of them should be exclusive to the Rogue (not Ninja).
A flat Intelligence bonus on hit would be too powerful IMO. An elven rogue with 16 Dex, 16 Int and Weapon Finesse (15 points buy) would have +6 on attack rolls at first level. It's like a 1st-level fighter with 18 Str and weapon focus. The Rogue shouldn't be better than the Fighter at hitting things.
|
|
Firstly, I say I find the fact that game designers have got us to the stage where you can make a statement like that is very sad. If I want to make a character that has a role outside of combat it appears I can't play D&D/PF any more.That's not the point.
The point is that the rogue can't do anything unique outside of combat anymore because his role has been eroded too much, and he isn't good at combat.
There shouldn't be trap classes that are a drag on the team; that is to say, if you want to make a character that's a drag on the team and the other players are fine with that, so be it -- but the game design shouldn't force that upon you for picking a rogue or monk or whatever.
I agree with you - uniqueness of the rogue was destroyed by the d20 system. I can't argue against that. But I think they are still a valid class to play, if that is your thing. They might not contribute something unique but they can contribute.
Again is it the fault of the rogue or the d20 mechanics and systems? I'm sure if the d20 system was developed in a different way the rogue would still be king of sneaky things outside of combat. They have tried, and apparently failed, to make the rogue relevant by making backstabbing in combat possible/easy and making everything backstabable (is that a word?) nearly. They have even added in WoW like 'crippling strikes' to the class - what's that WoW term, debuff? It comes down to what you see the place in the world is of the rogue, either the WoW big damage, light armored character or the original Gygax sneaky dude that wouldn't think of fighting face to face unless the opponent was tied up...
That is why I would love to see the smart game designers at Paizo, in the fullness of time, turn their attention to PF 2 - but while doing so surgically any thoughts of 3.5e from their minds.
S.
|
|
In your game how balanced the classes are may not be important, but to a game designer it should be incredibly important.
WotC did exactly this and people complained - 4e is quite well balanced, better so than 3.5e or PF in my experience. Less of those 'gotcha' traps you refer to with classes and feats. Mostly the classes just work and work about equally as well as anyone else characters.
S.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's because all the classes are the same :)
I would prefer Rogues Talents that give you:
- Weapon Training (see Fighter) with light weapons;
- Solo Tactics (see Inquisitor, good with Outflank or Precise Strike);
- the ability to make a touch attack as a standard or full-round action instead of a melee or ranged attack when your target is flat-footed, flanked or denied of its Dexterity bonus to AC.The Alchemist receives as much Discoveries as the Rogue receives Rogue Talents. Discoveries are often better than feats, so the devs shouldn't be afraid of releasing strong Rogue Talents too, and the best of them should be exclusive to the Rogue (not Ninja).
A flat Intelligence bonus on hit would be too powerful IMO. An elven rogue with 16 Dex and 16 Int (15 points buy) would have +6 on attack rolls at first level. It's like a 1st-level fighter with 18 Str and weapon focus. The Rogue shouldn't be better than the Fighter at hitting things.
Why not? They do precision damage, that means they should be better at being precise with their attacks. The fact of the matter is the fighter would still be way tougher than a rogue and he will still win the fight in the end, because he has more hp, and a better AC.
I'm pretty sure the Ninja is the replacement for the underpowered rogue, but I still don't think it clears up some of the most important issues the rogue has. Most of the ninja tricks are superior to feats.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've never even heard of Cú Chulainn, before now, I suppose I could look him up, but he appears to be a Roman hero, so he will be amongst the least impressive on the list probably.
Congratulations. You just pissed off the entire Irish population.
I'm getting told that it is, and I don't have enough experience with Rogues to agree or disagree. I've always leaned towards Ranger, Fighter, and Sorcerer. How does the Rogue stack up in combat to other classes as far as RAW is concerned?
The title of your thread is "Is the Rogue a WEAK class," weak being the operative word here. Define weak? If you define weak as being unable to charge into combat, screaming your warcry to alert foes to your presence, swing a big heavy weapon hoping to smite #and crit# an iron golem wielding a +5 Heavy Shield, and topple them to the hard unforgiving ground, then yes... a Rogue would be ill-suited for that style of play. However, if you prefer a character who deals with strategy and cunning, using stealth and skill to out-maneuver his opponents, then no, a Rogue is not a poor choice.
In straight up face-to-face combat, a Rogue is (usually) going to fare poorly against an equal level warrior class... a Fighter will out-damage him, a Ranger will out-shoot him, and let's not even get into what a raging Barbarian will do if he manages to hit our foolhardy scoundrel. But a Rogue who goes face-to-face in combat is either suicidal or holds his opponent in low esteem.
In my not-so-humble opinion, Rogues aren't meant to go toe-to-toe with equal level opponents. They are there to use their massive array of skills (with class skills unequaled by any other core class), to maneuver into strategic positions and then strike hard and sure (I like Bluff and Improved Feint for this, personally... you don't have to flank that way), and in short to be a trap-finding, wall-climbing, lock-picking, shadow-lurking, gold-swiping, lightning-dodging, horse-trading, smooth-talking, dungeon-exploring machine!!
So, are Rogues top-notch Fighters? ... No. That's what Fighters are for. Can you play a perfectly viable Rogue in most well-rounded campaigns? ...Yes, absolutely. Remember, although there are archetypes for both Rangers and Bards to duplicate some of the things Rogues can do, they sacrifice some of their own distinct abilities to do so, and do so to be more like Rogues than like their own class. All are viable play options but it's a matter of style, not raw power.
Doesn't matter. Each character gets X gold from adventuring. The wizard spends X/2 on crafting scrolls, the rogue spends X on buying scrolls. The wizard can create twice as much as the rogue can buy.
I'm not sure why the Rogue would be spending any money to buy scrolls... the Wizard in the example above was buying scrolls so he could attempt to do what the Rogue can do naturally, all day, every day. Also if the 5th-level Wizard is spending all his money or available spell slots on spells like Spider Climb, Invisibility, Detect Secret Doors, etc. then he is not using his resources to do things that NOBODY can do, like Fly, Fireball, Glitterdust, Stinking Cloud, Magic Missile, etc.
I'm not saying the Wizard could not find ways to emulate some rogue abilities because he clearly could. But it would take all his resources to do so, and then he wouldn't really be fulfilling the full potential of being a Wizard... just trying to keep up by compensating magic for skills doesn't make him a better rogue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've never even heard of Cú Chulainn, before now, I suppose I could look him up, but he appears to be a Roman hero, so he will be amongst the least impressive on the list probably.Congratulations. You just pissed off the entire Irish population.
No kidding. Cu Chulainn, less impressive? Yeah, from what I read, he'd give Beowulf a glimpse of the next world. That guy was crazy. Loved his near-cyloptic warp spasm.
That's because all the classes are the same :)
Laughably untrue.
In 3e you have magical abilities, supernatural abilites, and extraordinary abilities. Why should all "change physics" mechanics lie in the first catagory?
I think people don't really get levels. Certainly at level 1 the rogue is just a skulking thief and pickpocket. And the wizard is just a newbie apprentice. The problem is that the "casters should be better" crowd thinks that is exactly where the rogue stays, even though the wizard eventually becomes the lovechild of superman and a demigod.
If the wizard goes from newbie apprentice to superman-demigod, why doesn't the rogue from skulking thief to stealing fire from the gods (and getting away with it)?
In the first case I would put Magical & Supernatural together and Extraordinary in another. The first two ignoring physics and the last bending physics.
You will get no argument from me other than to say magic is magic. If magic can't do things beyond 'normal' then what is so magical about it? It comes back to this mirage known as balance I guess?
Using 3.0 as a start point, it broke the thief (to use the old term), there were many things a thief could do that no other class could in 1e/2e. Along came skills and most of thief abilities became open to all cases. Sure even in the 1e AD&D days spells could replicate many thieving abilities, but spells were more horded by the casters. The chance of getting off a spell in combat was not good, the number of spells/day was less and go into unconsciousness and you lost all spells for that day. d20 gave casters way too much love in short.
I think the problem is more fundamental than 'rogue' - PF has the chance, again once it ditches any 3.5e connection, to make a really good game. The compatibility with 3.5e holds back PF from being truly great. I would like to think that PF 2.0 will be designed from the ground up and not need to have shoe horned 3.5e ideas into it.
Until then, we will see, I believe, fixes around the edges with core classes only....
My problem is that your argument is ultimately circular.
"Wizards need to be stronger then everyone else because only they use magic, and only magic can break physics. Physics can only be broken by magic and only wizards can use magic, ergo they need to be stronger then everyone else."
Let me make my penultimate point in big bold letters: The idea that magic encompasses the supernatural, rather then the supernatural encompassing magic, is a bad one. It is one that does not appear in any source of fiction or mythology that I have found, and ultimately leads to the "wizards are the best" bizarre imbalance.
No kidding. Cu Chulainn, less impressive? Yeah, from what I read, he'd give Beowulf a glimpse of the next world. That guy was crazy. Loved his near-cyloptic warp spasm.I've never even heard of Cú Chulainn, before now, I suppose I could look him up, but he appears to be a Roman hero, so he will be amongst the least impressive on the list probably.Congratulations. You just pissed off the entire Irish population.
I was floored more by the Roman thing than anything else. But, yea, he was a badass.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Using 3.0 as a start point, it broke the thief (to use the old term), there were many things a thief could do that no other class could in 1e/2e. Along came skills and most of thief abilities became open to all cases. Sure even in the 1e AD&D days spells could replicate many thieving abilities, but spells were more horded by the casters. The chance of getting off a spell in combat was not good, the number of spells/day was less and go into unconsciousness and you lost all spells for that day. d20 gave casters way too much love in short.
This is a tangent I always get off on, but 1E and 2E weren't that kind to thieves either. They literally didn't have any ability (excepting maybe backstab, which wasn't really very good and was so ambiguously worded that how it worked varied wildly from DM to DM) that a 1st or 2nd level spell couldn't do, and usually do better. A hypothetical 100th level thief couldn't find magical traps more than half the time; a 3rd level cleric could do it every time with Find Traps.
Gary Gygax was, as far as thieves were concerned, a sadist who appeared to be a fan of the concept but really created the first Trap Character in D&D by ensuring it could never really be good at what was supposed to be its things. We gloss over that in our rose-colored 1e/2e memories but those games were brutal to poor thieves.
I would prefer Rogues Talents that give you:
- Weapon Training (see Fighter) with light weapons;
- Solo Tactics (see Inquisitor, good with Outflank or Precise Strike);
- the ability to make a touch attack as a standard or full-round action instead of a melee or ranged attack when your target is flat-footed, flanked or denied of its Dexterity bonus to AC.The Alchemist receives as much Discoveries as the Rogue receives Rogue Talents. Discoveries are often better than feats, so the devs shouldn't be afraid of releasing strong Rogue Talents too, and the best of them should be exclusive to the Rogue (not Ninja).
A flat Intelligence bonus on hit would be too powerful IMO. An elven rogue with 16 Dex and 16 Int (15 points buy) would have +6 on attack rolls at first level. It's like a 1st-level fighter with 18 Str and weapon focus. The Rogue shouldn't be better than the Fighter at hitting things.
Why not? They do precision damage, that means they should be better at being precise with their attacks. The fact of the matter is the fighter would still be way tougher than a rogue and he will still win the fight in the end, because he has more hp, and a better AC.
I'm pretty sure the Ninja is the replacement for the underpowered rogue, but I still don't think it clears up some of the most important issues the rogue has. Most of the ninja tricks are superior to feats.
Because Rogues are supposed to be the best at hurting opponents who can't defend themself efficiently (fanked, flat-footed, etc.), they are not supposed to be the best at killing things in a fair fight, that's the Fighter job. Should the Rogue have ways to get bonus on attack rolls under some circumstances? Of course! Should he have ways to help him create those circumstances? Yes again. Should he be better at swinging a sword or firing a bow than someone who can't do nothing else (the Fighter)? No, at least not IMO.
Using 3.0 as a start point, it broke the thief (to use the old term), there were many things a thief could do that no other class could in 1e/2e. Along came skills and most of thief abilities became open to all cases. Sure even in the 1e AD&D days spells could replicate many thieving abilities, but spells were more horded by the casters. The chance of getting off a spell in combat was not good, the number of spells/day was less and go into unconsciousness and you lost all spells for that day. d20 gave casters way too much love in short.
This is a tangent I always get off on, but 1E and 2E weren't that kind to thieves either. They literally didn't have any ability (excepting maybe backstab, which wasn't really very good and was so ambiguously worded that how it worked varied wildly from DM to DM) that a 1st or 2nd level spell couldn't do, and usually do better. A hypothetical 100th level thief couldn't find magical traps more than half the time; a 3rd level cleric could do it every time with Find Traps.
Gary Gygax was, as far as thieves were concerned, a sadist who appeared to be a fan of the concept but really created the first Trap Character in D&D by ensuring it could never really be good at what was supposed to be its things. We gloss over that in our rose-colored 1e/2e memories but those games were brutal to poor thieves.
In 2E, finding a trap wouldn't help you very much if you were unable to disarm it. Casting fly on all the party members to skip over a single trap is not what I call effective ressources management. Even if the Thief was a really weak class, it had his uses. Then again, playing a Fighter/Thief was still a better option. Oh, and the devs "knew" that the Thief was a crappy class, so they gave him a fast level progression to make up for it.
The title of your thread is "Is the Rogue a WEAK class," weak being the operative word here. Define weak? If you define weak as being unable to charge into combat, screaming your warcry to alert foes to your presence, swing a big heavy weapon hoping to smite #and crit# an iron golem wielding a +5 Heavy Shield, and topple them to the hard unforgiving ground, then yes... a Rogue would be ill-suited for that style of play. However, if you prefer a character who deals with strategy and cunning, using stealth and skill to out-maneuver his opponents, then no, a Rogue is not a poor choice.
In straight up face-to-face combat, a Rogue is (usually) going to fare poorly against an equal level warrior class... a Fighter will out-damage him, a Ranger will out-shoot him, and let's not even get into what a raging Barbarian will do if he manages to hit our foolhardy scoundrel. But a Rogue who goes face-to-face in combat is either suicidal or holds his opponent in low esteem.
In my not-so-humble opinion, Rogues aren't meant to go toe-to-toe with equal level opponents. They are there to use their massive array of skills (with class skills unequaled by any other core class), to maneuver into strategic positions and then strike hard and sure (I like Bluff and Improved Feint for this, personally... you don't have to flank that way), and in short to be a trap-finding, wall-climbing, lock-picking, shadow-lurking, gold-swiping, lightning-dodging, horse-trading, smooth-talking, dungeon-exploring machine!!
So, are Rogues top-notch Fighters? ... No. That's what Fighters are for. Can you play a perfectly viable Rogue in most well-rounded...
The problem, as has been pointed out, is that all of the things that you just listed rogues as being good for can be done BETTER by other classes that are at the same time more useful during combat. The ranger and the bard being the most obvious examples of this.
|
|
That's because all the classes are the same :)That's where the ultimate search for balance gets you...
i would agree with Cheapy here, in 4th ed all the classes ARE the same. They do damage...or they do damage. Little variation.
Its always going to be hard to balance thing that aren't all the same like in 4th ed but i think with a few exception pathfinder hasn't done to bad a job considering it tried to be compatible with 3.5.
Unfortunately one of those exceptions is the rogue. I still reckon a dev at paizo hates them though lol.
That's because all the classes are the same :)That's where the ultimate search for balance gets you...i would agree with Cheapy here, in 4th ed all the classes ARE the same. They do damage...or they do damage. Little variation.
Its always going to be hard to balance thing that aren't all the same like in 4th ed but i think with a few exception pathfinder hasn't done to bad a job considering it tried to be compatible with 3.5.
Unfortunately one of those exceptions is the rogue. I still reckon a dev at paizo hates them though lol.
I thought that the Wizard in 4E was all about battlefield control. I never played 4E so I might be wrong.
No kidding. Cu Chulainn, less impressive? Yeah, from what I read, he'd give Beowulf a glimpse of the next world. That guy was crazy. Loved his near-cyloptic warp spasm.I've never even heard of Cú Chulainn, before now, I suppose I could look him up, but he appears to be a Roman hero, so he will be amongst the least impressive on the list probably.Congratulations. You just pissed off the entire Irish population.
Oh, my mistake. Why the heck does wikipedia have him in red and bronze then? Most of the Irish heroes are awesome, typically going out by themselves and steam-rolling things that usually take armies to accomplish. The Roman ones were still kinda lame, they generally amounted to "better fighter than everyone around them" which is not the way you hero.
Most of the Irish heroes are awesome, typically going out by themselves and steam-rolling things that usually take armies to accomplish
Then we have Finn McCool, who got so pissed off at a Scottish rival that he picked up a chunk of earth, threw it at him FROM ACROSS THE IRISH SEA, and missed, hitting the sea and creating the Isle of Man.
..
Personally I dont think the Rogue should have competitive DPR. 75% DPR is about right, but not 95%.
I think he should be using non-magic attacks to inflict debuffs, crippling, disabling, or weakening the enemy in ways other than hitpoints.
Stop the enemy from being useful on their turn.
[Edit]They're not a fighter. They should be doing sneaky sneaky stuff, and fighting dirty, all the time.
But they do need the ability to contribute more in combat.
I'm now thinking about adapting the Battle Oracles revelation, Maneuver Mastery, for use as a rogue talent.
|
|
No, it started when gold was no longer a factor for Xp like it was in 1E and 2nd edition AD&D.
So you were forced to be able to fight for Xp.Thus, the players must all be combat viable to gain this.
It's still a problem in my games, and I just give a flat amount of XP per session, with bonus for good RPing.
|
|
I'm now thinking about adapting the Battle Oracles revelation, Maneuver Mastery, for use as a rogue talent...
Personally I dont think the Rogue should have competitive DPR. 75% DPR is about right, but not 95%.
I think he should be using non-magic attacks to inflict debuffs, crippling, disabling, or weakening the enemy in ways other than hitpoints.
Stop the enemy from being useful on their turn.
[Edit]They're not a fighter. They should be doing sneaky sneaky stuff, and fighting dirty, all the time.
But they do need the ability to contribute more in combat.
Yeah. they could use some more rogue talents that are good.
I just finished writing a first draft of a Rogue Archetype because of this thread. I sent it to a couple people to test it. I was hoping it could be my first foray into 3pp.
I'm now thinking about adapting the Battle Oracles revelation, Maneuver Mastery, for use as a rogue talent...
Personally I dont think the Rogue should have competitive DPR. 75% DPR is about right, but not 95%.
I think he should be using non-magic attacks to inflict debuffs, crippling, disabling, or weakening the enemy in ways other than hitpoints.
Stop the enemy from being useful on their turn.
[Edit]They're not a fighter. They should be doing sneaky sneaky stuff, and fighting dirty, all the time.
But they do need the ability to contribute more in combat.
Yeah. they could use some more rogue talents that are good.
I just finished writing a first draft of a Rogue Archetype because of this thread. I sent it to a couple people to test it. I was hoping it could be my first foray into 3pp.
All it means is that the guard hears you and looks, but doesn't see anything and shrugs it off as his imagination. Thus he is still unaware of your presence.Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with invisibility affecting all stealth vs perception checks.
I have a problem with a level 2 spell granting a +20 to a skill for 1 min/level plus giving you hide in plain sight and a 50% miss chance.
Acute Senses and See Invisibility are the natural counters to invisibility for most low-level classes.
That's because all the classes are the same :)
If you believe that "the same" is a synonym for "unique" then I would would agree with you.
However, this would be at odds with the conventional definition of "the same" in the English language.
So I must conclude that you either have no clue about 4e, or the English language.