Wanting to change stealth WITHOUT re-releasing the rules set for a new edition is class. I am proud that Paizo are looking to improve the gaming experience without needing to improve their bottom line at the expense of the players.
Considering the stealth changes as a proof of concept, how about looking at the rogue next?
I'll be the first one to propose that this is CRAZY different compared to errata-ing a skill (which is proving complex of itself, I mean you are in the 2nd playtest now?) AND you'd be about the only gaming company to date to change a class this way but if there is one thing that is calling out for a change it is the rogue class.
We can't ALL take Ninja's and the trapfinding schtick is either circumstantial depending on the campaign or readily gained by archetypes. The rogue is not really 'relevant' any more. It remains the premier skill monkey but is very closely chased by other classes who can manage 6 skills a level and get so much more in other ways.
When sitting around the water cooler, have a think about it... you are already breaking ground with Stealth... why not have a crack at this too?
Why can't you take the ninja?
Will your GM not let you take the Shadow Rogue?
Or the Umbral Thief?
Cheapy wrote: Why can't you take the ninja?
Precisely! I thought they already took a stab at it (pun intended) and called it the Ninja. It's a step in the right direction at least.
Cheapy wrote: Why can't you take the ninja? Because while the ninja handles some kinds of skill monkeys quite well, it's something of a specialist. As such, it may not be the best framework around which to build other, quite different, kinds of skill monkeys. If I were shooting for a daring swashbuckler or a cunning trapsmith, for example, I'd want to modify most or all of poison use, ki pool, no trace, light steps, and hidden master, plus the proficiencies.
That is, there are certain archetypical skill monkey characters for which the ninja is poorly suited. I can try to adapt the ninja by building archetypes, but these archetypes would require rather extensive modifications, which suggests to me that I'm trying to use a round hole to fit a square peg.
The rogue, on the other hand, provides a fairly flexible framework around which to build skill monkeys, essentially because the list of class features isn't particularly long or particularly focused. Unfortunately, the rogue doesn't provide a strong framework around which to build skill monkeys, essentially because the list of class features is also not particularly good. I'm not sure where I'd start to fix the rogue, but markedly better rogue talents might be a good place to look.
To put it another way, let's suppose there are only two divine casting classes, the druid and the nerfcleric (a nerfed version of the cleric, of course). The original question is essentially a request to fix the nerfcleric, and your response is to play a druid.
But let's suppose I want to be a priest of the goddess of war, or the lord of madness, or some other such thing. I could play a straight druid, but the druid has a lot of class features that don't cater to that concept. I can go ahead and use the class features that don't fit, in which case I've had to sacrifice character concept on the altar of character strength. I can also choose not to use the class features that don't fit, in which case I've had to sacrifice character strength on the altar of character concept. I could redesign the druid to give it more apt class features, but then I may have to redo that every time I come up with a different concept.
Or I could just fix the nerfcleric and get something that's flexible enough to handle a wide variety of character concepts, and strong enough to be useful. That's what I'd want to see out of a fixed rogue, and I don't feel that the ninja provides it.
I don't understand. What can the rogue do that the ninja can't do, other than trap finding?
Your example only works in the broadest of senses. A ninja is fundamentally the same as a rogue, except with much better abilities. The only connection a druid has a to a cleric is that they both cast divine spells...and even then from vastly different sources.
Want to take a rogue archetype? Sure, just replace poison use and no trace instead of trapfinding and trap sense.
Aren't archetypes the very idea of redoing the class's features whenever you come up with a different concept?
Don't like the eastern flavor of the ninja? Well then you have the Assassin-Thief. Or just a thief. Or an opportunist. Or whatever else you feel like calling it.
Paizo already did try to fix the rogue. We got the ninja from that. Changing a skill is vastly, vastly different from changing an entire core class. I see where Helaman is coming from, and it would be nice. But the ninja is their attempt.
It's not what the rogue can do that the ninja can't, it's that the ninja has a ton of class features which work in concert to funnel a ninja in certain directions. "Alternate class" or not, the ninja isn't fundamentally the same thing as the rogue, the ninja is fundamentally the same thing as a particular kind of rogue.
It boggles my mind that you don't see the relevance of the druid vs the cleric. The principle should be obvious. The druid has class features that will tend to funnel him toward being a nature priest, while the cleric has broadly defined class features that let him fill a host of divine caster roles equally well. If the only viable divine caster is a nature priest, the game is missing something. The ranger has class features which tend to funnel him toward being wilderness scout guy, while the fighter has broadly defined class features that let him fill a host of warrior roles equally well. If the only viable warrior is wilderness scout guy, the game is missing something.
By the same token, many of the ninja's class features tend to funnel him toward being stealthy, acrobatic mobility guy, while the rogue's relative lack of class features allows him to fill a host of skill monkey roles equally well... or, as the case may be, equally badly. I thus conclude that the game is missing something.
Let's say I want to be the daring swashbuckler. There's a whole lot of ninja stuff I'll want to swap out:
I don't have any need for poison use.
Parts of ki pool aren't really up my alley (parts of it are).
A lot of the ninja tricks I have no use for, and the ones that I do have a use for generally don't play well with ki pool, which further serves to weaken that feature.
No trace is not relevant to me.
Light steps is useful, but there's not a lot about "daring swashbuckler" that says "I can walk on water."
Meanwhile, I'm missing evasion, though I can snag it with a trick. I'm missing proficiencies with the weapons I'll want to use, but presumably I can talk my DM into some trading there.
Let's say I want to be a cunning trapsmith. There's a whole lot of stuff I'll want to swap out:
Ki pool wants me to be stealthy and acrobatic; what does that have to do with me?
No trace still isn't relevant to me.
The only part of light steps that is relevant is the ability to not trigger mechanical traps by stepping on them.
Meanwhile, I'm missing trapfinding and trap sense (which, okay, who cares about trap sense).
These are just two examples that immediately sprang to mind, because I was looking at updating some old skillmonkey characters from way back when to pathfinder, and have concluded that the ninja isn't really a good fit for them. Yes, I can make it work, but it's clearly a case of square peg, round hole.
Because changing an entire core class is, as I completely agree, a nonstarter, I think you have to look at ways of making its existing class abilities better. Giving us better rogue-focused feats and better rogue talents immediately springs to mind as a versatile way of doing so. "Good rogues are stealthy and acrobatic" does not.
But trapfinding is irrelevant.
meatrace wrote: But trapfinding is irrelevant. +1
Also what Ninja tricks don't play well with Ki pool?
I can see some that make it irrelevent but none that wouldn't work well because of it.
I'm not saying that the rogue has no focusing class features, just that the rogue has a limited number of them. Unsurprisingly, most rogue archetypes replace trapfinding and trap sense with abilities that in principle help them do what the archetype is intended to do. That's a limited number of substitutions to make.
Meanwhile, if I wanted to do the same thing with a ninja, I'm quite possibly staring at modifying ki pool, poison use, no trace, and light steps. Personally, I'd rather not have to modify half of a class' features to go from sneaky assassin to daring swashbuckler to cunning trapsmith to charming rake to clever detective.
Look, no one is saying that the ninja is a bad class, just that it's a more specialized class. I love me some rangers, but I'd rather not have to start with ranger if I want to create knight in shining armor. Sure, I can do it... but it's not ideal.
Lastly, what I meant by ninja tricks that don't play well with ki pool is that generally, the ninja tricks that use ki pool are ninja tricks that I don't want; hence, significant loss of utility. Could have been clearer.
ETA: Also, notice that for all their irrelevance, trapfinding and trap sense are also fairly minor class features.
Edit, because I'm an idiot: I inexplicably forgot to mention no trace. Also, because this is going to get me into trouble without clarification - yes, trapfinding and trap sense are fairly minor class features. Excepting ki pool, so are the ninja ones I don't like. There's just more of them.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Glendwyr I hear you . All though I thank that most of the rouge's lack of power is due to poor DMs(not to insult are to derail this therd) but what you are saying is right if I want a.rouge I want a rouge not a ninja.
But I all so see this problem being fix with some more rouge talents and feats pointed there way. I would like to see pazio try this first before a completed make over.qu
I have to echo what Glendwyr has been posting.
I don't want to play the Ninja - even if I rename it 'Rogue' and staple it into my CRB. Its flavour (not the fluff but the leaning of the class features) is not always what I trying to achieve. It fits the stealthy assassin/mystic pretty well - lots of people love it.
I don't necessarily want that each and every time.
The underlying strength of the rogue is that it can be just about anything you want from thug, to acrobat even to surgeon or diplomat, and do it reasonably well. Its weakness is that the one or two things that make it unique aren't a) always relevant and/or useful and b) aren't actually unique anymore.
Throwing the core class under the bus or leaving it as the worst of the class options is subpar game design, and for Paizo, (who have done some great work in class design since the release of the CRB), it can be a lot better now with just some extra work. In fact back in the days of the CRB it sorta tried to hang in there... but with all the new archetypes, new base classes (and alternates) and new feats/options, they have just lagged further and further behind.
We don't take the paladins smite evil and hand it to other classes, nor do we give 'spell combat' of the magus to an archetype of clerics and so on. In fact the whole reason why trapfinding went to other classes is because the feature is occasionally useful and desirable (your game mileage may vary) but no one wanted to play a rogue because they (even when they were unique) didn't work/play well as a character class.
It doesn't take much to keep that framework and strengthen it - I am not a game designer. I've seen some good stuff suggested and listed as house rules. I'd like to see what Paizo can do to fix it. Maybe its level as BAB on flanking/sneak attacks, maybe its bonuses to certain combat maneuvers, maybe its inspiration bonuses to pulling off great stuff or maybe its skill features.
There are plenty of examples of classes getting other class abilities, or stepping on the toes of other classes. Inspire Courage can be used by 3 classes now. The tactician ability can be used by 3 or 4. And the Tactician archetype is stepping on the toes of the ranger as a skillful fighter. There's a ranger archetype that gives Rage.
The rogue is by no means the only one this happens to.
Myself? I'm perfectly happy with my Cad (nominally ninja) who uses his Cunning (ki) to do amazing things. He wears a big froofy hat and flamboyant clothes, and always has a rapier and a bottle of wine on hand.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
I think we should begin with limiting Rogue to one sneak attack per round.
;-)
Gorbacz, you forgot your :trollface:
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Zerombr wrote: Gorbacz, you forgot your :trollface: \
Me, trolling? Perish the thought, what gave you the idea?
To make the Ninja a Swashbuckler
I don't have any need for poison use.
Switch Poison use back to trap finding
Parts of ki pool aren't really up my alley (parts of it are).
Keep Ki Pool, rename it something like Panache or a similar name
A lot of the ninja tricks I have no use for, and the ones that I do have a use for generally don't play well with ki pool, which further serves to weaken that feature.
Use the ones you want, maybe change the ones that affect shurikens to affect thrown daggers
No trace is not relevant to me.
I'll be honest I got nothing
Light steps is useful, but there's not a lot about "daring swashbuckler" that says "I can walk on water."
Perhaps a bonus to acrobatics checks and movement in a crowded urban setting, I'm throwing that at the wall to see if it sticks.
Meanwhile, I'm missing evasion, though I can snag it with a trick. I'm missing proficiencies with the weapons I'll want to use, but presumably I can talk my DM into some trading there.
Change the proficiencies back to the standard rogue ones, maybe add in the whip and give buckler proficiency or any other swashbuckling weapons
I had a nice, long, thoughtful post all written up. This is not it. Instead I'll just say this: I'm glad that some of you find the ninja a good, general-purpose fix for a rogue. I don't, and apparently I'm not alone. I respectfully submit that "the ninja works for me so it ought to work for you" is patently unhelpful, and that were "just make something up" a good solution, we wouldn't have the ninja in the first place.
My problem with the rogue is that he doesn't really have a strong focus, other than "being roguish".
What does a fighter do? He fights.
A barbarian? He rages.
A druid? He harnesses the power of nature to ... do stuff.
Wizard? Arcane powah!
Bard? Jack-of-all-trades par none! And amazing support.
Rogues? Well...they do roguish things.
What they're supposed to do is poorly defined. And to boot, they are mostly things that aren't really definable to a class. At least, I think "trapfinding" is more applicable to a multitude of classes than "flying into a terrifying rage and tearing your enemies asunder". Be the face? Anyone can be the face with the skill investment and a decent Charisma.
Do decent damage in some situations? Well, Paladin does that. As does the Ranger. And the Cavalier.
It has the problem that it's a catch-all class. It needs a stronger definition to really shine.
The ninja? Their schtick (without archetypes) is mobility, movement, and doing good damage. They're a mobile opponent that will punish you for not knowing where they are. That's a fairly strong definition.
Archetypes are a poor way to fix the Rogue, tbh. It's so weak that you'd need to straight up add new features without taking anything away.
It'd be great for an official fix, but beyond the ninja, I think that's not going to happen. At least until the second edition. That's why I find the ninja "good enough." To me, it's unrealistic to think that rogues would get fixed.
There are a number of ways to fix the rogue, or to provide the flavor of the rogue with different classes. Quite a few homebrew, a few archetypes (archaeologist is amazing), and some third party stuff. I know I'm working on something to fix the rogue for a publisher, and I can only assume there are other attempts in the works.
Cheapy wrote: My problem with the rogue is that he doesn't really have a strong focus, other than "being roguish". I'd say that the rogue's shtick is meant to be "guy who has all the skills" but no, that's not a strong focus. Nor, for example, is "he fights," since half the classes in pathfinder fight. "Flying into a terrifying rage and tearing your enemies asunder" is just a particular style of fighting, after all. Lacking a strong focus isn't inherently bad, because it facilitates players picking their own focus.
To use an off-beat analogy... Rogues are unflavored yoghurt. It's pretty bland and not very interesting. But if I want berry yoghurt, I just add berries, and if I want peach yoghurt, I just add peaches. Ninjas are tzatziki. I happen to like tzatziki. But if I add berries to it, I don't get berry yoghurt, I get crap.
That said, I'm in complete agreement that archetypes won't fix the rogue, nor is an official fix likely to happen. Better talents/feats are about the best I can see coming, and that's a band-aid.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Once again my group and players must be doing something wrong. We find that the rogue who sets him/herself up with charges, flanks, and sneak attacks to be among the routine premier damage dealers in our capaign. The various skills used to move about the battlefield, the awesome rogue talents, the multitude of feats and archetypes available just add to the fun.
I have a group of 5+ gamers, and so far we don't think blasting is a dumb way to play a wizard, we don't think rogues need help, we think monks are uber, and we don't think the game needs changed at all.
We must be gaming wrong.
Bomanz wrote: Once again my group and players must be doing something wrong. We find that the rogue who sets him/herself up with charges, flanks, and sneak attacks to be among the routine premier damage dealers in our capaign. The various skills used to move about the battlefield, the awesome rogue talents, the multitude of feats and archetypes available just add to the fun.
I have a group of 5+ gamers, and so far we don't think blasting is a dumb way to play a wizard, we don't think rogues need help, we think monks are uber, and we don't think the game needs changed at all.
We must be gaming wrong.
You aren't gaming wrong, you just arent giving any attention to optimization, which is just fine. In the end a group can make anything work by convention, but there are certain mathematical truths out there in terms of the potential of the rules. And the rogues low potential damage output is mathematically provable. Does that mean it will hold true for every group? Ofcourse not. Groups have their own conventions that shape their game in terms of play style and preferences in character.
No one is saying a rogue cant be fun, or do damage, they are saying in comparison to other classes it lacks potential. Your group probably isn't exploiting the potential of every class (and thats just fine) and your dm has conciously or unconciously accounted for that. This is of course what is supposed to happen, but that doesn't mean the rules and their potential cant use shoring up.
Kolokotroni wrote: Bomanz wrote: Once again my group and players must be doing something wrong. We find that the rogue who sets him/herself up with charges, flanks, and sneak attacks to be among the routine premier damage dealers in our capaign. The various skills used to move about the battlefield, the awesome rogue talents, the multitude of feats and archetypes available just add to the fun.
I have a group of 5+ gamers, and so far we don't think blasting is a dumb way to play a wizard, we don't think rogues need help, we think monks are uber, and we don't think the game needs changed at all.
We must be gaming wrong.
You aren't gaming wrong, you just arent giving any attention to optimization, which is just fine. In the end a group can make anything work by convention, but there are certain mathematical truths out there in terms of the potential of the rules. And the rogues low potential damage output is mathematically provable. Does that mean it will hold true for every group? Ofcourse not. Groups have their own conventions that shape their game in terms of play style and preferences in character.
I would much rather play a bard for the party scout/face.
No one is saying a rogue cant be fun, or do damage, they are saying in comparison to other classes it lacks potential. Your group probably isn't exploiting the potential of every class (and thats just fine) and your dm has conciously or unconciously accounted for that. This is of course what is supposed to happen, but that doesn't mean the rules and their potential cant use shoring up. I remember back in 3.5, my group thought that rogues were amazing damage dealers. Now, in PF, I can make a Alchmist(Vivisectionist) that can put any rogue build I come up with to shame in the damage department while having way more out of combat flexibility due to extracts.
Rogue's can do good damage, the problem is that they have to take a huge hit to their skills to do it.
Quote: We must be gaming wrong. Wrong, no. Unoptimized, yes.
Glendwyr wrote: Cheapy wrote: My problem with the rogue is that he doesn't really have a strong focus, other than "being roguish". I'd say that the rogue's shtick is meant to be "guy who has all the skills" but no, that's not a strong focus. Nor, for example, is "he fights," since half the classes in pathfinder fight. "Flying into a terrifying rage and tearing your enemies asunder" is just a particular style of fighting, after all. Lacking a strong focus isn't inherently bad, because it facilitates players picking their own focus.
To use an off-beat analogy... Rogues are unflavored yoghurt. It's pretty bland and not very interesting. But if I want berry yoghurt, I just add berries, and if I want peach yoghurt, I just add peaches. Ninjas are tzatziki. I happen to like tzatziki. But if I add berries to it, I don't get berry yoghurt, I get crap.
That said, I'm in complete agreement that archetypes won't fix the rogue, nor is an official fix likely to happen. Better talents/feats are about the best I can see coming, and that's a band-aid. You don't want tzatziki, fine. If when you add berries to your yogurt you get weaksauce try starting with berries. Try one of the many other classes with roguelike archetypes and see if you can find a fit. It'll almost certainly be stronger than building towards the same concept from the rogue side.
Atarlost wrote: Try one of the many other classes with roguelike archetypes and see if you can find a fit. It'll almost certainly be stronger than building towards the same concept from the rogue side. Where possible, that's exactly what one does. I love the archaeologist bard and the urban ranger, for example. But "if you want a rogue-like character, don't play a rogue!" is simply recognizing the problem.
Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules
|
