Any potential problems with Rogue's getting full BAB?
I haven't noticed that. In most of the games I've run, the rogue either hasn't be able to sneak or hasn't be able to hit when they do sneak. Maybe it's just crappy roles.
But the real issue is that they're floating off in their own little world of not melee, not spell casting, not really much of anything useful. A full BAB might resolve that in my mind.
Players are gravitating toward ranger instead of rogue these days at my gaming table and I'd like to see if I can swing it back or at least provide them with a viable alternative to ranger.
|
Aside from giving an unnecessary boost to a class that already has one of the highest potential damage outputs?
A better question might be "Why do you feel Rogues need a full BAB?"
... were you serious in your first sentence ?
The real reason most rogues fail at their job is because they try to go TWFing. If you need to give the rogue a boost, let the player play a ninja and write "rogue" instead of "ninja" on the sheet.
"Trailblazer" ruleset gives Rogues full BAB only under the conditions of sneak attack. I thought that was a great rule, because that is the rogue's moment of glory, they shouldn't have to *whiff* all the time.
Lots of good hacks in that book, actually. I'm a fan.
Rangers get full BAB. Monks get full BAB with Flurry of Blows. I think Rogues should get full BAB. This will make them very accurate with Sneak Attack since its against flat-footed AC, but a Rogue is not able to reliably Sneak Attack every round in every encounter.
Any potential problems with Rogue's getting full BAB?
Not in my opinion. But then again, I do 90%+ of my playing in levels 1-8, so we're talking about a +1 or +2 bonus to hit and an earlier iterative attack. That's pretty small potatoes.
|
... were you serious in your first sentence ?Aside from giving an unnecessary boost to a class that already has one of the highest potential damage outputs?
A better question might be "Why do you feel Rogues need a full BAB?"
Yes actually. YMMV, but in my experience Rogues deal out damage that is usually the envy of most martial classes, except maybe Paladins when they are fighting an evil foe (or worse an evil undead/dragon/outsider). Maybe it's due to our groups making every effort to provide flanking opportunities or our Rogues utilizing stealth and speed to sneak attack with almost every hit.
The real reason most rogues fail at their job is because they try to go TWFing.
That much I actually do agree with. But that is an optimizing fail, not a class issue.
Having the Rogue use full BAB on sneak attack does seem to keep to the flavor of Pathfinder. I own a copy of Trailblazer but haven't looked at in a while. Guess it's time to revisit.
In 3.5 there wasn't an issue with the rogue getting sneak attack, but in Pathfinder it seems like the usual ways are more difficult (Tumbling is harder at low levels and even sometimes at higher levels and my players don't like to take the hit I guess). I've added a house rule to allow rogues to use sneak attack on a successful Knowledge check of the appropriate type (every 5 above allows them one additional round of sneak). It's not a lot but does give them an additional avenue for sneaking.
I'm not sure any of these will lure them away from the Ranger, but you never know.
I use a TWF rogue and I do quite nicely. However, I should point out that I have a few 3PP that help such as using Dex to my melee damage instead of Str, Assassinating weapons, and Tome of Battle maneuvers/stances. These help, at least for me, keep my character dealing a good amount of damage that exceeds most of the PCs at the table.
I also really really like the idea of Rogues gaining Full BAB when they can apply their Sneak Attack damage.
I think the rogue shouldn't get a full BAB for any reason, it messes with a lot of things, like power attack. I do however think that for every odd-numbered sneak attack die, they should get a +1 to hit.
Level
1 +1hit +1d6
3 +1hit +2d6
5 +2hit +3d6
etc.
I think the rogue shouldn't get a full BAB for any reason, it messes with a lot of things, like power attack. I do however think that for every odd-numbered sneak attack die, they should get a +1 to hit.
Level
1 +1hit +1d6
3 +1hit +2d6
5 +2hit +3d6
etc.
aka +1 to hit for every 4 levels of Rogue, for a total of +5 at level 20 (almost as if they had a full BAB . . .). Would this particular suggestion be to limit the amount of attacks a rogue can do in a round (by having a full BAB to hit but only 3/4 BAB worth of additional attacks)?
I do admit i would like a full BAB for a rogue. While i respect the amount of damage a rogue can put out, its a lot of situational damage. If you have the skill to strike at a vital point of an enemy then you should easily be able to hit your enemy (though some could argue that since you keep aiming for weak spots and don't focus on plain hitting like a fighter or barb you would miss more). Just my 2 copper sense
aka +1 to hit for every 4 levels of Rogue, for a total of +5 at level 20 (almost as if they had a full BAB . . .). Would this particular suggestion be to limit the amount of attacks a rogue can do in a round (by having a full BAB to hit but only 3/4 BAB worth of additional attacks)?
I do admit i would like a full BAB for a rogue. While i respect the amount of damage a rogue can put out, its a lot of situational damage. If you have the skill to strike at a vital point of an enemy then you should easily be able to hit your enemy (though some could argue that since you keep aiming for weak spots and don't focus on plain hitting like a fighter or barb you would miss more). Just my 2 copper sense
It would actually be a +5 at 17. Now, if we wanted to make the rogue a powerful class, it would be +1 hit every sneak attack die, but only half of it applies when you aren't using sneak attack.
|
I think the rogue shouldn't get a full BAB for any reason, it messes with a lot of things, like power attack. I do however think that for every odd-numbered sneak attack die, they should get a +1 to hit.
Level
1 +1hit +1d6
3 +1hit +2d6
5 +2hit +3d6
etc.
Which is exactly what Trailblazer's "Combat Tactics" class feature does for the Rogue. :)
Which is exactly what Trailblazer's "Combat Tactics" class feature does for the Rogue. :)
Really? Huh. I haven't even read that yet.
|
|
I know you haven't, I bring it up every time I see you mention that idea. :P
Reviewing it, it's actually only when Sneak Attacking (flanking or against FFed enemies). The Monk gets a similar ability with the "Centered Bonus" class feature.
I find adding a simple to-hit bonus that makes the total equal to Full BAB when the classes are doing what they are supposed to be doing is a lot more elegant than the mishmash BAB the PF Monk has. So they hit like a Full BAB class without the extra attacks and quicker feat qualifications.
It would actually be a +5 at 17. Now, if we wanted to make the rogue a powerful class, it would be +1 hit every sneak attack die, but only half of it applies when you aren't using sneak attack.
Huh, now im confused ???
level | Hit Bonus | Sneak attack
1 +1 1D6
2 +1 1D6
3 +1 2D6
4 +1 2D6
5 +2 3D6
6 +2 3D6
7 +2 4D6
8 +2 4D6
9 +3 5D6
10 +3 5D6
11 +3 6D6
12 +3 6D6
13 +4 7D6
14 +4 7D6
15 +4 8D6
16 +4 8D6
17 +5 9D6
18 +5 9D6
19 +5 10D6
20 +5 10D6
I was looking at final "level 20" progression. Soonest they get it is at 17th level yes. Perhaps i should have been more clear
Regardless, my apologies
Rangers get full BAB. Monks get full BAB with Flurry of Blows. I think Rogues should get full BAB. This will make them very accurate with Sneak Attack since its against flat-footed AC, but a Rogue is not able to reliably Sneak Attack every round in every encounter.
Horrible horrible idea. Rogues are already one of the best Damage dealers in pathfinder. Giving them Full BAB just compounds that...
1. You progress thier number of attacks more quickly. They gain their second and third attack more quickly and also end up with an extra attack. YOu add in TWF and thats two extra attacks at earlier levels. This will cause a large increase in damage.
2. They will hit more often. The one weakness a rogue has... his tendancy to miss attacks will be slightly lessened. This again is a bad thing.
3. He will be able to take crit feats at earlier levels. Again your adding abilities to rogues at an earlier level.
Rogues are fine the way they are. They are meant to flank, sneak, and flat-foot their opponent. This doesnt work every fight true but its not supposed to. If your rogues never get to flat-foot their opponent then its either a player or GM issue. The class is fine.
If anything the rogue needs more utility. Not more dps. They are fine in that department imo.
Horrible horrible idea. Rogues are already one of the best Damage dealers in pathfinder. Giving them Full BAB just compounds that...
1. You progress thier number of attacks more quickly. They gain their second and third attack more quickly and also end up with an extra attack. YOu add in TWF and thats two extra attacks at earlier levels. This will cause a large increase in damage.
2. They will hit more often. The one weakness a rogue has... his tendancy to miss attacks will be slightly lessened. This again is a bad thing.
3. He will be able to take crit feats at earlier levels. Again your adding abilities to rogues at an earlier level.
Rogues are fine the way they are. They are meant to flank, sneak, and flat-foot their opponent. This doesnt work every fight true but its not supposed to. If your rogues never get to flat-foot their opponent then its either a player or GM issue. The class is fine.
If anything the rogue needs more utility. Not more dps. They are fine in that department imo.
I think the simple truth is that very few want rogues to be better. Most players are quite happy that rogues are sub-par, and work very hard to keep the class "weak" when compared to other classes. Fighters and Rangers and Barbarians are better both in the hit and damage department (see DPR olympics). Rogues might be capable of good damage but the fighter tends to do ~25% more damage then a rogue using sneak attack (~50% with no sneak attack). Barbarians and Rangers are in the same boat as the fighter, with special features like Favoured enemy and Rage that put them above the fighter.
Bards are far better utility. So is any caster. Not to mention the problems with Stealth. Myself, i love the idea of a rogue. I could easily say 40% of all Fantasy has a, if not the, main character a rogue. But that has nothing to do with the roleplaying fantasy genre anymore.
All in all, I'm not too terribly upset. I've come to terms that if you want to more often then not enjoy your games then play a stronger case. If somebody plays a rogue, they better expect for the usual gaming group (at least the groups i'm familiar with) to look down on you for your choice. If you can have fun and enjoy it, great; but if not, then consider a different character.
I haven't noticed that. In most of the games I've run, the rogue either hasn't be able to sneak or hasn't be able to hit when they do sneak. Maybe it's just crappy roles.
But the real issue is that they're floating off in their own little world of not melee, not spell casting, not really much of anything useful. A full BAB might resolve that in my mind.
Players are gravitating toward ranger instead of rogue these days at my gaming table and I'd like to see if I can swing it back or at least provide them with a viable alternative to ranger.
The rogues would be doing a lot of damage, more than the fighter. The rogue is not meant to do damage though. If they care about damage then the ranger is the way to go.
You could incorportate more skill checks into the game if you want to make the rogue more viable.
The rogues would be doing a lot of damage, more than the fighter. The rogue is not meant to do damage though. If they care about damage then the ranger is the way to go.
You could incorportate more skill checks into the game if you want to make the rogue more viable.
I'd say most people just care about the damage. A fighter out of combat is a very unhappy player; they're a one-trick pony that isn't doing it's one trick.
@ Sheadunne: I'd say getting the +1 to hit for every four levels in the class will help the rogue a bit, but don't expect much. The Ranger has a full BAB and they have the extra feats to easily be better in combat, not to mention an animal companion (never met a player who takes the other option). Add the fact it gets most of the rogue's signature abilities plus spells and you have a rogueish class that is a far better choice then the rogue.
The rogues would be doing a lot of damage, more than the fighter. The rogue is not meant to do damage though. If they care about damage then the ranger is the way to go.
You could incorportate more skill checks into the game if you want to make the rogue more viable.
Urban Ranger handles the skill checks just fine in the game, at least the ones that the rogue would normally handle. Sneak attack is really all they have going for them these days and I'm not seeing it draw players to them.
The ranger and rogue have always been an oddity to me anyway, two sides to the same coin, one with full BAB and the other without it. In 3.5 nobody in my groups played a ranger because they were horrid, so they played a rogue. In Pathfinder it's swung the other way. Just trying to see what's needed to bring them both into line as viable choices. At least to the folks I game with.
I'd say most people just care about the damage. A fighter out of combat is a very unhappy player; they're a one-trick pony that isn't doing it's one trick.
@ Sheadunne: I'd say getting the +1 to hit for every four levels in the class will help the rogue a bit, but don't expect much. The Ranger has a full BAB and they have the extra feats to easily be better in combat, not to mention an animal companion (never met a player who takes the other option). Add the fact it gets most of the rogue's signature abilities plus spells and you have a rogueish class that is a far better choice then the rogue.
You're probably right.
I think the simple truth is that very few want rogues to be better. Most players are quite happy that rogues are sub-par, and work very hard to keep the class "weak" when compared to other classes. Fighters and Rangers and Barbarians are better both in the hit and damage department (see DPR olympics). Rogues might be capable of good damage but the fighter tends to do ~25% more damage then a rogue using sneak attack (~50% with no sneak attack). Barbarians and Rangers are in the same boat as the fighter, with special features like Favoured enemy and Rage that put them above the fighter.
Bards are far better utility. So is any caster. Not to mention the problems with Stealth. Myself, i love the idea of a rogue. I could easily say 40% of all Fantasy has a, if not the, main character a rogue. But that has nothing to do with the roleplaying fantasy genre anymore.
All in all, I'm not too terribly upset. I've come to terms that if you want to more often then not enjoy your games then play a stronger case. If somebody plays a rogue, they better expect for the usual gaming group (at least the groups i'm familiar with) to look down on you for your choice. If you can have fun and enjoy it, great; but if not, then consider a different character.
lol I am a DM mainly. I could care less if my players play a rogue, a fighter, or a pixie barbarian(actually happened in another DM's game... was hilarious)
You realize DPR olympics are Thought Experiments and have very little correlation with actual game play experience. For one most of those experiments are min maxed cheese examples. For another most cases are perfect circumstances. Let me ask you this... When balancing material does Paizo use DPR experiments or do they play-test their material?
So if you want to have a epeen DPR beast then no... rogue performs poorly. If you want the easy cheese class... then again rogue probably isn't for you.
I have had a rogue in my party either playing one, playing beside one, or mostly DMing for. In almost every case the rogue in the party was the top dps in our party. As a DM I have to plan for my rogues... I have to make allowances for the damage that they will deal. I don't worry about my rangers, fighters, or barbarians. In ACTUAL PLAY rogues are perfectly fine. They deal wonderful damage (and by the way who cares if it is top dps as long as its good). And it has the skill points and trap finding to be great out of combat.
When people complain about rogue balance I usually look at their arguments and usually pull a Admiral Akbar .... ITS A TRAP! Don't believe the hype. Rogues are fine as is. Add ninja to the mix and they are more than fine.
lol I am a DM mainly. I could care less if my players play a rogue, a fighter, or a pixie barbarian(actually happened in another DM's game... was hilarious)
You realize DPR olympics are Thought Experiments and have very little correlation with actual game play experience. For one most of those experiments are min maxed cheese examples. For another most cases are perfect circumstances. Let me ask you this... When balancing material does Paizo use DPR experiments or do they play-test their material?
So if you want to have a epeen DPR beast then no... rogue performs poorly. If you want the easy cheese class... then again rogue probably isn't for you.
I have had a rogue in my party either playing one, playing beside one, or mostly DMing for. In almost every case the rogue in the party was the top dps in our party. As a DM I have to plan for my rogues... I have to make allowances for the damage that they will deal. I don't worry about my rangers, fighters, or barbarians. In ACTUAL PLAY rogues are perfectly fine. They deal wonderful damage (and by the way who cares if it is top dps as long as its good). And it has the skill points and trap finding to be great out of combat.
When people complain about rogue balance I usually look at their arguments and usually pull a Admiral Akbar .... ITS A TRAP! Don't believe the hype. Rogues are fine as is. Add ninja to the mix and they are more than fine.
My experiances with the rogue have been far less kind. I am often in the predicament of having to all-out optimize my rogue to try to be on par with other characters, or play the rogue how i want to play it, get mocked for my poor performance, and if i open my mouth people get on me for NOT min/maxing.
lol I am a DM mainly. I could care less if my players play a rogue, a fighter, or a pixie barbarian(actually happened in another DM's game... was hilarious)
You realize DPR olympics are Thought Experiments and have very little correlation with actual game play experience. For one most of those experiments are min maxed cheese examples. For another most cases are perfect circumstances. Let me ask you this... When balancing material does Paizo use DPR experiments or do they play-test their material?
So if you want to have a epeen DPR beast then no... rogue performs poorly. If you want the easy cheese class... then again rogue probably isn't for you.
I have had a rogue in my party either playing one, playing beside one, or mostly DMing for. In almost every case the rogue in the party was the top dps in our party. As a DM I have to plan for my rogues... I have to make allowances for the damage that they will deal. I don't worry about my rangers, fighters, or barbarians. In ACTUAL PLAY rogues are perfectly fine. They deal wonderful damage (and by the way who cares if it is top dps as long as its good). And it has the skill points and trap finding to be great out of combat.
When people complain about rogue balance I usually look at their arguments and usually pull a Admiral Akbar .... ITS A TRAP! Don't believe the hype. Rogues are fine as is. Add ninja to the mix and they are more than fine.
The DPR thread were not minmaxed. They had to be built as something you could actually play, and were not a "who can get the biggest numbers" contest. If the people wanted to minmax they could have done a lot better than that.
My experiances with the rogue have been far less kind. I am often in the predicament of having to all-out optimize my rogue to try to be on par with other characters, or play the rogue how i want to play it, get mocked for my poor performance, and if i open my mouth people get on me for NOT min/maxing.
If you want him to compete in damage you do have to optomize, because he was not built for damage. If you play a less combat-centric game the rogues can contribute as they are.
PS:I do agree that rangers are better over all.
The DPR thread were not minmaxed. They had to be built as something you could actually play, and were not a "who can get the biggest numbers" contest. If the people wanted to minmax they could have done a lot better than that.
Which still has no effect on the fact that a DPR thread can not accurately determine the balance of a class. Or the effective dps a class will push in an actual game situation.
My experiances with the rogue have been far less kind. I am often in the predicament of having to all-out optimize my rogue to try to be on par with other characters, or play the rogue how i want to play it, get mocked for my poor performance, and if i open my mouth people get on me for NOT min/maxing.
Well being mocked by your fellow players doesn't lend much credence to their opinion in my book. However there can be several reasons and situations that cause you to be less then optimal. I tend to believe the class is fine because I have seen several rogues played by different individuals in different groups succeed and even overshadow in some cases.
In any case we are getting off topic. I suppose this is all opinion but I am definitely in the camp that rogues are fine. That if you wish to buff them that is fine. But Full BAB is not the answer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So wait.....
The general consensus is that Rogues are often un-optimal choices in many areas but that's OK because as a player, you should know that going in. But suggestions that improve the class, even minimally, are rejected because thats not within the spirit of the game or class? I think that's a load of crap personally. I don't know where the idea came from that Rogues aren't supposed to be big leaders in the damage area but I figured that was a given since most adaptations from multiple genres says differently. In all honestly, I wish they had some sort of Assassin-like "Death Attack" where they don't worry about wearing a target out over the course of 5 to 6 rounds and instead deal one terrifying, lethal shot that just ends the target.
But since we'll never seee that outside the culturally and mechanically restricting Assassin PrC, I think a BAB-like bonus when the Rogue performs Sneak Attacks could be a nice parting gift. What has to be put in place is that this doesn't constitute more attacks or the ability to select feats any earlier since they really don't have that BAB, just a feature that temporarly give them a bonus while this action is being performed.
SO an 11th level rogue normally has a +8 BAB, granting him two attacks in a full-round action. This feature would give him an additional +3 bonus to attack rolls when making a Sneak Attack, but not increase the amount of attacks he gets nor does it allow him the ability to obtain feats with BAB prerequisites of this new and improved BAB.
Well being mocked by your fellow players doesn't lend much credence to their opinion in my book. However there can be several reasons and situations that cause you to be less then optimal. I tend to believe the class is fine because I have seen several rogues played by different individuals in different groups succeed and even overshadow in some cases.
In any case we are getting off topic. I suppose this is all opinion but I am definitely in the camp that rogues are fine. That if you wish to buff them that is fine. But Full BAB is not the answer.
I'm of the opinion that having a full BAB might work wonders for the rogue, even if it's only while the rogue gets SA damage. Getting SA damage is difficult when you're often with players who don't like to work together (PFS comes to mind), and are restricted to one attack every 2 or 3 rounds due to Stealth rules (if while sniping). I would think this wouldn't put it over other classes like the fighter, barbarian, monk, or Ranger.
Fighter: More AC, more hp, more feats, tougher weapons, fighter-only feats, a few self buffs
Barbarian: More HP, Rage (NEVER UNDER-ESTIMATE THIS), and plenty of self-boosting abilities (on top of some rogue abilities)
Ranger: Animal companion, SPELLS, extra feats, good utility bonuses, favoured enemy
Monk: incredible speed, good all-round saves, ki, some more self buffs, not to mention extra feats
Rogue: sneak attack, rogue talents, potentially more skillpoints then any other class
That's pretty much what im looking at comparing the martial classes.
That said, if too many people fear the full BAB rogue, perhaps you could do something else for the class. I'd love to catagorize everything further but this isn't really the time nor place for it.
Huh, barbarians get more skills then both a cleric and a fighter. O_O that's messed up
So wait.....
The general consensus is that Rogues are often un-optimal choices in many areas but that's OK because as a player, you should know that going in. But suggestions that improve the class, even minimally, are rejected because thats not within the spirit of the game or class? I think that's a load of crap personally. I don't know where the idea came from that Rogues aren't supposed to be big leaders in the damage area but I figured that was a given since most adaptations from multiple genres says differently. In all honestly, I wish they had some sort of Assassin-like "Death Attack" where they don't worry about wearing a target out over the course of 5 to 6 rounds and instead deal one terrifying, lethal shot that just ends the target.
But since we'll never seee that outside the culturally and mechanically restricting Assassin PrC, I think a BAB-like bonus when the Rogue performs Sneak Attacks could be a nice parting gift. What has to be put in place is that this doesn't constitute more attacks or the ability to select feats any earlier since they really don't have that BAB, just a feature that temporarly give them a bonus while this action is being performed.
SO an 11th level rogue normally has a +8 BAB, granting him two attacks in a full-round action. This feature would give him an additional +3 bonus to attack rolls when making a Sneak Attack, but not increase the amount of attacks he gets nor does it allow him the ability to obtain feats with BAB prerequisites of this new and improved BAB.
Yes, your desire to make the class suck less is bad, and you should feel bad for thinking of it. /sarc
You realize DPR olympics are Thought Experiments and have very little correlation with actual game play experience.
In fact the actual damage tends to be higher. Our players use DPR calculations when designing their striker toons to ensure effectiveness, and they're extremely effective. Take our 5th level druid, she does 82 DPR (usually rolls high 90's in actual play).
Let me ask you this... When balancing material does Paizo use DPR experiments or do they play-test their material?
I believe that Jason uses a spread-sheet which assumes a similar calculation to the one in the DPR Olympics thread. I've seen several official posts which state "we ran the numbers through our spreadsheet."
I'm pretty sure from this video, that Paizo does less play testing than even they would like to admit.
However, this is just my table-top experience; perhaps other groups have had less success with DPR calculations. BTW :) This is a great tool for any GM who wants to keep his players thoroughly challenged when in combat.
So wait.....
The general consensus is that Rogues are often un-optimal choices in many areas but that's OK because as a player, you should know that going in. But suggestions that improve the class, even minimally, are rejected because thats not within the spirit of the game or class? I think that's a load of crap personally. I don't know where the idea came from that Rogues aren't supposed to be big leaders in the damage area but I figured that was a given since most adaptations from multiple genres says differently. In all honestly, I wish they had some sort of Assassin-like "Death Attack" where they don't worry about wearing a target out over the course of 5 to 6 rounds and instead deal one terrifying, lethal shot that just ends the target.
But since we'll never seee that outside the culturally and mechanically restricting Assassin PrC, I think a BAB-like bonus when the Rogue performs Sneak Attacks could be a nice parting gift. What has to be put in place is that this doesn't constitute more attacks or the ability to select feats any earlier since they really don't have that BAB, just a feature that temporarly give them a bonus while this action is being performed.
SO an 11th level rogue normally has a +8 BAB, granting him two attacks in a full-round action. This feature would give him an additional +3 bonus to attack rolls when making a Sneak Attack, but not increase the amount of attacks he gets nor does it allow him the ability to obtain feats with BAB prerequisites of this new and improved BAB.
This too. I've personally always seen assassins as a part of the rogue class as well. Blame it on Assassin's Creed
Yes, your desire to make the class suck less is bad, and you should feel bad for thinking of it. /sarc
Awwwwww.............fine. :P
You're looking dead on into the suggestion upthread of +1 attack bonus while sneak attacking, +1 for every 2d6 after the first. (Which incidentally, makes the assassin PrC a bit less painful.)
Haha, yea. For some reason it was easier to do the BAB math in my head with the rogue's progression, adding in the bonuses from 3/4 to full, lol.
This too. I've personally always seen assassins as a part of the rogue class as well. Blame it on Assassin's Creed
Exactly, which is the reason I cringe when I see requirments of the Assassin. Not everyone kills for the joy of it and does so for the greater good. Sometimes people feel that results justify the means.
Exactly, which is the reason I cringe when I see requirments of the Assassin. Not everyone kills for the joy of it and does so for the greater good. Sometimes people feel that results justify the means.
Sometimes that BBEG just has to die ; )
Awwwwww.............fine. :P
I hope you learned your lesson.
I have to say, I think if any of my players suggests playing a rogue, I will direct them towards a Ninja, because really, there isn't much more in the rogue class which really makes them stand out anymore.
Well Ninja looses Trapfinding... but how big that is depends on how many traps your DM throws at the group.
As a side note... Wow. Suggest that the Rogue is fine and a horde of frothing raging gamers decends on the thread. I still find the rogue to be balanced as is based on years of gaming in both 3.5 and Pathfinder. If your gaming experience is different then fine. At mosst I would give Ninja Trapfinding, remove the ninja rp fluff and call it a rogue.
Theres your buff.
Which still has no effect on the fact that a DPR thread can not accurately determine the balance of a class. Or the effective dps a class will push in an actual game situation.
1.That does not change the fact that the poster was incorrect.
2.The DPR threads are not meant to gauge balance or usefulness as a whole. They are only meant to determine potential damage in an actual game, which determines to a large extent how a class can/will be used. Rogues as an example are not the go to guys for damage, and it helps rogues because many GM's see all those sneak attack dice and want to ban rogues. By showing the math they have to find another reason to do so. They might also realize it is not that the rogue is doing extreme amounts of damage, but that the fighter/barbarian/etc is not built or being used in a way that could allow it to do more damage.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I added the following to rogues for my game:
Guile: At 1st level, for the purpose of Sneak Attacks, and the Dirty Trick and Steal Combat Maneuvers, the rogue's base attack bonus from his rogue class levels is equal to his rogue level. For all other purposes, such as qualifying for a feat or a prestige class, the rogue uses his normal base attack bonus.
Thusfar, it hasn't had a detrimental effect on my game. None of my optimization players have suddenly decided they want to play rogues & the rogue player is a little happier with her character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rogues are the only none spellcaster that does not have full bab, and what are they given instead?
One of the most situation based class abilities in the game to make up for it, and as it stands now, even in a perfect situation for the rogue, the other martial will still do more damage than the rogue, and this with more health, ac and saves.
So to summarize it, rogues are the squishiest melee fighter, that still demands them to look for tactical positions where they are extra vulnerable, and still do sub-par damage. Do anyone really find this fair or balanced in anyway? Should not the class that need to work to get into the right positions where they are exposed, especially when they are so frail, not be THE damage machine?
Even bumping them to full bab will not make them the top martial class damage wise, even when sneak attacking. The rogue needs more.
The rogue is playable, but far from fine, if your rogues does compete with your martial classes, then they are terrible under optimized.
Rogues are the only none spellcaster that does not have full bab, and what are they given instead?
One of the most situation based class abilities in the game to make up for it, and as it stands now, even in a perfect situation for the rogue, the other martial will still do more damage than the rogue, and this with more health, ac and saves.
So to summarize it, rogues are the squishiest melee fighter, that still demands them to look for tactical positions where they are extra vulnerable, and still do sub-par damage. Do anyone really find this fair or balanced in anyway? Should not the class that need to work to get into the right positions where they are exposed, especially when they are so frail, not be THE damage machine?
Even bumping them to full bab will not make them the top martial class damage wise, even when sneak attacking. The rogue needs more.
The rogue is playable, but far from fine, if your rogues does compete with your martial classes, then they are terrible under optimized.
How about +1hit/die, gain 1/2 (rounding up) when you don't have the normal sneak attack conditions?
How about +1hit/die, gain 1/2 (rounding up) when you don't have the normal sneak attack conditions?Rogues are the only none spellcaster that does not have full bab, and what are they given instead?
One of the most situation based class abilities in the game to make up for it, and as it stands now, even in a perfect situation for the rogue, the other martial will still do more damage than the rogue, and this with more health, ac and saves.
So to summarize it, rogues are the squishiest melee fighter, that still demands them to look for tactical positions where they are extra vulnerable, and still do sub-par damage. Do anyone really find this fair or balanced in anyway? Should not the class that need to work to get into the right positions where they are exposed, especially when they are so frail, not be THE damage machine?
Even bumping them to full bab will not make them the top martial class damage wise, even when sneak attacking. The rogue needs more.
The rogue is playable, but far from fine, if your rogues does compete with your martial classes, then they are terrible under optimized.
Hmm, that would not solve their bab problem, as it would still give them a late iterative, if it do not come together with fullbab, and than the extra hit would be, cake on cake.
My thought is something in the line with, full bab, a feature like the duelist class, that lets you add dex damage to your attacks with some sort of cap. give them weapon finesse for free, perhaps contained to light armor only, to make it less dip friendly? And also make their will save, into a good save. It is not fair to only have the worst save in the game, as your good save. And why should the rogue fall as easy for mind tricks as the dumb fighter?
I would also want to separate the talents into two categories, social and combat. So the rogue actually does not need to spend all talents on combat talents just to not fall leagues behind the rest. And make it so they get a social on even levels and a combat on uneven levels.
Ofcourse this is not yet tested, but just ideas. But in my opinion it needs really much help, to function as it was thought.
Hmm, that would not solve their bab problem, as it would still give them a late iterative, if it do not come together with fullbab, and than the extra hit would be, cake on cake.
My thought is something in the line with, full bab, a feature like the duelist class, that lets you add dex damage to your attacks with some sort of cap. give them weapon finesse for free, perhaps contained to light armor only, to make it less dip friendly? And also make their will save, into a good save. It is not fair to only have the worst save in the game, as your good save. And why should the rogue fall as easy for mind tricks as the dumb fighter?
I would also want to separate the talents into two categories, social and combat. So the rogue actually does not need to spend all talents on combat talents just to not fall leagues behind the rest. And make it so they get a social on even levels and a combat on uneven levels.
Ofcourse this is not yet tested, but just ideas. But in my opinion it needs really much help, to function as it was thought.
I was thinking about giving them a floating save, they can choose to have fort or will as a good save. Not all fighters are dumb, I think fighters should get a floating save as well.
I think they should get neat things based on their skills for free. Stuff no one else can get.
Sounds familiar. :)
I've said it before, I'll likely say it again, though sometimes I feel like that book is drawing ideas from my brain while I sleep.