|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree. I think Fighters should focus on intelligence, training, and tactics, and have lots of skills, especially Knowledge skills. Any other full BAB class can already kill things as well as or better than a Fighter, as well as be useful outside of combat. The Fighter needs to catch up a bit, and the highly trained professional soldier makes perfect sense as a skill monkey.
just kind of want to lay my 2 cp in on this reference before I really got too into the rest of this. I think you a mixing up the fighter with some other classes that already exist. The fighter already has many skills added to them in pf to complement their training, knowledge dungeoneering and engineering are meant to represent their aptitude and understanding of dungeon complexes, castles, and fortress's all things that the fighter would understand quite well. If a fighter would like to have more esoteric knowledge's like planes, nature, local, geography, or religion the player may want to run another class like ranger, inquisitor, or Magus as the standard fighter is meant to represent something more akin to the elite heavy infantryman a man who understands structures and fortifications and/or subterranean complexes with these other knowledges being the purview of outside sources that they can leverage very similar to what Rome would do with its armies where the warriors were trained to take forts and siege complexes and would hire locals or experts to provide those answers (which many a canny solider would do). It also helps to let all the other players show off the skills that not only make up their class but allow make far more sense with their professions then with a fighter. As for the skill point bonuses between fighter, barbarian, and monk I think the 2 points vs. 4 comes up as a way to balance out the two. The barbarian is usually pictured to be less cultured and a little less intelligent then the average civilized person and therefore maybe have a lower intelligence then the normal person and the 4+ was to allow you to let your barbarian's int take a hit and not have it hurt as much as if you had 2. Meanwhile the fighter by your own description is always thought to be a bit more trained and educated and therefore would usually have more intelligence and more skill points. Now if someone was looking for a more skill monkey version of the fighter i would say use something like the cavalier. They are meant to be more representative of the landed gentry and nobles of the middle ages who would be more worldly in terms of new ideas, and diversity of studies (those in nobility had the money and need to offer those kinds of things to their kids as part of their training not only as soldiers but future nobles who would have to deal with the political problems of their realm an everyday soldier wouldn't).
I would like to see the effects of spells more specific and contained - potentially expendable with metamagic - especially in the case of open-ended spells like stone shape and the like. I would also like the underlying spell design philosophy to include a couple of things:
- The idea that not everything is doable via spellcasting; there shouldn't be a spell for every situation (or at least not necessarily better, faster, stronger than the good old mundane ways).
- Clear limits of magic; like all systems magic should have its limits, and clear ways to circumvent them when/if need be.
Trimmed down some, but supports many thoughts of my own.
GMs need to do a few things as well.
1. Tighten up control on spells allowable in their campaigns. As I see it, spell selection is party of the Monty Haul epidemic. Imagine a Campaign with no Haste or Baleful Polymorph. Captured spellbooks might be to mangled, soaked in blood, or whatever to gleam more than single spell. Spells would become treasures in their own right.
2. Tactical usage of 1-3 HD creatures in mobs. Make those caster consider a 3rd level slot for a Fireball as well spent. Simply put, make blasting viable as a form of crowd control.
3. Don't let parties rest after every encounter. Spells are much like Hit Points, a resource to be slowly whittled away. It'll create some tense hair raising moments that will be memorable.
|
|
Now onto the original inquiry you made. I think the first and most important thing to look at with marital prowess between casters and fighter isn't so much how they do in any individual fight but how they do overtime through consecutive encounters. If we are to look at raw dmg output of say an evoker wizard vs. a melee fighter you will find that if you look at just their power in an individual fight that wizard will plow shit down range, while the fighter will walk out with a good output but not as high. But with every fight that happens after that and before the player has a chance to rest the wizard will become significantly weaker as new encounters come and even with ones that go on too long as they begin to quickly run out of spells while the fighter will continue to consistently to the same amount of damage through each fight purveying nothing muddles with his stats (this is assumed with either). This is really where they shine with the fighter being something like a roman candle that slowly fires off its payload over a long time while the caster is more like a big firework they give off a big boom but after that they are out till they get a chance to reload.
Now as for the whole full attack that's it thing the quickest way I've figured out to solve it is good descriptions, a rolled attack with a Warhammer becomes much more exciting when you open up with "You heft your hammer high and bring it down upon your enemies head with all your might!" and following and after figuring out if it's a success say something like "And the hit connects! The blow crushing into his skull like a comet falling from heaven sparks flying from his helmet from the mighty blow!" This can become even better when you start letting your players describe their swings usually with a sentence or two at the most and lets them take control, make the situation feel more alive, and really draw the other PC's in and get them all excited to see what the dwarven fighter does next.
I don't know why you need to make melee classes more attractive, people who want to play melee classes play melee classes, I've never had an issue with everyone wanting to play a caster, in fact a lot of times I'm lacking arcane casters more than melees.
Know what fighter players call "social encounters"? "The time I'm useless and should make a Taco Bell run".
Maybe some people like to be useful only during combat. Many people don't ever want to feel like a wall flower. Not only that but because they don't want to feel like a wall flower, they may actively work to prevent social encounters (ie. "she's handing out muffins? I attack her with my ax!")
I have been advocating 4+Int skill points for all the 2+Int classes since Alpha. That's a left-over flaw in the system. However, Fighters have enough feats to be able to take feats that allow them to do more out of combat, plus since they're not a MAD class, they don't NEED to dump CHA.
A Fighter can be the face if they want. Having weapon familiarity means they don't NEED a 20 Str at 1st level.
It's about choices, and most of the time people get too caught up in optimizing their characters and less about creating nice rounded characters, that can do more than sword a sword "reelz guud."
|
|
I don't know why you need to make melee classes more attractive, people who want to play melee classes play melee classes, I've never had an issue with everyone wanting to play a caster, in fact a lot of times I'm lacking arcane casters more than melees.
Know what fighter players call "social encounters"? "The time I'm useless and should make a Taco Bell run".
Maybe some people like to be useful only during combat. Many people don't ever want to feel like a wall flower. Not only that but because they don't want to feel like a wall flower, they may actively work to prevent social encounters (ie. "she's handing out muffins? I attack her with my ax!")
I have been advocating 4+Int skill points for all the 2+Int classes since Alpha. That's a left-over flaw in the system. However, Fighters have enough feats to be able to take feats that allow them to do more out of combat, plus since they're not a MAD class, they don't NEED to dump CHA.
A Fighter can be the face if they want. Having weapon familiarity means they don't NEED a 20 Str at 1st level.
It's about choices, and most of the time people get too caught up in optimizing their characters and less about creating nice rounded characters, that can do more than sword a sword "reelz guud."
With you on the choices thing, I think that is something that a lot of people who want to make these beasts in combat forget is that a true campaign is a living world with the vast majority of people being normal people living normal lives that don't involve swords and blood split and would like to keep it that way just like in the real world. If everyone solved their problems with weapons & blood there would be no need for the players at all cause everyone else would solve their problems just like they do. A PC gets paid the big gp's because they are special in that they will take those risks and should be aware of that and that most people would rather be talked to resolve things that or hire someone then start a fight they would not win and in the end that's kind of what most PC's are fighting for in the first place. Also at that point the player who didn't want to talk should realize that that is the role they have chosen and it is the other players who invested in that to shine and should stay there to support them in that (and maybe even offer the occasional snappy or silly comment that totally matches their character that helps add to the work). We as players should remember that we play as a group each one of us a piece of the whole that is the party, the best parties I have ever seen are always worth far more together then the parts alone. That seems to be the one thing that most players really forget it seems is that this is a team game about cooperation and complementing each others skills and weaknesses not being the hero with his 3+ sidekicks.
Ow, I just ran into a text wall.
If you want to fix it, you're going to have to nerf spellcasters. There's just no way around it. You can boost melee all you want-- and I recommend it-- but the main problem is always going to be finding a way to keep spellcasters from walking all over them.
My advice?
- No casting defensively. If you want to cast a spell in melee, eat the AoO and make your concentration check.
- All the damage you've taken since your last turn counts as "ongoing damage" for casting spells.
That's still a Hell of a lot better than spellcasters were in AD&D, when there was no such thing as a "concentration check" at all-- if you took damage, you didn't cast. Period. And spellcasters still dominated the game at upper levels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With you on the choices thing, I think that is something that a lot of people who want to make these beasts in combat forget is that a true campaign is a living world with the vast majority of people being normal people living normal lives that don't involve swords and blood split and would like to keep it that way just like in the real world. If everyone solved their problems with weapons & blood there would be no need for the players at all cause everyone else would solve their problems just like they do. A PC gets paid the big gp's because they are special in that they will take those risks and should be aware of that and that most people would...
I don't know why you need to make melee classes more attractive, people who want to play melee classes play melee classes, I've never had an issue with everyone wanting to play a caster, in fact a lot of times I'm lacking arcane casters more than melees.
Know what fighter players call "social encounters"? "The time I'm useless and should make a Taco Bell run".
Maybe some people like to be useful only during combat. Many people don't ever want to feel like a wall flower. Not only that but because they don't want to feel like a wall flower, they may actively work to prevent social encounters (ie. "she's handing out muffins? I attack her with my ax!")
I have been advocating 4+Int skill points for all the 2+Int classes since Alpha. That's a left-over flaw in the system. However, Fighters have enough feats to be able to take feats that allow them to do more out of combat, plus since they're not a MAD class, they don't NEED to dump CHA.
A Fighter can be the face if they want. Having weapon familiarity means they don't NEED a 20 Str at 1st level.
It's about choices, and most of the time people get too caught up in optimizing their characters and less about creating nice rounded characters, that can do more than sword a sword "reelz guud."
Let's not forget archetypes as well, Tactician and Lore Warden easily give the fighter more knowledge or social skills, while Knife Master and Scout raise the rogue's damage output. I don't think it's that black and white anymore.
Also, as Doc said, it's a team game, so what if the party Fighter can't solo the big bad evil wizard, it's his buddy's job to throw down Anti Magic Field on his pet raven and tell it to sit on the fighters shoulder while he rushes the bad wizard man, or the rangers job to prepare actions to shoot the Bad-Wizard if he should decide to cast a spell at the rushing Fighter or the manipulating Wizard.
And it goes both ways, if the archers decide to harass your wizard, the ranger or fighter should keep the archers too occupied, it's as simple as standing adjacent to them and waiting for AoO. Most often, the casters are 'better' beecause they actually know what to do, manipulate, harass, buff. The martial characters that tend to complain are the ones who focus on maximum damage done, and forget that it's fully possible to drop a few ranks in social skills now, unlike 3.5, without multiclassing. Let's not forget how much easier it is made by traits, feats that now bump up bonus at 10 ranks, and that circlet that gives ranks/bonuses in a skill.
How would the Rogue be useful in combat? Or even considered "dangerous"? Please consider that giant monsters are common enemies in PF, with all their CMB/CMD.The Rogue is the only class that needs a tweak, in my mind. Even then it need not be damage output, but more about making SA easier to deliver, but make it a standard action to employ (to reduce all the TWF SA jazz). That and the combat styles I mentioned previously.I'd rather be rid of SA completely.
Rogues, as is, aren't useful in combat, and they aren't dangerous. They need something better than SA, which is fairly worthless.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree. I think Fighters should focus on intelligence, training, and tactics, and have lots of skills, especially Knowledge skills. Any other full BAB class can already kill things as well as or better than a Fighter, as well as be useful outside of combat. The Fighter needs to catch up a bit, and the highly trained professional soldier makes perfect sense as a skill monkey.just kind of want to lay my 2 cp in on this reference before I really got too into the rest of this. I think you a mixing up the fighter with some other classes that already exist. The fighter already has many skills added to them in pf to complement their training, knowledge dungeoneering and engineering are meant to represent their aptitude and understanding of dungeon complexes, castles, and fortress's all things that the fighter would understand quite well. If a fighter would like to have more esoteric knowledge's like planes, nature, local, geography, or religion the player may want to run another class like ranger, inquisitor, or Magus as the standard fighter is meant to represent something more akin to the elite heavy infantryman a man who understands structures and fortifications and/or subterranean complexes with these other knowledges being the purview of outside sources that they can leverage very similar to what Rome would do with its armies where the warriors were trained to take forts and siege complexes and would hire locals or experts to provide those answers (which many a canny solider would do). It also helps to let all the other players show off the skills that not only make up their class but allow make far more sense with their professions then with a fighter. As for the skill point bonuses between fighter, barbarian, and monk I think the 2 points vs. 4 comes up as a way to balance out the two. The barbarian is usually pictured to be less cultured and a little less intelligent then the average civilized person and therefore maybe have a lower intelligence then the normal person...
I disagree highly. Fighters are trained professionals, and should be the guys who learn about everything they could expect to fight. Of all the full BAB classes, they should be the smartest.
Without nerfing spellcasters any? I've heard some suggestions, such as letting Fighters ignore some feat prerequisites or giving them more skill points, and I'd love to hear more. Personally, I really think it comes down to giving martial characters more versatility, not more power, as I feel that issues of versatility is where all the disparity comes from, but how does one go about doing this?
Not all martials are in such a bad spot. Nonetheless here's what I'd do.
Remember how part of the advertised awesomeness of Pathfinder was being able to shoot down fliers, and that in reality it just translated to a DC 10 fly check if they take damage? Yeah. So how about DC 10+damage taken. ALL YOU NEED TO DO! A CR 11 Air Elemental, which you'd think shouldn't be able to be shot out of the sky no matter what right? He has a +34 fly. If you can do at least 26 points of damage with an arrow, you have a chance of grounding him with this rule. And that's like one of the best fliers (highest +fly) for its level.Make Spell Sunder and its ilk feats, not just available for Barbarians. Diversify to shield reflect spell and make shield fighters look appetizing.
The other thing? Mobility. Just give everyone the mobile fighter abilities. Not full on pounce or anything, just mobile fighter. Make spring attack let you take iterative attacks, or at least a souped up Greater Spring Attack like PHB2 gave us.
Feats that add minor debuffs automatically at higher levels. None of this take a -5 to all attack rolls and the enemy saves or sneezes. Like, everyone I hit becomes sickened. Everyone I crit on becomes shaken. NO SAVE.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rogues, as is, aren't useful in combat, and they aren't dangerous. They need something better than SA, which is fairly worthless.How would the Rogue be useful in combat? Or even considered "dangerous"? Please consider that giant monsters are common enemies in PF, with all their CMB/CMD.The Rogue is the only class that needs a tweak, in my mind. Even then it need not be damage output, but more about making SA easier to deliver, but make it a standard action to employ (to reduce all the TWF SA jazz). That and the combat styles I mentioned previously.I'd rather be rid of SA completely.
I like the idea of SA having alternatives to just damage. Much how the Paladin, in porting from 3.5 to PF, turned lay-on-hands from healing-only, to all these other different healing abilities. The Rogue's SA could be damage by default, but could also be various status effects... much like all the critical mastery feats. SA causing stunned or sickened effects, for example. Hamstringing to severely impair movement. That kind of thing.
Fighters are trained professionals, and should be the guys who learn about everything they could expect to fight. Of all the full BAB classes, they should be the smartest.
I'm 100% with you on this. I find it unreasonable that fighters don't learn how to fight enemies. When training soldiers, do you just teach them how to use a weapon and call it a day? Or do you also teach them about the enemy they're going to face in the field of battle?
Fighters should have ranks in the kinds of skills which let them know what they're fighting, and how to go about achieving victory. Fighter PC class is Officer\SpecOps training, and Warrior NPC class is the rank-and-file grunts. The class mechanics should really reflect that, instead of just making the Fighter "a grunt with fancy moves".
I like the idea of SA having alternatives to just damage. Much how the Paladin, in porting from 3.5 to PF, turned lay-on-hands from healing-only, to all these other different healing abilities. The Rogue's SA could be damage by default, but could also be various status effects... much like all the critical mastery feats. SA causing stunned or sickened effects, for example. Hamstringing to severely impair movement. That kind of thing.Rogues, as is, aren't useful in combat, and they aren't dangerous. They need something better than SA, which is fairly worthless.How would the Rogue be useful in combat? Or even considered "dangerous"? Please consider that giant monsters are common enemies in PF, with all their CMB/CMD.The Rogue is the only class that needs a tweak, in my mind. Even then it need not be damage output, but more about making SA easier to deliver, but make it a standard action to employ (to reduce all the TWF SA jazz). That and the combat styles I mentioned previously.I'd rather be rid of SA completely.
The problem is that it's extremely hard to actually hit with SA. That's what makes it useless. Status effects are nice, but what needs to be fixed is the lack of accuracy.
The problem is that it's extremely hard to actually hit with SA. That's what makes it useless. Status effects are nice, but what needs to be fixed is the lack of accuracy.
I agree. I'm a fan of an idea I saw on this bard that gave rogues +1 to hit with sneak attacks, dirty tricks, disarms, and I believe trips, for each odd numbered sneak attack die the rogue possessed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that it's extremely hard to actually hit with SA. That's what makes it useless. Status effects are nice, but what needs to be fixed is the lack of accuracy.I like the idea of SA having alternatives to just damage. Much how the Paladin, in porting from 3.5 to PF, turned lay-on-hands from healing-only, to all these other different healing abilities. The Rogue's SA could be damage by default, but could also be various status effects... much like all the critical mastery feats. SA causing stunned or sickened effects, for example. Hamstringing to severely impair movement. That kind of thing.Rogues, as is, aren't useful in combat, and they aren't dangerous. They need something better than SA, which is fairly worthless.How would the Rogue be useful in combat? Or even considered "dangerous"? Please consider that giant monsters are common enemies in PF, with all their CMB/CMD.The Rogue is the only class that needs a tweak, in my mind. Even then it need not be damage output, but more about making SA easier to deliver, but make it a standard action to employ (to reduce all the TWF SA jazz). That and the combat styles I mentioned previously.I'd rather be rid of SA completely.
SA is fine, you just need a party that actually is a 'party'. If the rogue sticks close to the fighter, and the fighter bothers to think beyond "who do I power attack this turn." and actually provides flank, or god forbid, takes the flanking teamwork feat, the rogue will sneak attack as much as he can, the +2 actually helps. Worst case, teach the fighter to use tanglefoot bags, and voila rogue can sneak attack as much as he wants.
No offence, but it's starting to sound like people playing wow, and not a role playing game.
I have no issue hitting with SA.
Besides, if in the first round your Rogue appears out of nowhere with a knife in his enemy's back, and that SA happens to deliver a 1d4+1 rounds stun effect... well then said Rogue can take his time with a subsequent battlefield vivisection; stunned enemies are very easy to hit, and are conveniently subject to SA.
The first SA in a fight is always the easiest. It's the latter ones that are hard. In order to flank, you may end up exposing yourself to being surrounded and annihilated, depending on the encounter setup. Flanking isn't worth dying for, and in my current campaign, 75% of our combats are against multiple humanoids, so flank-SA isn't so common. That and at least 3 of our fights were against rogue types with higher levels than us - also hard to SA (uncanny dodge).
Once the conditions for SA are met, however, it's easy to roll that hit, if you build in a non-crappy way and you're facing CR-appropriate encounters. +2 (flank) or no-Dex make up for the lower BAB at LEAST until level 8. And even then, your lower BAB is still less a problem than a Fighter who's employing Power Attack.
SA is fine, you just need a party that actually is a 'party'. If the rogue sticks close to the fighter, and the fighter bothers to think beyond "who do I power attack this turn." and actually provides flank, or god forbid, takes the flanking teamwork feat, the rogue will sneak attack as much as he can, the +2 actually helps. Worst case, teach the fighter to use tanglefoot bags, and voila rogue can sneak attack as much as he wants.The problem is that it's extremely hard to actually hit with SA. That's what makes it useless. Status effects are nice, but what needs to be fixed is the lack of accuracy.I like the idea of SA having alternatives to just damage. Much how the Paladin, in porting from 3.5 to PF, turned lay-on-hands from healing-only, to all these other different healing abilities. The Rogue's SA could be damage by default, but could also be various status effects... much like all the critical mastery feats. SA causing stunned or sickened effects, for example. Hamstringing to severely impair movement. That kind of thing.Rogues, as is, aren't useful in combat, and they aren't dangerous. They need something better than SA, which is fairly worthless.How would the Rogue be useful in combat? Or even considered "dangerous"? Please consider that giant monsters are common enemies in PF, with all their CMB/CMD.The Rogue is the only class that needs a tweak, in my mind. Even then it need not be damage output, but more about making SA easier to deliver, but make it a standard action to employ (to reduce all the TWF SA jazz). That and the combat styles I mentioned previously.I'd rather be rid of SA completely.
Flanking assumes perfect tactical positioning. This is pretty much impossible to achieve, as any intelligent GM will have the other monsters break up the flank or counter flank.
I have no issue hitting with SA.
Besides, if in the first round your Rogue appears out of nowhere with a knife in his enemy's back, and that SA happens to deliver a 1d4+1 rounds stun effect... well then said Rogue can take his time with a subsequent battlefield vivisection; stunned enemies are very easy to hit, and are conveniently subject to SA.
The first SA in a fight is always the easiest. It's the latter ones that are hard. In order to flank, you may end up exposing yourself to being surrounded and annihilated, depending on the encounter setup. Flanking isn't worth dying for, and in my current campaign, 75% of our combats are against multiple humanoids, so flank-SA isn't so common. That and at least 3 of our fights were against rogue types with higher levels than us - also hard to SA (uncanny dodge).
Once the conditions for SA are met, however, it's easy to roll that hit, if you build in a non-crappy way and you're facing CR-appropriate encounters. +2 (flank) or no-Dex make up for the lower BAB at LEAST until level 8. And even then, your lower BAB is still less a problem than a Fighter who's employing Power Attack.
How often does the Rogue ever start out in a position to SA? That's right. Never.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no disparity and thus nothing to fix.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no disparity and thus nothing to fix.
Patently false.
How often does the Rogue ever start out in a position to SA? That's right. Never.
That's a false statement. Whenever I play a Rogue, I always deliver SA in the surprise round, or (if we're jumped) the opening 3 rounds of combat, and that's always my entrance.
When you're always stealthily scouting 60' ahead, or shadowing the party 20' behind and to the side, you're always ready to deliver SA. In a dungeon setting, or in any hostile setting, that's where a Rogue should always be - close enough to the party to not be "separated", but far enough to be able to pick off enemies which approach your comrades.
The problem is that sometimes it takes me 3 rounds to set up that opening SA, and by then combat is well underway, if not over. This is the big curse of Rogues - combat is slow going, because in order to do what you do, you need to burn time setting up, or risk your death to rush into it. Rogues HAVE to be played tactically, even paranoid, or else the game will end very abruptly for you and you'll find yourself rolling up a new character. To me, that's one major issue that Rogues need fixed. Now if they had more dirty moves, then they can be next to their comrades, harassing foes every round. If their SA delivered status effects, they could be neutralizing enemies, instead of delivering damage and hoping to survive the next round.
Flanking assumes perfect tactical positioning. This is pretty much impossible to achieve, as any intelligent GM will have the other monsters break up the flank or counter flank.
In our games flanking just assumes that you are opposite a friend that is threating your target. It's not impossible, they have some good charts in the rulebook of how you achieve flanking.
How often does the Rogue ever start out in a position to SA? That's right. Never.
In our games everyone is flat footed until they act in the first round, so the Rogue's quite often start out able to sneak attack.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no disparity and thus nothing to fix.Patently false.
You might be a little overenthusiastic, Kelsey.
The Caster-Martial Disparity is a product of perception. The majority of players either don't see it, compensate for it, or simply don't have the problem due to any number of reasons. Really, it only comes up here on message boards where you have hyper-analysis of the system and discussions between very experienced players.
Posters like Ashiel are very right, but they too are only posting about their experiences. Some people experience the opposite. I'm weirdly in the middle, I believe the C-M D is something to be aware of, but the game does include the necessary tools to manage it, and it only becomes an extreme problem with a certain type of player in the group. (e.g. Ashiel, who through no fault has a play style that exacerbates the potential problem)
EDIT: Also, don't forget that you put the word "supposed" in the thread title.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no disparity and thus nothing to fix.Patently false.
Prove it.
People love to cherry-pick certain rules and make wild claims about power gaps between classes such as Wizard domination or cleric-or-driud-zilla but nobody has ever proven it's true.
Stuff
Flanking assumes perfect tactical positioning. This is pretty much impossible to achieve, as any intelligent GM will have the other monsters break up the flank or counter flank.
There's no need to be perfect for two buddies to keep to their own sides of an enemy, if anything, in pf, with acrobatics being so easy to get for both, using the skill points from favored class makes it no trouble at all to max it out. And while most often the npc's will ruin a flanking attempt, they have priorities too. Rp priorities, they won't always target the fighter, or the rogue just because those two work together. As for moving npc's, once the target moves, it's no problem for the rogue to drop his Init behind his warrior buddy, coming in to flank once the buddy is well in position.
If he's not...well, tanglefoot bags are your friends, and as it's dex, which will be one of your better stats, you can always keep em in place. If the players in your experience can't perform the simplest of all maneuvers, pack tactics as it were, then yes, the rogue blows, the casters rock, the fighter needs buffing.
Assuming they actually work together beyond "Mage, buff me, I will rolfpowerattackcopter the closest enemy." For someone who argues how smart fighters should be, I don't get how you consider flanking a hard tactic to pull off for a fighter.
Also, this is an old thread on this same topic that I really enjoyed.
The ground rules really prevented it from degenerating into bickering. Please feel free to raise thread if you feel like playing by those rules.
How often does the Rogue ever start out in a position to SA? That's right. Never.That's a false statement. Whenever I play a Rogue, I always deliver SA in the surprise round, or (if we're jumped) the opening 3 rounds of combat, and that's always my entrance.
Your combats last more than 3 rounds?
*giggle*
Your combats are balanced to your CR?
3 levels in 15 hours of gaming.
The combats which last 1-3 rounds:
level 5 party vs. Advanced Chaos Beast with the "big" template.
level 6 party vs. huge golem with petrification breath weapon.
Level 6 party vs. 8 Spider Swarms
Level 6 party vs. 4 Ogre Spiders and 2 Drow Acolytes (level 2 clerics)
The combats which last 4+ rounds:
Level 4 party vs. Drow Noble Wizard and 8 Drow Fighters.
Level 4 party vs. 3 ogres (1 with barbarian level), 4 hobgoblin warriors, and 8 Orc barbarians.
Level 5 party vs. 18 Drow warriors, a level 7 shadowdancer.
Level 5 party vs. 3 Drow wizards (level 5), a squad of 4 Orc barbarians led by a Drow fighter (level 4), 2 shadowdancers (level 7) and 5 Drow archers (level 2-3).
Level 6 party vs. 2 Drow Clerics (level 9) and a shadowdancer (7th) and 4 Drow warriors (level 4).
Notice a theme?
There is no disparity and thus nothing to fix.Patently false.Prove it.
People love to cherry-pick certain rules and make wild claims about power gaps between classes such as Wizard domination or cleric-or-driud-zilla but nobody has ever proven it's true.
Cherry picking? The fact that casters get hundreds of spells to choose from and Fighters get "HERP DERP HIT HIM WITH MUH SWORD" isn't cherry picking, it's how things work.
Flanking assumes perfect tactical positioning. This is pretty much impossible to achieve, as any intelligent GM will have the other monsters break up the flank or counter flank.In our games flanking just assumes that you are opposite a friend that is threating your target. It's not impossible, they have some good charts in the rulebook of how you achieve flanking.
And any qualified GM will break that flank with tactical maneuvers from other monsters or a counterflank before it amounts to much.
How often does the Rogue ever start out in a position to SA? That's right. Never.In our games everyone is flat footed until they act in the first round, so the Rogue's quite often start out able to sneak attack.
Except that round is needed for the Rogue to move into position, so the Rogue can't SA yet.
Crossbows...
How often does the Rogue ever start out in a position to SA? That's right. Never.That's a false statement. Whenever I play a Rogue, I always deliver SA in the surprise round, or (if we're jumped) the opening 3 rounds of combat, and that's always my entrance.
In my games, Rogues usually don;t deliver SA at all, and they sure all hell don't start off combat in a position to do so. Remember, you cannot stealth in combat, and all maneuvers provoke AoOs.
When you're always stealthily scouting 60' ahead, or shadowing the party 20' behind and to the side, you're always ready to deliver SA. In a dungeon setting, or in any hostile setting, that's where a Rogue should always be - close enough to the party to not be "separated", but far enough to be able to pick off enemies which approach your comrades.
Any Rogue who did that in one of my games would be swiftly ambushed and killed. You do not EVER split the party up for any reason. It's tactical stupidity.
Assuming they actually work together beyond "Mage, buff me, I will rolfpowerattackcopter the closest enemy." For someone who argues how smart fighters should be, I don't get how you consider flanking a hard tactic to pull off for a fighter.
Because flanking is incredibly easy to thwart. All you need is another monster and a counterflank or bull rush.
So your enemies give away their position and waste their attacks on a lone pointman, exposing themselves to attack from the main force?
Lemme guess... animals and low INT magical beasts with the Clouded Vision curse?
Crossbows...
No sneak attack at more than 30 feet, and pretty much every encounter starts off at farther than that.
So your enemies give away their position and waste their attacks on a lone pointman, exposing themselves to attack from the main force?
Lemme guess... animals and low INT magical beasts with the Clouded Vision curse?
No, a grapple, a hand over the mouth, and a coup de grace.
And any qualified GM will break that flank with tactical maneuvers from other monsters or a counterflank before it amounts to much.Flanking assumes perfect tactical positioning. This is pretty much impossible to achieve, as any intelligent GM will have the other monsters break up the flank or counter flank.In our games flanking just assumes that you are opposite a friend that is threating your target. It's not impossible, they have some good charts in the rulebook of how you achieve flanking.
And any qualified player will move back into position to continue flanking. Now you say, Nuh Uhhh, and I'll say Uhh Huh.
Except that round is needed for the Rogue to move into position, so the Rogue can't SA yet.How often does the Rogue ever start out in a position to SA? That's right. Never.In our games everyone is flat footed until they act in the first round, so the Rogue's quite often start out able to sneak attack.
Read how combat works again, you are missing a host of rules here. Namely how ranged combat works and that you get a full round of actions in the first round of combat(Only surprise rounds limit you).
No sneak attack at more than 30 feet, and pretty much every encounter starts off at farther than that.
If it's a surprise round, the enemy hasn't noticed you. Non-stealthies use distance + bad stealth rolls to move behind 100% concealment/cover (so no stealth is needed after) and next round they hold action for Stealthies' signal. Stealthies sneak into position, and when they deliver SA (the dying/injured scream being the signal) the rest of the party makes a 5' step and attacks.
Surprise round is not when the party happens to win initiative. It's when the party notices and can act before the enemy even has a clue. When you hear the enemy from 30' down the hall, but they have no idea you're even there, that's how many a surprise round is achieved.
No, a grapple, a hand over the mouth, and a coup de grace.
So 3 round of combat (grapple, pin, CDG) while somehow keeping hidden, within 60' of the party?
Flanking assumes perfect tactical positioning. This is pretty much impossible to achieve, as any intelligent GM will have the other monsters break up the flank or counter flank.
The point of the Rogue is to be your scout, and your wildcard damage dealer.
Rogue Sneak Attack works. When the Rogue teams up with ANY other party member, he's a dangerous thing to behold. Flanking is EASY with acrobatics, and I don't care how good your monster selection is: if the Rogue Player knows what he's doing, he can get Sneak Attack off consistently in every battle. It's just a question of having party members willing to work with you to set up the flanks. And the rogue isn't worried about being Flanked in turn, because he has Uncanny Dodge and Improved Uncanny dodge. Which means that your "Counter Flank" is usually going to be on the person working with the rogue to flank...but unless your party is failing to work as a team, that should never happen.
Unless of course the DM decides to flood the party with thousands of weak monsters. Then the rogue's sneak attack will never work, because you're not letting the rogue shine where he's supposed to: working with the party to take down the big, tough monsters.
In my games, Rogues usually don;t deliver SA at all, and they sure all hell don't start off combat in a position to do so. Remember, you cannot stealth in combat, and all maneuvers provoke AoOs.
Not true. You cannot stealth after combat has started. You can however stealth before combat has started, and you are not revealed until you choose to enter combat. Furthermore, maneuvers don't provoke AoOs IF you have the associated Improved (Maneuver) feat.
Any Rogue who did that in one of my games would be swiftly ambushed and killed. You do not EVER split the party up for any reason. It's tactical stupidity.
No it's not. He's saying 20 feet to 60 feet, the perfect range to scout ahead or put together an ambush that would let you get off a quick, potentially fight-ending sneak attack, or to set off a flanking maneuver to do the same thing when the fight begins. It's not splitting up the party at that distance. It's positioning the party tactically.
Rogue is a class built entirely on tactics. If you're not planning ahead and thinking about how you're going to attack, you will die a horrible, horrible death. If you're an evil mastermind who is thinking about all of the ways he can apply his sneak attack, and how he can position himself with the party to deliver that nasty attack...then you will find Rogue to be one of the most dynamic and useful classes in the game. This isn't about power level, it's about Play Style. And Rogues require that you be Solid Snake, not John Rambo.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Meh, haven't really noticed the disparity.
Most disparities arise from the playstyle the party and GM choose, and one dimensional games tend to produce one dimensional results.
Besides it's a naff argument anyhow, as this isn't (and shouldn't be) a balancing contest because at the end of the day the players aren't balanced either, and they are the number one determinant of what happens at the gaming table.
And any qualified player will move back into position to continue flanking. Now you say, Nuh Uhhh, and I'll say Uhh Huh.And any qualified GM will break that flank with tactical maneuvers from other monsters or a counterflank before it amounts to much.Flanking assumes perfect tactical positioning. This is pretty much impossible to achieve, as any intelligent GM will have the other monsters break up the flank or counter flank.In our games flanking just assumes that you are opposite a friend that is threating your target. It's not impossible, they have some good charts in the rulebook of how you achieve flanking.No, they won't, because they'll be too busy fighting the new monster.
Read how combat works again, you are missing a host of rules here. Namely how ranged combat works and that you get a full round of actions in the first round of combat(Only surprise rounds limit you).Except that round is needed for the Rogue to move into position, so the Rogue can't SA yet.How often does the Rogue ever start out in a position to SA? That's right. Never.In our games everyone is flat footed until they act in the first round, so the Rogue's quite often start out able to sneak attack.You likely moved in the surprise round. That still means you have to move again to get adjacent for melee, and even that's dependent on a flanking buddy. If you are ranged, forget about it. You'd have to be stealthed, you probably aren't, and you probably can't initiate stealth.
No sneak attack at more than 30 feet, and pretty much every encounter starts off at farther than that.If it's a surprise round, the enemy hasn't noticed you. Non-stealthies use distance + bad stealth rolls to move behind 100% concealment/cover (so no stealth is needed after) and next round they hold action for Stealthies' signal. Stealthies sneak into position, and when they deliver SA (the dying/injured scream being the signal) the rest of the party makes a 5' step and attacks.Except the surprise round means that YOU HAVE JUST BEEN AMBUSHED. You aren't going to stealth when YOU HAVE JUST BEEN AMBUSHED.
No, a grapple, a hand over the mouth, and a coup de grace.So 3 round of combat (grapple, pin, CDG) while somehow keeping hidden, within 60' of the party?
Not that difficult in familiar territory.
Flanking assumes perfect tactical positioning. This is pretty much impossible to achieve, as any intelligent GM will have the other monsters break up the flank or counter flank.The point of the Rogue is to be your scout, and your wildcard damage dealer.
Rogue Sneak Attack works. When the Rogue teams up with ANY other party member, he's a dangerous thing to behold. Flanking is EASY with acrobatics, and I don't care how good your monster selection is: if the Rogue Player knows what he's doing, he can get Sneak Attack off consistently in every battle. It's just a question of having party members willing to work with you to set up the flanks. And the rogue isn't worried about being Flanked in turn, because he has Uncanny Dodge and Improved Uncanny dodge. Which means that your "Counter Flank" is usually going to be on the person working with the rogue to flank...but unless your party is failing to work as a team, that should never happen.
Unless of course the DM decides to flood the party with thousands of weak monsters. Then the rogue's sneak attack will never work, because you're not letting the rogue shine where he's supposed to: working with the party to take down the big, tough monsters.
In my games, Rogues usually don;t deliver SA at all, and they sure all hell don't start off combat in a position to do so. Remember, you cannot stealth in combat, and all maneuvers provoke AoOs.Not true. You cannot stealth after combat has started. You can however stealth before combat has started, and you are not revealed until you choose to enter combat. Furthermore, maneuvers don't provoke AoOs IF you have the associated Improved (Maneuver) feat.
Any Rogue who did that in one of my games would be swiftly ambushed and killed. You do not EVER split the party up for any reason. It's tactical stupidity.No it's not. He's saying 20 feet to 60 feet, the perfect range to scout ahead or put together an ambush that...
I just don't see it. I have never seen SA make any sort of a worthwhile contribution, and never will. Rogues are worthless.
Assuming they actually work together beyond "Mage, buff me, I will rolfpowerattackcopter the closest enemy." For someone who argues how smart fighters should be, I don't get how you consider flanking a hard tactic to pull off for a fighter.Because flanking is incredibly easy to thwart. All you need is another monster and a counterflank or bull rush.
You're using a CMB attack vs the fighter who's a CMD expert?
While flank can be thwarted, it's easier to get into position than it is thwarting it. But I suppose if the Dm is out specifically to thwart Flanking, then arguing is moot.
...casters get hundreds of spells...
Each of which you have to prepare daily. Having a zillion spells for most situations but not one for the exact situation you're in can happen, and quite easily. Not to mention the situational where you might have not prepared said spell enough times that day. The exception, of course, is spontaneous casters, who don't have hundreds of spells, dozens at high levels, but their selection is stil very limited.
I retain that the real problems with casters are cheating players, and GMs who don't know the limits of casters and the spells they cast.
But to answer the question, I think the best change that could come to pathfinder would be to give all classes familiars. Martial classes are just lonely and they want their kitty.
The problem is that Rogues are too heavily tactical, and the average player doesn't play like that, and when the do it's REALLY easy for a GM to throw a monkey wrench at them. For example, if the Rogue is scouting, have a monster grapple ad subdue her, drag her away, and slit her throat. Rogue trying to stealth in combat? Nope. As soon as the Rogue moves out of cover, she is revealed. Rogue is flanking? Bull rush or counterflank. Rogues, even with Uncanny Dodge, can still be flanked. They don't suffer the normal AC penalty, but it still prevents them from sneak attacking.
Plus, you pointed out that Rogues need to work as a team. Nobody wants a character who's worthless without Swordy McStupidhead to set their moves up.
You're using a CMB attack vs the fighter who's a CMD expert?Assuming they actually work together beyond "Mage, buff me, I will rolfpowerattackcopter the closest enemy." For someone who argues how smart fighters should be, I don't get how you consider flanking a hard tactic to pull off for a fighter.Because flanking is incredibly easy to thwart. All you need is another monster and a counterflank or bull rush.
What? No. You do it to the Rogue, who can't defend herself.
I just don't see it. I have never seen SA make any sort of a worthwhile contribution, and never will. Rogues are worthless.
Well. Technically, everything you said about a Grapple Check, a Hand over the Mouth, and a Coup De Grace...is technically not possible in Pathfinder. Not without making a lot of noise the party would hear. Grappling gets pretty loud, and there would need to be multiple attacks spent grappling the target into a pin, after which he wouldn't count as helpless yet. You'd need to bind him with Rope. THEN you could Coup De Grace the guy. There's no way to do all of that quietly as you say.
IN fact, the only way to kill someone instantly without anyone knowing is in fact...with Rogue Sneak Attack. Which the Rogue is immune to unless his opponent is a rogue with 4 more rogue levels than him.
Furthermore, in the first round of combat, until you take your first turn you are flatfooted. Which means the rogue gets an easy sneak attack off most of the time. It's one of the main reasons a lot of rogue players take Improved Initiative.
Flanking is easy. Especially with Acrobatics and a willingness to work with the rest of your party.
Rogues are very useful. You just aren't giving them a fair shake.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that Rogues are too heavily tactical, and the average player doesn't play like that, and when the do it's REALLY easy for a GM to throw a monkey wrench at them.As opposed to every other class?
For example, if the Rogue is scouting, have a monster grapple ad subdue her, drag her away, and slit her throat.If only rogue's had some way to be hard to detect ...
Rogue trying to stealth in combat? Nope. As soon as the Rogue moves out of cover, she is revealed.If only Rogue's had some class feature that helped with that ...
Rogue is flanking? Bull rush or counterflank.Rogue's cant flank every round of combat, ohh noes ....
Rogues, even with Uncanny Dodge, can still be flanked.Are you saying the reason Rogue's are weak is higher level rogues?
They don't suffer the normal AC penalty, but it still prevents them from sneak attacking.
No it doesn't.
Plus, you pointed out that Rogues need to work as a team. Nobody wants a character who's worthless without Swordy McStupidhead to set their moves up.
People have pointed out that Rogue's benfit from working as a team, but then again, so does every other class. It's almost like working together is a valid tactical choice.