Vivisectionist Alchemists are better Sneak Attacks by miles.
Why do you say this? They have the same SA progression, same BAB, etc.
Probably because they can cast Greater/Invisibility without anyone else' help, can boost their own stats, and have other nifty tricks, without losing any SA progression at all?
Vivisectionist Alchemists are better Sneak Attacks by miles.Why do you say this? They have the same SA progression, same BAB, etc.
Roll a Knifemaster/Scout Rogue then roll a Beastmorph/Vivisectionist Alchemist.
Make them both level 4.
See which one is getting some pretty good sneak attacks going and then see which one is just absolutely getting crazy with the cheez whiz and making the other look a bit silly while also wearing a jaunty top hat and monocle and wait what was I talking about again
Well not only do you have stuff like this.. but some weapons that are 'rogue staples' in a way suck pretty badly.
Like the Garrote
Needs Exotic weapon prof.. for this.Description: In order for you to use a garrote, your opponent must be helpless or unaware of you. You must make a grapple check (though you avoid the –4 penalty for not having two hands free) to successfully begin garroting your opponent. Sneak attack damage does not apply to a garrote. Your garroted opponent must make a concentration check (DC 20 + your CMB + level of the spell he’s casting) to cast a spell with a verbal component, use a command word item, or use any magic requiring speech. You gain the following additional option when grappling with a garrote.
Choke: You cut off your target’s air supply so he has to hold his breath (see Suffocation, and the Swim skill for additional information). Any round you do not maintain the choke, your opponent can take a breath and restart when he has to begin making Constitution checks.
I wish things worked like that in my BJJ class. Instead of having about 6 - 10 seconds to solve my problem before taking a nap I'd have a good deal longer.
Holding one's breath doesn't have much of anything to do with it. Bypassing the breath holding rules and moving right to the constitution checks mirrors how blood chokes and the like work much more closely, but dropping to -1 hit point after a few rounds isn't accurate either.
The issue is that Pathfinder is a combat style game. Every other class is pretty decent in combat (and at least monks are interesting to play if you build them right). The rogue doesn't really have any special attacks that allow him to play uniquely, and his only combat ability requires him to get in close without any defenses. You plain cannot avoid battlefields in Pathfinder. Combat WILL happen. Deceiving others? A bard can do that better. Evading others? Monks can definitely do that better. And you can't "evade people".
Then don't play a rogue. ...and stop complaining about them.
PF is not W.O.W. It's an RPG and you CAN actually have an alternative to combat, and you CAN actually do something other than build munchkin-melee-death-machines, accept quests by clicking a button, and kill big-bad-bosses at the end of every adventure.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The issue is that Pathfinder is a combat style game. Every other class is pretty decent in combat (and at least monks are interesting to play if you build them right). The rogue doesn't really have any special attacks that allow him to play uniquely, and his only combat ability requires him to get in close without any defenses. You plain cannot avoid battlefields in Pathfinder. Combat WILL happen. Deceiving others? A bard can do that better. Evading others? Monks can definitely do that better. And you can't "evade people".Then don't play a rogue. ...and stop complaining about them.
PF is not W.O.W. It's an RPG and you CAN actually have an alternative to combat, and you CAN actually do something other than build munchkin-melee-death-machines, accept quests by clicking a button, and kill big-bad-bosses at the end of every adventure.
You do realize this thread is in the homebrew forum, right?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then don't play a rogue. ...and stop complaining about them.
"Ignore the problem, it'll go away eventually!"
PF is not W.O.W. It's an RPG and you CAN actually have an alternative to combat, and you CAN actually do something other than build munchkin-melee-death-machines, accept quests by clicking a button, and kill big-bad-bosses at the end of every adventure.
Except A.) Pathfinder is still a combat game, like all d20 games, so combat makes up like 60% of it, and B.) Rogues still suck at out of combat stuff compared to other classes too.
Can you honestly tell me you'd rather have a Rogue than a Bard or Alchemist, Wizard or Sorcerer, Cleric or Inquisitor in out of combat situations?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"If you want your character to not be terrible at the things your character is supposed to be good at then maybe you should play babby games like WOW."
Man I don't even know how to make fun of this
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
okay let me try
LFM PFS Quest for Perfection FULL ON ROGUES!!1 PST
Sorry, about the thread, I didn't think this would turn into what it did. I was hoping that instead of people saying rogues suck lets call it a day, or rogues don't suck, you just don't know how to play them; we could come together and have a realistic conversation about what is weak and what can be fixed.
Rogues are under powered. There is no way to deny it. I wanted to put together ways to identify what is weak, get some suggestions on how to fix them, and then find a good balance between the improvements.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Man your idea is just fine
It was also just fine in the 50295029 threads on the exact same subject that came before it
this is like the eternal debate now that people can't quite hate monks as hard as they used to hate them
|
The issue with additional Sneak Attack dice on a crit is that even with only 2d6 extra, it becomes better than an elemental burst weapon enchantment, which costs 18000 gp.
TLDR: Magic sets the limits of power for itself, mundanes can't have nice things.
Yes, but an enchanted weapon is usable by anybody, and it goes on top of whatever inherent bonuses they may already have to their damage.
So yes, 2d6 more sneak attack might be worth 18,000 gp, but maybe Rogues should get it anyway?
Without adding to much more to all the very good points that have been made, I would just like to add that I love playing Rogues (3.5 & Pathfinder). Probably my favorite class to play aside from wizards. I played a rogue in the SCAP for 20 + levels and had a blast. I also remember reading somewhere that Gary Gygax himself said his favorite class to play was a rogue. Just my two coppers.
But what does that have to do with anything
My favorite class to play is Monk but I'm under no illusions about its relative level of balance compared to most other classes; it requires a higher level of optimization to even put on par with something like a Barbarian in damage output or whatever.
Rogue is in a worse boat IMO, since it requires a high level of optimization to be effective too, but at very best it becomes adequate at the niche it's supposed to fill (skill monkey/stealth/door opening trap guy).
it seems the rogue is the hated class of the week, there was a fighter, then the monk... and I personaly hate Cavalier because it is useless!!
dont worry, maybe monday some one post a thread hatting to wizards or sorcerers or who cares!!
But what does that have to do with anything
My favorite class to play is Monk but I'm under no illusions about its relative level of balance compared to most other classes; it requires a higher level of optimization to even put on par with something like a Barbarian in damage output or whatever.
Rogue is in a worse boat IMO, since it requires a high level of optimization to be effective too, but at very best it becomes adequate at the niche it's supposed to fill (skill monkey/stealth/door opening trap guy).
Well to start a GOOD gamer can do almost anything with any character IMO. Maybe you are not very good at playing rogues, or have had some bad experiences. Therfore that has tainted your opinion on the class. I hate playing eleves, simply because I have had bad luck when I have in the past. My rogue in our SCAP, as we reached the mid to higher levels, could handle his own and then some. That was point. Sorry if I did not explain it well enough for you to understand.
And my point just goes *WOOSH* right over your head.
"A GOOD gamer can make a Commoner into Jesus!" is still not the same statement as "The Commoner is a good class". I mentioned that you can optimize a Rogue to be pretty decent at what he's supposed to do, but with that same level of optimization you could bust the game wide open with an Alchemist or Bard, and still do a lot better with a Ninja.
And the "what does that have to do with anything" statement was aimed at the "Well Gygax' favorite class was the Rogue" bit. Who gives a flying f@$! what Gygax' favorite class was, I ask you? What bearing does that have on balance arguments? Gabe Newell's favorite class is the Spy, but does that make the Spy a better class than it really is? NO.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
"A GOOD gamer can make a Commoner into Jesus!"
It's pretty easy, all you need is a few ranks in Perform (Miracles).
I think editing to give a better title might be a good idea unless you want the thread to get off on the wrong foot...
Told ya so :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"A GOOD gamer can make a Commoner into Jesus!"It's pretty easy, all you need is a few ranks in Perform (Miracles).
You should check out the Savior prestige class. It's divine.
|
|
Hopefully, this thread isn't about hating Rogues at all. Much like BanditofLV, Rogue is one of my favorite classes. I think they're cool and fun. That's one of the reasons that I wish they weren't overshadowed so much by other classes. I like the Rogue's style, so I don't want to see its niche get eroded.
I don't think they need to be combat monsters. They won't be a killer as a Barbarian or a Paladin, but that's okay. I definitely think any increase should be within their niche role, either by making Sneak Attack better or else their flanking/surprising better.
I do think that Rogues should be the most useful class outside of combat. When you have a tricky situation, your go-to choices should be to burn a spell from the Wizard or point the Rogue at it. And better than 50% of the time, the Rogue should be the better choice.
I'm really thinking hard about my concept of giving them more skill points based on other ability scores. The main problem, of course, is that everybody will pick Dex. So maybe we could limit it to just the other mental stats? And let him pick between them more often:
Streetwise Skills (Ex): At each level, a Rogue picks either Wisdom or Charisma. She gains a number of extra skill points equal to that ability's bonus. These extra skill points may only be spent on skills keyed to that ability score.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You should check out the Savior prestige class. It's divine."A GOOD gamer can make a Commoner into Jesus!"It's pretty easy, all you need is a few ranks in Perform (Miracles).
I'm especially a fan of their Crucifixion ability. It's to die for.
I say, let them use Dex. points to buy Rogue maneuvers.
|
Someone mentioned Rogue Glory earlier in the thread and I picked up the PDF this afternoon.
They have a Rogue variant (like the Ninja) that feels pretty good, along with some new rogue talents. I can see allowing this book among my tabletop games *finally* helping encourage someone to roll the first rogue since PF was released. Why? Because there's some unique stuff in there that I'd think someone will be drawn to because it gets their creative fluids flowing.
Some of the things in there that piqued my interest:
Rogues get some extra proficiencies like the blade boot and sword cane. I know players who have played bards because they want to use the whip, and I can see this helping those kinds of minds.
The rogue variant get Improved Feint for free, without meeting pre-reqs. Almost every guy I've known play a rogue always wants this feat, but never quite gets to it when they want to.
They added some rogue talents to really make a swashbuckler or thug concept shine, like "Maneuver Mastery" that basically gives the rogue a full BAB for a specific maneuver.
There's other goodies in here like rogues dabbling in alchemy or traps that are nice.
I can see a lot of folks starting with a concept and seeing all the various new options for a rogue in this book and going for it to fulfill their vision versus going primarily with an alchemist, bard, ranger or fighter instead. With just Core+APG+UC, rogue falls quite short on a lot of "cool rogue-like ideas" without serious multi-classing.
This book alone makes me realize that Paizo could get a lot of mileage out of an Ultimate book that gives this side of the game some more TLC. It could include various common "House Rules" (like allowing Dex to all finessable weapons), providing some magus archetypes to approximate thief-mages, and doing something so that every melee bard isn't a scimitar-wielding dervish, but instead might actually use a (gasp) rapier, shortsword or (another gasp) a dagger!
|
|
The fundamental problem is that they're living in the past.
Trapfinding is no longer a do or die party role, nor is it a protected niche.
It's no longer okay to be the skill monkey. Skills are more generally available and the popular will is to make them even more generally available by increasing the skill points of the less skilled classes.
Medium BAB is no longer good enough. Everyone is harder to kill than they were in 3.5 and non-primary spellcaster except rogue has gotten better at killing things to compensate.
If we're not going to let the rogue fade into history it needs to not be built around trapfinding or skills and it needs to hit better.
It can still have skills and trapfinding, but it can't get its value from them because for most players they're either too valuable to let one character monopolize or not valuable enough to be worth carrying a load.
I agree about trapfinding (like I said, I've seen adventures that don't even HAVE traps), but not so much about being a skill monkey or the BAB thing.
PF has simplified the skill system and flattened out the curve between high-point classes and low-point classes, but there are still enough skills that it's really nice to have a skill monkey in your party. My main problem is that Bards generally make better skill monkeys than Rogues do nowadays. Rogues should get better bonuses to reclaim their top spot.
As for Medium BAB: Nobody seems to complain about that for Alchemists, Inquisitors, and Magi. Just giving the Rogue full BAB is a poor solution, I think.
It seems to me that there's a school of thought that holds that classes should either get good spells or full BAB, one or the other. Since Rogues don't have either, then they suck. That's not my opinion. Rogues should take the third option: great skills and non-combat quality, plus tricky combat advantages that are unrelated to BAB.
I like gnomersy's second option: Rogues as Terrifying Glass Hammers of DOOM. :) If it's hard and dangerous to get Sneak Attack to go off, then the payoff should be pretty huge. I really don't think it's very underpowered now (especially for Knifemasters!), so it could just use a little bump to put the shine back on it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As for Medium BAB: Nobody seems to complain about that for Alchemists, Inquisitors, and Magi.
Alchemists, Inquisitors, and Magi all have multiple other class features that boost their to-hit. Rogues don't.
Alchemists, Inquisitors, and Magi all have class features that grant ways to contribute in combat other than "I stab him". Rogues don't.
Alchemists, Inquisitors, and Magi also aren't encouraged to TWF (except Vivisectionists). Rogues are, by both flavor and mechanics, but that not only gives them a -2 to hit but also makes them pay more for weapon enhancements so their enhancement bonuses to hit fall behind the curve, dropping their to-hit even further.
Basically what I'm saying is that this is an incredibly shallow analogy that doesn't stand up to any degree of scrutiny.
I don't think Rogues need full BAB, but they do need some way to boost their to-hit.
Every class (even those with full BAB) can boost their attack rolls somehow. Except rogues.
Rogues are not terrible, but they are underwhelming. I'd give them a 2nd good save (not sure which one... Maybe allow the player to choose at 1st level) and/or a way to resist effects that target Fort/Will saves (maybe allow Rogues to make a Reflex save instead of a Will save a few times a day).
They should be better at their given role. If they are skill monkeys, elt them excel at skill-monkeying! Maybe Rogues could reroll failed skill checks? Or use skills in cool different ways.
Maybe we could simply do away with sneak attack and instead let Rogues add their Int-modifier as precision damage to all their attacks. The number would go down, but it'd be less situational. This extra benefit for higher Int scores also boosts his skills, and would be a better deal even if Rogues only got 6 skill points per level.
Remove the Int/Combat Expertise prerequisites from all those combat maneuver feats and suddenly not only Rogues, but Fighters and all other Martial characters become better classes. Or just give Fighters a talent that let them grab the Improved/Greater vesion of a few combat maneuves (Dirty Trick/Feint/Steal/Trio) for free as they level up. This is already possible for Oracles of Battle.
I'd like to see Rogues using poison as well. The problem is that Poison mechanics are dumb. Poisons are way too expensive and ineffective.
Last but not least... Some useful Rogue Talents would be nice. Instead of the current 2 or 3 decent ones for every 10 that suck balls.
Alchemists can raise either their Dex (raising both AC and to-hit), and Con for defense, while also gaining +2 Natural Armor from either. Plus they get Shield in an extract.
Rynjin has the best solution right here
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pgbn?Freeform-Class-Selection-or-A-random-idea -I
In a free form character build a rogue could get the BaB, extra save, and probly trade something like trap sense and uncanny dodge for a 4th level spells progression (like pal/rng).
This way anyone could hand tailor their rogue as they see fit.
It just kind of makes my feelings hurt that if I showed up with a rogue everyone would just point and laugh and miss out on being able to point and laugh at me throughout the game rather than just directly before it in the moments that precede me slinking off to sulk and/or cry in the shower
I am fully in favor of delicious steak yes
Eating it while crying in the shower will however raise issues
Also if you are trying to trick me into rolling up a rogue with the promise of steak only to face punch me at a convention once you see my character sheet then oh man I am going to be so mad
Like Pendagast-just-saw-an-invunerable-rager-build-at-his-table mad
A lot of funny posts. A lot of suggestions about how to make the Rogue better in combat. Don't. The Rogue was remade (from the Thief) into a quasi combat class for 3E. That's the base of the problem. Theives were never about combat. You're only chance in combat was stabbing the guy in the back, and that's not really what I'd call combat. Murder, but not combat. Think of ways to make the Rogue better at other areas. Make him fantastic in other areas. He needs to be ably to pick every pocket you've got while talking to you face to face. Run across rooftops and leap gaps without hesitation. Move so quietly and flit through shadows so well that magic won't detect him. He needs to do every iconic Rogue skill better than any other class / archtype. Start thinking of the other things a Rogue does. He can't out fight a fighter. Or the Fighters will whine big time :) He can't be just a mix of other classes (i.e. a Rogue-Wizard). He has iconic, classic turf to cover. He needs to do that. He needs to be so damn useful that no party wants to be without him. Not be a junior combat monkey.
Unique feats, skill uses, talents, traits etc. that other classes *are not* allowed to poach are needed. The Rogue is not alone as the problem, the leakage of his role into other classes is an issue too. Develop cool new stuff, and don't give the new toys to anybody else! Let them be second rate at what the Rogue does best and his being a second rate fighter won't be a big deal.
My 2 cp.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is even if the Rogue becomes the absolute undisputed GOD of out of combat interactions, he's still left out of the focus of the game, which is combat. In a more social based game, the Rogue as he is currently could probably shine (still not as much as a Bard, but still), but Pathfinder has very little focus on social interactions. They're usually there to propel you towards the next combat encounter.
Now, I'm not saying "Screw skills, make Rogue a combat monster", but just making him better out of combat doesn't help him most of the time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of funny posts. A lot of suggestions about how to make the Rogue better in combat. Don't. The Rogue was remade (from the Thief) into a quasi combat class for 3E. That's the base of the problem. Theives were never about combat. You're only chance in combat was stabbing the guy in the back, and that's not really what I'd call combat. Murder, but not combat. Think of ways to make the Rogue better at other areas. Make him fantastic in other areas. He needs to be ably to pick every pocket you've got while talking to you face to face. Run across rooftops and leap gaps without hesitation. Move so quietly and flit through shadows so well that magic won't detect him. He needs to do every iconic Rogue skill better than any other class / archtype. Start thinking of the other things a Rogue does. He can't out fight a fighter. Or the Fighters will whine big time :) He can't be just a mix of other classes (i.e. a Rogue-Wizard). He has iconic, classic turf to cover. He needs to do that. He needs to be so damn useful that no party wants to be without him. Not be a junior combat monkey.
Unique feats, skill uses, talents, traits etc. that other classes *are not* allowed to poach are needed. The Rogue is not alone as the problem, the leakage of his role into other classes is an issue too. Develop cool new stuff, and don't give the new toys to anybody else! Let them be second rate at what the Rogue does best and his being a second rate fighter won't be a big deal.
My 2 cp.
The pre-3E rogue was bad at combat and good at other stuff, because DnD of that era was an adventure game. 3E made the game an adventure game/war game mix. This is not to say that adventure games or war games are superior (they are different styles of play and everyone has their preferences,) but with the changes 3E introduced, the paradigm shifted in a way that the old traditions and hold-overs couldn't handle.
When combats can hit 3 hours long, everyone needs to contribute the same in combat. Also, if only one person is good at out of combat situations, then the players and GM must choose to spotlight one person at the expense of others. One answer to this problem was the creation of 4th-Ed (completely embracing tactical simulation to the expense of most else,) which a lot of us didn't like. The other answer (which I like better,) is to make the rogue better in combat, and give other classes more out-of-combat options.
|
A lot of funny posts. A lot of suggestions about how to make the Rogue better in combat. Don't. The Rogue was remade (from the Thief) into a quasi combat class for 3E. That's the base of the problem. Theives were never about combat. You're only chance in combat was stabbing the guy in the back, and that's not really what I'd call combat. Murder, but not combat. Think of ways to make the Rogue better at other areas. Make him fantastic in other areas. He needs to be ably to pick every pocket you've got while talking to you face to face. Run across rooftops and leap gaps without hesitation. Move so quietly and flit through shadows so well that magic won't detect him. He needs to do every iconic Rogue skill better than any other class / archtype. Start thinking of the other things a Rogue does. He can't out fight a fighter. Or the Fighters will whine big time :) He can't be just a mix of other classes (i.e. a Rogue-Wizard). He has iconic, classic turf to cover. He needs to do that. He needs to be so damn useful that no party wants to be without him. Not be a junior combat monkey.
Unique feats, skill uses, talents, traits etc. that other classes *are not* allowed to poach are needed. The Rogue is not alone as the problem, the leakage of his role into other classes is an issue too. Develop cool new stuff, and don't give the new toys to anybody else! Let them be second rate at what the Rogue does best and his being a second rate fighter won't be a big deal.
My 2 cp.
The issue is that 3.E was remade (from AD&D) into a combat-based game. In AD&D, I could literally sit around developing my character and talking to the DM and the other players for DAYS without combat. And everyone was fine with that, but that's not how this system is.
The thief is not a Pathfinder class. The rogue is. And everyone else in the system is good at combat, has their own things that make them unique or useful in combat. The rogue doesn't need to be an undisputed master of thievery, because thievery is an alignment-restricted action (unless you'd like to tack a nonlawful or even neutral alignment requirement onto the class, and everyone would rage at that).
For a class to be ideal, it must have three things:
A. Unique class features that fit the common themes and lore associated with the name of the class.
B. Unique class features that enhance the character's ability to contribute to the team in combat.
C. Unique class features that enhance the character's ability to contribute to the team out of combat.
Plenty of classes in PF fail at C (Paladin, fighter, even the cavalier and samurai), but the rogue is the only class that fails B. Even if flurry of blows is an awkward, broken mechanic, it's still a mechanic and it's still very unique and flavorful.
Rogues need to be viable in combat. Otherwise, you are literally crippling your party by not contributing correctly to your party's CR calculations. If you are not a viable member of your four man team in combat, your DM will have a much harder time designing encounters properly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
May I plug myself? The entire point of Rogue Glory was to address these issues, and so far it's been very well reviewed: 5 stars and a personal seal of approval from Endzeitgeist, plus the comments above in this very thread. Since rogues are still a hot-button issue, I'd love to hear if others feel the book addresses the concerns at hand.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of funny posts. A lot of suggestions about how to make the Rogue better in combat. Don't. The Rogue was remade (from the Thief) into a quasi combat class for 3E. That's the base of the problem. Theives were never about combat. You're only chance in combat was stabbing the guy in the back, and that's not really what I'd call combat. Murder, but not combat. Think of ways to make the Rogue better at other areas. Make him fantastic in other areas. He needs to be ably to pick every pocket you've got while talking to you face to face. Run across rooftops and leap gaps without hesitation. Move so quietly and flit through shadows so well that magic won't detect him. He needs to do every iconic Rogue skill better than any other class / archtype. Start thinking of the other things a Rogue does. He can't out fight a fighter. Or the Fighters will whine big time :) He can't be just a mix of other classes (i.e. a Rogue-Wizard). He has iconic, classic turf to cover. He needs to do that. He needs to be so damn useful that no party wants to be without him. Not be a junior combat monkey.
Unique feats, skill uses, talents, traits etc. that other classes *are not* allowed to poach are needed. The Rogue is not alone as the problem, the leakage of his role into other classes is an issue too. Develop cool new stuff, and don't give the new toys to anybody else! Let them be second rate at what the Rogue does best and his being a second rate fighter won't be a big deal.
My 2 cp.
The issue is that 3.E was remade (from AD&D) into a combat-based game. In AD&D, I could literally sit around developing my character and talking to the DM and the other players for DAYS without combat. And everyone was fine with that, but that's not how this system is.
Hmmm, several very similar replies to my post, from you -- NeoSeraphi, and Rynjin, AdamMeyers, and johnlocke90. If you don't mind I'm going to reply to all of you in one post rather than get repetitive.
I've played every version of this game starting in 1974. It was always a combat based game. It was developed on the back of a set of wargame rules, Chainmail. When we kicked in a door in the dungeon in 1974 we weren't there to debate the monster or ask politely for him to give up the treasure. All 3E did was to present more comprehensive, systematic set of rules for combat -- and everything else for that matter. If anything the game became less centered on killing. In the old days you only recieved experience for killing the enemy. Now, if you defeat him (dead, surrendered, fled) you gain the experience.
The thief is not a Pathfinder class. The rogue is. And everyone else in the system is good at combat, has their own things that make them unique or useful in combat. The rogue doesn't need to be an undisputed master of thievery, because thievery is an alignment-restricted action (unless you'd like to tack a nonlawful or even neutral alignment requirement onto the class, and everyone would rage at that).
The Thief is not in PF of course; the Rogue however is essentially an expanded Thief class covering more roles. He is many things, including a thief. How good all the classes are in combat is certainly up for debate. If you believe some posters many classes are not "good". Certainly there is a variation in combat effectiveness between classes. Most thievery took place in the old days in a non civilized environment (dungeons and wilderness). It was not illegal to steal from monsters, bandits etc.. Unless you carried your activities over into "the city". That was a choice and certainly it varied by alignment / character then. And the Rogue, as I mentioned above, covers a wider array of roles. No need to restrict the Rogue's alignment. Players rage about enough as is :)
For a class to be ideal, it must have three things:A. Unique class features that fit the common themes and lore associated with the name of the class.
B. Unique class features that enhance the character's ability to contribute to the team in combat.
C. Unique class features that enhance the character's ability to contribute to the team out of combat.
Plenty of classes in PF fail at C (Paladin, fighter, even the cavalier and samurai), but the rogue is the only class that fails B. Even if flurry of blows is an awkward, broken mechanic, it's still a mechanic and it's still very unique and flavorful.
Rogues need to be viable in combat. Otherwise, you are literally crippling your party by not contributing correctly to your party's CR calculations. If you are not a viable member of your four man team in combat, your DM will have a much harder time designing encounters properly.
Let's see...
A. I think we both agree the Rogue covers some iconic themes. I just think they could cover it better and be more useful, and functional as a result.
B. Enhancing the teams ability in combat. This is pretty subjective and uneven now. Different classes carry more, or less, of the weight of combat depending on the circumstances. The constant threads about "how over/under powered class xyz is" is a constant reminder of this. I would be more worried about the classes contributing to the parties adventuring success as a whole on the theory that it's not all, or doesn't have to be all, combat. If it's all combat that says as much about the adventure design and mentality of the players as it does the game system. I'll admit, because combat is an important part of the game and always has been, there has been a push to increase combat abilities in the lifespan of 3.x itself; more combat oriented feats, increased hit dice, etc. I'm an old school player, and it feels odd for me to be advocating non-combat elements :D
C. Well, again I think the Rogue has that covered, even if it could be covered better.
As for CR calculations... they are a guide for combat situations, but given the variations in combat effectiveness that already exist, it is a rough guide at best. And who is to say that non combat skills such as stealth, disguise, etc. aren't a viable way to defeat a challenge? If killing every thing in sight is the sole way through a situation then sheer combat power / dpr is the measure of a party. If sneaking in, bribery, disguise / acting etc. can get you through, then dpr is less important. Currently it all seems to be about dpr. Or casters of course.
Another poster. johnlocke90 I believe, mentioned the team aspect of the game and how everyone should be contributing equally. My argument is that they would be -- at different times. When the Wizard is scrying is everyone else involved? When the Cleric is healing, is everyone else involved. Well, maybe passively. Plenty of things happen now that shine a light on one character, or shine the light unevenly (as in a "tank" in combat, or a caster ending an encounter with a single spell). Giving the Rogue an enhanced package of skills, or more accurately a superior package of skills would not change that.
Again, all imo. I need to grade a pile of essays. Oh joy. When I get the chance I'll post some ideas that I think people may like. Probably tommorow. We'll see...
Actually, /everysingle/ ability a rogue has, beyond his capstone.. some other class has.
We had a barbarian be our scout for a while.
This ended pretty quickly when he was consistently able to take out whatever things he found while scouting. A whole session of just him doing things and us twiddling our thumbs got boring real quick.