I've seen many thresds on Monk but what exactly is the problem with Rogues? I've seen them referenced as one of the weakest classes a lot but I've never seen anything specific and it doesn't help that I never played one.
It was about skill monkey rogues, but quickly became a discussion going over in agonizing detail at every failing of the rogue and how their are dozens of options that do the rogue job as good or better than the rogue.
Eventually. Steps 2-6 need to happen first.steps 2 and 3 are going to be a hard push, paladin MIGHT get a pass, but full casters (especially wizards) have so many workarounds for skills the devs wouldn't bother. Summoner's can just summon something to perform the skill for them. these are unique workarounds that feat investment is laughable for them to maintain some of these skills.
You must have missed the guy in this thread who feels like NO character should have 2+int per lvl (like the sorcerer)
I've seen many thresds on Monk but what exactly is the problem with Rogues? I've seen them referenced as one of the weakest classes a lot but I've never seen anything specific and it doesn't help that I never played one.
They're the nega-Fighter.
They do okay outside of combat with their skills, but suck all around in combat.
And then their skills become obsoleted by spells, leaving them with nothing.
I've seen many thresds on Monk but what exactly is the problem with Rogues? I've seen them referenced as one of the weakest classes a lot but I've never seen anything specific and it doesn't help that I never played one.They're the nega-Fighter.
They do okay outside of combat with their skills, but suck all around in combat.
And then their skills become obsoleted by spells, leaving them with nothing.
Yeah that about sums it up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen many thresds on Monk but what exactly is the problem with Rogues? I've seen them referenced as one of the weakest classes a lot but I've never seen anything specific and it doesn't help that I never played one.
Everything they ever did well got taken away from them.
Jason Bulmahn hates the rogue with a passion, and wanted to make sure it was the ultimate trap class, by seemingly offering a lot: handfuls of damage dice (that are very situational and don't add up to a lot anyway), talents that are highly situational and not worth tracking even when active, and skills that are totally obsolete. They should have renamed the PF rogue "Timmy" and been done with it.
You must have missed the guy in this thread who feels like NO character should have 2+int per lvl (like the sorcerer)Eventually. Steps 2-6 need to happen first.steps 2 and 3 are going to be a hard push, paladin MIGHT get a pass, but full casters (especially wizards) have so many workarounds for skills the devs wouldn't bother. Summoner's can just summon something to perform the skill for them. these are unique workarounds that feat investment is laughable for them to maintain some of these skills.
I didn't miss him, I just don't consider a single opinion (it's the first time I have ever seen that one, the closest I've seen is all but the wizard and witch should get at least 4) equivalent to causing powercreep in the main game, heck I don't at all believe we will see a single one of these changes in this version of pathfinder. All I can hope, is that if there is some kind of updated pathfinder (i refuse to call it 2.0, since that would imply more of a systemic overhaul than I believe paizo will EVER do), that these suggestions are paid attention to. There is a huge vocal majority for 4+int for fighter, and it won't be easy for the devs to ignore such a fair compromise for the fighter. As far that guy goes (I don't feel like looking back and seeing who specifically said it), I respect his opinion even if we only with agree about 50% of each others theory.
I just got done looking through Rogue archetypes...
Oh wow.
A few things that set me off is that again the Ranger has stolen some abilities. Why does the rogue not have, Improved Evasion and Hide in Plain Sight?
I haven't taken a good look at Rogue talents, they seem to be re purposed feats when I last saw them, are they really that bad?
In exchange, the rogue got a bunch of crappy talents to choose from that are so lame it's almost an embarrassment to write them on your character sheet.Tell me about it! Hardest part of leveling up is figuring out what is the least embarrassing choice.
...and I notice you didn't bother listing any of them on the Deftfoot profile page!
My last build of a fighter had 5 feats outside of the CRB. That may not seem like a lot but I spent 7 feats on swinging greatsword slightly harder(WF-tree and friends). 8 if you count power attack.
At high levels, the Rogue will want more skills because everybody does. If he has the gold, no reason not to get it.
And that rogue list of skills is VERY long. If he wants to have all the skills on his list, he MUST grab an Int booster.
And the archetype of intelligent rogues is VERY strong. Sherlock Holmes, anyone? Indeed, most heist movies are all about extremely smart and clever individuals, not just highly skilled doormats.
==Aelryinth
Anyways, he'll have less skills than several other classes. Alchemists for example start with 4+Int. That's 8 at level 1, same than Int 10 rogue. Let's suppose both get a +6 (which the alchemist will do far sooner). However, the Alchemist will probably raise his INT with the level bumps, the rogue won't. The alchemist might buy a book of inherent bonus, the rogue probably won't.
Summoners also have more skills (thanks to eidolon), and bards also have more because of their Performance skills working for 2 things at a time.
I also like being able to get weapon focus and weapon finesse.
The same abilities I complain about for the fighter...
Well the fighter does get some nice toys like
Pin Down (Combat)
You easily block enemy escapes.
Prerequisite: Combat Reflexes, fighter level 11th.
Benefit: Whenever an opponent you threaten takes a 5-foot step or uses the withdraw action, that opponent provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If the attack hits, you deal no damage, but the targeted creature is prevented from making the move action that granted a 5-foot step or the withdraw action and does not move.
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stunning Assault (Combat)
You powerful but imprecise attacks can stun your enemies.
Prerequisites: Str 13, Power Attack, base attack bonus +16.
Benefit: You can choose to take a –5 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to stun targets you hit with your melee attacks for 1 round. A successful Fortitude save negates the effect. The DC of this save is 10 + your base attack bonus. You must choose to use this feat before making the attack roll, and its effects last until your next turn.
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
And penetrating Strike
That and just having a high strength score gives you some out-of-combat fun.
The rogue just falls flat. Even if the non-full-caster replacements for the rogue were removed they would still suck. 70% of most sessions are spent in combat. Sucking during that is worse than sucking in the other 30%.
Fighters fill their role well enough that they are only bad in comparison to paladins, rangers, and barbars. But if all those classes disappeared, the fighter still fills the role of melee beef-stick pretty well.
Well, rogues get Use Magic Device, so that gives them an advantage magically. In any case, this is a thread about Fighters, not Rogues. Rogues need their own thread . .. .
In any case, if you give Rogues the abilities from Rogue Glory, they're pretty decent. Fighters, if they're granted 4+Int skill points, scaling feats, and followers/henchmen around 8th level, do okay.
Boo 4+int skills is bad!
If fighters get 4+int so should wizards and commoners. None of those classes focus on skills. So if fighters get 4+int then that should be the min amount everyone gets.
Fighters are students of combat. Mundane skills are the essence of how they handle things when not fighting. Yes, they should get more skill points, and it won't affect their power in combat at all...just make them a bit more well-rounded outside of combat.
Wizards handle problems with spells, not skills.
Commoners don't train at anything and are basically either self-taught or learn as they go. You don't get trained or study to be a commoner. Having them get more skill points is like giving more points to your dog.
==Aelryinth
I've been looking over those scaling feats again (the ones from the wiki link) and the only thing that really bothers me about them is that they all scale at the same rate as iteratives, meaning your fighter's progression is going to be EXTREMELY spiky rather than a smooth curve. Some 'combat style' feats should absolutely key off of the itterative attack rate (TWF, Vital Strike, etc) but others should probably be set to more gradual rates or at the same rate but on different 'beats' to blur the power curve a little, just as casters pick up more lesser slots between top level raises.
Note that this STILL doesn't fix the narrative disparity issue though, it just gives fighters a lot more options. My suggested ranks=level feat doesn't matter if spells can make skills pointless. Either problem spells need to be nerfed HARD or spells need to be regrouped into a number of relatively balanced triads such that picking one group means you can't have anything from the other 2, period.
You must have missed the guy in this thread who feels like NO character should have 2+int per lvl (like the sorcerer)Eventually. Steps 2-6 need to happen first.steps 2 and 3 are going to be a hard push, paladin MIGHT get a pass, but full casters (especially wizards) have so many workarounds for skills the devs wouldn't bother. Summoner's can just summon something to perform the skill for them. these are unique workarounds that feat investment is laughable for them to maintain some of these skills.
Why can't each class be taken on it's individual needs? For example, let's look at your breakdown:
Here's a cycle
1. Fight gets 4+int Yup.
2. No one should have 2+int Yes IMO, no IOO**
3. Wizard, Cleric, Summoner, Paladin ect get 4+int Sounds good.
4. Actual 4+int classes feel shafted. They get 6+int. (except for the barbar who now becomes angry fighter with little actual difference between the two) Here is where your argument totally falls apart. This isn't a "skill competition" between classes. The idea is to give classes enough skill points to reasonably achieve a functional simulation. Just because a Fighter needs a bump doesn't mean a Barb automatically gets one too - Barbs are fine at 4+Int, no need to raise them. Etc for the other classes.
5. Rangers feel shafted. They get 8+int Why? Ditto my above comments.
6. Problems with the Rogue come to a head Why?
7. Rogues get 10+int and full BAB Why? They're fine with 8+Int. And where the hell did Full BAB come from? It's not a combat class!
8. Fighter need more skill points
9. Fighters get 6+int And now you're applying circular logic to a bad argument. Fighters would be fine at 4. They don't need 6.
...
**It is a total straw-man argument that every Int-based class will always have the option of a +6 item, a +5 Tome, and every level adjustment will go into Int. Actual gameplay doesn't work like that - you take what you need based on the situations your GM places you in, and you take the best gear for your character that you are able to find.
That in mind, I have no issue with giving Wizards and/or Witches a base of 4+Int, but my games aren't run like video games with super-specialization and such. For those games where "optimization" takes priority, then sure, I can see where 2+Int would be enough.
Fighters are students of combat. Mundane skills are the essence of how they handle things when not fighting. Yes, they should get more skill points, and it won't affect their power in combat at all...just make them a bit more well-rounded outside of combat.
Wizards handle problems with spells, not skills.
Commoners don't train at anything and are basically either self-taught or learn as they go. You don't get trained or study to be a commoner. Having them get more skill points is like giving more points to your dog.==Aelryinth
That's the thing. Nothing about being a fighter makes you better at skills. So if fighters move to 4+int for not reason then every class that is 2+int should be 4+int.
Commoners would bet 4+int because that is the new min. Fighters do not have more than minimum skill points. Skill points are a third aspect to the game that fighter do not have any form of focus in.
Note that this STILL doesn't fix the narrative disparity issue though, it just gives fighters a lot more options. My suggested ranks=level feat doesn't matter if spells can make skills pointless. Either problem spells need to be nerfed HARD or spells need to be regrouped into a number of relatively balanced triads such that picking one group means you can't have anything from the other 2, period.
Nerfing caster is a the kind of fix that ruins the game. Fixing broken spells is one thing, but what you suggest is wrong-bad-fun and describes a game system that I would not play.
*Casters are not OP. You need them to fight creatures of appropriate CR. You are advocating the negative power creep. "Suck creep" if you will. You don't want the game to suck.
One of the reasons I grab extra traits for my fighters so I have UMD and Perception.
Although. Even when I do play fighters, I find myself solving most out of combat situations anyways. I tend to lead the party around and steer conversation. My party members will interject with either a skill check or with words.
No being a fighter doesn't make you better out of combat than a commoner. But a clever commoner can become a king, lead a rebellion, or tells clever truth lies.
What commoners cannot do is go blow for blow with an unclever dragon. Fighters get combat abilities. They also get 2+int skills per level which is more than enough if you are careful.
Fighters could use better feats and tweaks to existing class abilities to make them smoother. But there are enough feats out there to make 2-3 decent fighter builds. And if you pick an intimidation build, you no longer have to worry about being useless out-of-combat.
My biggest problem is that I need 3 books of feats before I find enough decent ones to build a fighter.
You do realize that most of us on this forum fall into either Expert or Commoner class?
I'd like to think we can all DO things without being spec op agents.
I'd say most of us here don't fall into any class.
I can't remember the last time I leveled up and put skill ranks into something. I remember learning new things though.
Boo 4+int skills is bad!If fighters get 4+int so should wizards and commoners. None of those classes focus on skills. So if fighters get 4+int then that should be the min amount everyone gets.
Wizards are busy becoming overpowered. Commoners are uneducated peasants. Fighters are neither buried in the academic trivia of magic nor uneducated peasants who are busy busting sod. 4+ skills is not all that unreasonable for a class that does focus on skills -- a Fighters weapons use is about skills, if not in a game sense, after all. A few more non weapon related skills just round them out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nerfing caster is a the kind of fix that ruins the game. Fixing broken spells is one thing, but what you suggest is wrong-bad-fun and describes a game system that I would not play.
The game is broken NOW, and nerfing casters is part of fixing it. My suggestion would make casters more defined by their permenant choices the same way everyone else is, not able to change most of their defining traits every monrning.
In most fantasy fiction spellcasters are specialists in a specific field with only limited ability in other areas. This is a good thing in any narrative, as it means people have to get creative with the limited abilities they have... something that casters at present largely don't have to deal with. Even spontaneous casters generally grab the most flexible spells in the game to compensate for their limited spell selections, don't they? I say pick a concept and embrace it, stop covering all the bases; that's what the rest of your party is for.
Also, suggesting fighters should just get UMD and be crappy mages as the game progresses is not a solution and frankly I'm getting really tired of people acting like it is. Suggesting UMD is in fact an admission that noncasters start to suck as soon as the game gets past the 'local champions' stage.
Well the biggest problem with the Rogue's shtick is that traps might not even be featured in the game, and that's supposed to be a big deal of the rogue's contribution. The fact that other classes can find magic traps is not a big deal. Anyone should be able to do it, the rogue should have other adventuring merits to stand out on, because I can't remember the last trap my party has encountered.
I am pro giving the fighter more skill points. The barbarian (as people love to mention) has 4+int and he's the archetypical uneducated warrior. It hardly matters what the base number for a wizard is because they only care about one stat and hey it just so happens to give them skill points.
ex. Imagine bootcamp. They're gonna make you climb and jump obstacles, make sure you know how to swim, and that you have some basic wilderness survival skills. Not to mention that perception and ride would probably also be part of the exercises.
I stay away for 3 days, because of Evo... I come back:
"252 new posts..."
Yeah.. I'm done with this thread...
I stay away for 3 days, because of Evo... I come back:
"252 new posts..."
Yeah.. I'm done with this thread...
There is nothing to see here.
Nerfing caster is a the kind of fix that ruins the game. Fixing broken spells is one thing, but what you suggest is wrong-bad-fun and describes a game system that I would not play.The game is broken NOW, and nerfing casters is part of fixing it. My suggestion would make casters more defined by their permenant choices the same way everyone else is, not able to change most of their defining traits every monrning.
In most fantasy fiction spellcasters are specialists in a specific field with only limited ability in other areas. This is a good thing in any narrative, as it means people have to get creative with the limited abilities they have... something that casters at present largely don't have to deal with. Even spontaneous casters generally grab the most flexible spells in the game to compensate for their limited spell selections, don't they? I say pick a concept and embrace it, stop covering all the bases; that's what the rest of your party is for.
Also, suggesting fighters should just get UMD and be crappy mages as the game progresses is not a solution and frankly I'm getting really tired of people acting like it is. Suggesting UMD is in fact an admission that noncasters start to suck as soon as the game gets past the 'local champions' stage.
You just want to ruin the game. The game is not broken to the point of being unplayable. YOU want to make the game something I woudn't play.
No, people who point out the flaw usually want to FIX the game.
You insist that it's broken, and accuse the others of breaking it instead.
No, people who point out the flaw usually want to FIX the game.
You insist that it's broken, and accuse the others of breaking it instead.
This thread is about fixing the fighter. Nerfing casters until they have the same problems doesn't help ANYTHING!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, I agree with that. There's no point in trying to nerf casters.
The magic is so rigidly built that trying to pick it into parts breaks the whole game.
People should focus on buffing melee classes, as Kirth as well as Frank and K had done with their works.
The problem is one of balance, so other classes must be considered as well. At present casters are sitting very high, and there's also a 'glass ceiling' (the assumption that fighters have to stay mundane) which prevents the fighter from reaching them. By all means, buff the fighter... but balance will not be achieved until that ceiling is shattered or casters are dragged back down under it as well.
If there's some other option, please point it out. I certainly don't see it.
Go check up Kirthfinder for Pathfinder or the Tome* series of books for 3.5e. The latter can also be found on D&D Wiki, if I recall right.
Those are two sets of houserules that have their own solutions to the problem. I prefer the latter, but both are excellent works.
* = Not to be confused with the 3.5e book Tome of Battle.
Saying Fighters have nothing to do with skills is ignoring the fact that barbarians have even LESS to do with skills, and Paladins likewise. Barbarians and just fix things by getting angry at them, and paladins pray and have spells.
Everything Fighters do is limited to feats and skills. No spells. No supernatural wunder-pools of rage and ki. They get half-strength class features, and skills. That's it.
There is NO way to justify them not getting 4 skill points when compared to other classes. None at all. The ALCHEMIST gets 4 skill points, and has magic. The fighter has NO MAGIC, and gets 2. PFeh.
And I'm definitely not saying 4 skill points is the new minimum. No major spellcasters should have more then 2 skill points. No half casters should have more then 4 (I'm afraid I lump rangers and bards in here, sorry!). And no PC class without magic should have less then 4.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is one of balance, so other classes must be considered as well. At present casters are sitting very high, and there's also a 'glass ceiling' (the assumption that fighters have to stay mundane) which prevents the fighter from reaching them. By all means, buff the fighter... but balance will not be achieved until that ceiling is shattered or casters are dragged back down under it as well.
There has been good work along those lines in the past. The Beguiler and Dread Necromancer from 3.5 are excellent examples of how this might look: they're well-balanced, fun to play, good within their chosen schtick, and don't go too far outside of it.
You might Google "Ultimate Classes" for a moderately successful attempt to rewrite 3e with those types of considerations in mind.
Fighters are DPR focused, in nearly all of there class tricks are damaged based but when it comes down to it they are not the best DPR in the game; barbarians, summoners, gunslingers, paladins and cavaliers can all out damage fighter with the right build whilst also having more out of combat utility (summoners and paladins) or cool tricks (barbarians, gunslingers and cavaliers).
Fighters either need a boost to their dps so they are the king of their specialization or they need a unique gimmick or set of tricks all to themselves preferably something with out of combat utility. So has anyone come up with some neat fighter gimmicks?
Here's your issue:
"barbarians, etc....can outdamage a fighter WITH THE RIGHT BUILD".
Of course you can outdamage a fighter with the right build. But, alternatively, with the right fighter build, I can outdamage you, too.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Damage isn't the problem.
Damage isn't the problem.
Damage isn't the problem.
...has it sunk in yet?
Damage isn't the problem.
Damage isn't the problem.
Damage isn't the problem.
...has it sunk in yet?
New thread, with only 1 post needed:
"The Main Problem With Fighters"
OP: ...is *not* damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the big problems with fighters is that they have no stat synergy anything used out of combat. Paladins have CHA and Rangers have WIS, and their class skills and features play to that. (Barbarians have CON, which probably wasn't the best design decision.)
Give fighters something to do with INT, like adding INT to AC or Attack or Damage, or give them an ability they can use 3+ INT times a day, like the ability to distupt a spell caster within reach regardless of concentration. Then give them more INT based skills as class skills and 4+int skill points. (I'd also like to see bluff and sense motive become class skills with bonus = 1/2 fighter level for feinting. Why should a first level sorcerer be able to feint the pants off of a 20th level fighter? If he's supposed to be so good at fighting that they named the class for it, at least make it so that he doesn't have a humongous gap in his fighting technique.)
This will give them a role outside of combat, and a reason to not dump INT. Besides assuaging my ADD by rounding out the mental skills to martials ratio, INT seems to fit the flavor Paizo is tinkering with for fighters: The most common combat maneuvers require a feat with a 13 INT prerequisite. Moreover, I think the beginner's box stressed that Valeros, the iconic Pathfinder fighter, is pretty intelligent, understanding that you need both brains and brawn to succeed in battle.
This game is about more than just combat. When I play, I want to be able to participate in the whole game, not just the part where minis are on the table. And since the rules require skills to contribute meaningfully, I need skills on any character I play: I can chat up the barmaid like a pro in character, but if my character sheet says I have +1 diplomacy, I'm never going to uncover the secret handshake to get us into the Cult of Norgorber's hideout. I can't even be a good wingman and consistently help the bard get lucky.
I have no idea of how to give fighters or other mundanes similar narrative power as full casters. I'm not keen on the "fighters get an army at name level" because that's a real hassle for record keeping and I don't want my campaigns to devolve into mass battles.
But, I have an idea of how to keep skills useful:
Have skills advance so that, if the skill is a class skill, after a certain number of ranks the skill becomes an Ex ability that provides effects similar to spells.
-Give most skills extra effects around 5th-7th level and 11th-13th level, maybe 17th-19th level as well.
-It takes a free action (some might be immediate actions) check with a DC of 10+ the number of ranks you get the ability at to activate it, meaning take 10 should always succeed but you will need to roll to activate it in combat. Armor check penalties and arcane spell failure do not apply to activating the extra abilities.
-You can use the ability 3+ your relavent stat bonus/day.
-You get access to them at a level where a full caster would access spells of the next highest level. So, if the ability is similar to a second level spell you would get it with 5 ranks.
-The physical skills should be relatively more powerful than the mental skills. Don't make climb give you spiderclimb at fifth but Diplomacy give you Suggestion at 7th.
-Skill Focus makes a skill a class skill for you, things like cosmopolitan give you 1 rank in two skills. Traits no longer make skills class skills, but they give you 1 rank in a skill.For example, Climb would act normally, but if it's a class skill and you have 5 ranks in it, as an immediate action (DC15) you can levitate for a number of rounds equal to your ranks + strength score as long as you're within 5' of a vertical surface. Once you have 11 ranks, as a free action (DC21) you gain Blindsense 30' for a number of minutes/day equal to your number of ranks plus your strength score (1 minute chunks.)
This would give us something to do with skills beyond the first few levels, and encourage adding ranks until the mid levels at least.
I missed this over the weekend, and wanted to come back to it, because I honestly think it's one of the best posts on this or a lot of other threads.
Disclaimer: I've started going in that direction with skills myself, but stalled out when I realized that everyone can just grab a level of rogue or expert for that matter to end up with pretty much all skills as class skills. So I kept the class skills abilities for some of them, made feats for others (some of which certain classes get as bonus feats), and made a few others class features like rogue talents, to restrict them by class. There's a lot of work still to come there, and I'm very eager for more ideas. I'll admit I'm not a fan of the X/day uses, but other than that, I think you and I are on the same wavelength here!
Kirth, I won't bore you with a (tediously worded) full description, but the OSR games have interesting solution to the class skill/trained skill divide.
Most of these are based around a static DC for success that decreases (gets easier) as you go up in level. In games where they have single static save that decreases with level, like Swords & Wizardry, the Save DC and Skill Success DC are completely interchangeable, but some rules (BFRPG) provide a decreasing-by-level-skill-DC and the classic-static-5-different-saves separately.
Also, you might want to take a look at Mongoose Traveller. Nothing improves after character generation, but all you need to do to succeed at using a skill is roll 8 (skill ranks or whatever included) or higher on 2d6. Untrained rolls take a -3 penalty on just about everything, but class skills (sort of; they call them trained skills which you receive for simply entering a "career") lose that penalty.
See, that wasn't just tedious, it might have been irrelevant, too. :P
Edit: All of the systems I mentioned have free versions on the internet; Mongoose Traveller even has an SRD.