Also, point of sneak attack is to attack without being notice. No one would cast spell when they don't know when are they going to be attacked, if they do, you can just wait until there is no more spell left. However, no caster would do that. They normally buff as soon as roll initiative, as long as the attack is done before they do any buff, they can't do much about it.That works in world of warcraft, not in Pathfinder. In PF stealth can't give you a backstab, and a second level spell (blur) completelly renders sneak attack ineffective.Caster is strong, no doubt about that. But to say melee is terrible, not really. With right tactic, a rouge will do well against caster. And if they can't do that because of poor game design, then it's just ashame.
how in the 9 hells do you use stealth without cover nor concealment?
and how in the 9 hells do you get cover or concealment without the help of a caster?
the moment that rogue even steps 5 feet away from cover or concealment, everybody knows where he or she is automatically.
and what is a backstab on a game with no rules for facing?
and really, stealth doesn't get you a backstab. the only option you really have, is to flank. and flanking can be disrupted by a 5 foot step.
plus, a 2nd level spell or 12,000 GP item property that can be added to a cloak for 18,000 can completely negate your sneak attack entirely,
Also, point of sneak attack is to attack without being notice. No one would cast spell when they don't know when are they going to be attacked, if they do, you can just wait until there is no more spell left. However, no caster would do that. They normally buff as soon as roll initiative, as long as the attack is done before they do any buff, they can't do much about it.That works in world of warcraft, not in Pathfinder. In PF stealth can't give you a backstab, and a second level spell (blur) completelly renders sneak attack ineffective.Caster is strong, no doubt about that. But to say melee is terrible, not really. With right tactic, a rouge will do well against caster. And if they can't do that because of poor game design, then it's just ashame.
how in the 9 hells do you use stealth without cover nor concealment?
and how in the 9 hells do you get cover or concealment without the help of a caster?
the moment that rogue even steps 5 feet away from cover or concealment, everybody knows where he or she is automatically.
and what is a backstab on a game with no rules for facing?
and really, stealth doesn't get you a backstab. the only option you really have, is to flank. and flanking can be disrupted by a 5 foot step.
plus, a 2nd level spell or 12,000 GP item property that can be added to a cloak for 18,000 can completely negate your sneak attack entirely,
Or if there is concealment, the rogue sneaks through the enemy wizard can step into it too and become immune to Sneak attacks.
Also, point of sneak attack is to attack without being notice. No one would cast spell when they don't know when are they going to be attacked, if they do, you can just wait until there is no more spell left. However, no caster would do that. They normally buff as soon as roll initiative, as long as the attack is done before they do any buff, they can't do much about it.That works in world of warcraft, not in Pathfinder. In PF stealth can't give you a backstab, and a second level spell (blur) completelly renders sneak attack ineffective.Caster is strong, no doubt about that. But to say melee is terrible, not really. With right tactic, a rouge will do well against caster. And if they can't do that because of poor game design, then it's just ashame.
how in the 9 hells do you use stealth without cover nor concealment?
and how in the 9 hells do you get cover or concealment without the help of a caster?
the moment that rogue even steps 5 feet away from cover or concealment, everybody knows where he or she is automatically.
and what is a backstab on a game with no rules for facing?
and really, stealth doesn't get you a backstab. the only option you really have, is to flank. and flanking can be disrupted by a 5 foot step.
plus, a 2nd level spell or 12,000 GP item property that can be added to a cloak for 18,000 can completely negate your sneak attack entirely,
You need to read the latest errata.
Make casters more frail and/or unstable as they become more entangled in the 'mystic forces beyond mortal ken', like they are in some of the source material these role-playing games are based on.
Then make sure these hindrances can't be overcome by more spells/items.
What I'm envisaging is that the feeling most martial characters get (except maybe paladins) when attempting a high DC save against a spell from a caster, the caster is also having similar feelings about what happens to him after the spell is cast.
Alternatively, it's a subtle thing that happens over levels, dropping saves, stats, skills or something else (or maybe it's dependant on wehat schools you choose).
Obviously, for NPCs there are issues where the Big Bad could effectively be defeated by his own abilities, but this could be ameliorated by having location-based foci where these issues are less pronounced (it's a fudge, but also inspired by the source material).
It'd be an interesting experiment, at least.
You need to read the latest errata.Also, point of sneak attack is to attack without being notice. No one would cast spell when they don't know when are they going to be attacked, if they do, you can just wait until there is no more spell left. However, no caster would do that. They normally buff as soon as roll initiative, as long as the attack is done before they do any buff, they can't do much about it.That works in world of warcraft, not in Pathfinder. In PF stealth can't give you a backstab, and a second level spell (blur) completelly renders sneak attack ineffective.Caster is strong, no doubt about that. But to say melee is terrible, not really. With right tactic, a rouge will do well against caster. And if they can't do that because of poor game design, then it's just ashame.
how in the 9 hells do you use stealth without cover nor concealment?
and how in the 9 hells do you get cover or concealment without the help of a caster?
the moment that rogue even steps 5 feet away from cover or concealment, everybody knows where he or she is automatically.
and what is a backstab on a game with no rules for facing?
and really, stealth doesn't get you a backstab. the only option you really have, is to flank. and flanking can be disrupted by a 5 foot step.
plus, a 2nd level spell or 12,000 GP item property that can be added to a cloak for 18,000 can completely negate your sneak attack entirely,
latest errata help a lot, but still only let you to attack once before losing stealth (which is a pity)
Tony is not as smart as Mr. Fantastic. But Tony is an engineer while Mr. Fantastic is a scientist.
There are actually many humans smarter than Tony, but he is the most innovative.
Mr. Fantastic isn't a human, he's a superhuman.
There are several superhumans who are indeed smarter then Tony. But in his area, he's the most intelligent pure human on the planet. Doom is his only human rival, but Doom has the edge because he can use magic.
==Aelryinth
I kinda want to stat out the "Gamma Powered" template now.
"Grants +32 Str, -10 Int/Cha, +6 Wis and the ability to Rage. Rage bonuses start at +8 and increase by +4 every time you take damage."
Also gives a version of the Berserk ability of constructs.
You'd have to stat out "Gamma-Powered/Hulk. She-Hulk doesn't suffer nearly the int penalty the hulk does.
Also, the Hulk doesn't have a charisma penalty. As a matter of fact, he has quite the looming presence.And don't forget the huge Nat AC, DR, and energy resistance. And how do you stat being able to jump out of the atmosphere?
==Aelryinth
He uses his Str score to jump, obviously.
And he ignores the distance limitation.
And I think he'd at least have a few Mythic levels so maybe he has that one Feat/Ability/Thingy that lets you Uberjump.
Concealment isn't a big problem for rogues. It's just a feat tax.
a feat tax on a MAD class with an attack bonus low enough to rival a monk, that is extremely feat starved, is pretty much dependant on being a fetchling with agile weaponry, has less hit points than a wizard and not enough more skill points to matter
can be foiled by many senses possessed by a variety of monsters
a class that requires an ally to help them deal any damage at all
has a fix archetype that isn't much better than the base class because it literally bleeds Ki like crazy and is even more MAD
and Weapon Finesse/Agile weapons/Dervish Dance, Reduces your MAD for a handful of weapons, weapons that lose a precious point of attack bonus and a precious feat or two to use.
look at how useless your D4-D6 medium weapon is when you have an insignificant strength score and rely on a damage bonus that is so easy to negate unless you have the right feat/class/template tax.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes the rogue is a lost cause, but rogue's are not martials. They fall into the abyss known as "skilled" characters. But do to how woefully under-powered this element is in the game, rogues have trouble in and out of combat.
In combat they are a hopeless mess. Out of combat, their role can be usurped by spell casters and a host of of other classes with the right archetype, some of whom are spell casters themselves.
Yes the rogue is a lost cause, but rogue's are not martials. They fall into the abyss known as "killed" characters.
Fixed your typo for you.
Surviving as a rogue is not that hard. It's attempting at being effective in combat AND not dying at the same time, that is hard.
Surviving as a rogue is not that hard. It's attempting at being effective in combat AND not dying at the same time, that is hard.
So in other words, I did fix it for you.
Mr. Fixit, that's me!
|
Being effective in combat as a rogue isn't all that hard. One common trait that I see among rogues is armour expert. this trait reduces armour check penalties by 1. The reason this is common is because now your rogue can run around with high STR. and average dex because mithral breastplate+darkwood shield. Then have feats like dodge or ironhide and your AC is higher then plenty of other rogues. The PROBLEM with making rogues survive and be effective in combat is you need specific, optimized builds to do this. Rogues are still martials, they are just worse then fighters at being martials. They are no more a lost cause then fighters or paladins.
You can always play the unkillable sniper rogue. Or you could just play a bard, or a ranger, or summoner, or one of the other options with a trap-finding archetype...
Ofcourse all these problems disappear if your GM doesn't live and breathe WBL and you steal yourself enough money to be equal in combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you're able to steal enough gold to make a dent in WBL you're like stripping the walls out of some poor m%+*#@!$&$#!'s house on a regular basis past like level 8.
Being effective in combat as a rogue isn't all that hard. One common trait that I see among rogues is armour expert. this trait reduces armour check penalties by 1. The reason this is common is because now your rogue can run around with high STR. and average dex because mithral breastplate+darkwood shield. Then have feats like dodge or ironhide and your AC is higher then plenty of other rogues. The PROBLEM with making rogues survive and be effective in combat is you need specific, optimized builds to do this. Rogues are still martials, they are just worse then fighters at being martials. They are no more a lost cause then fighters or paladins.
If your solution to playing a rogue is high dex, then they are a lost cause. There is no rogue that my fighter cannot outperform. Rogues are not martials. But since combat is divided between casters and martials, rogues fall into a "suck at combat" niche. Bards fall into this niche too, but they just make everyone else better at combat, and then personally are better than a rogue at combat. And they get spells and more skills.
If you're able to steal enough gold to make a dent in WBL you're like stripping the walls out of some poor m&$!!$+*&$$*'s house on a regular basis past like level 8.
Or rob places where lots of valuables are like mansions and banks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being effective in combat as a rogue isn't all that hard. One common trait that I see among rogues is armour expert. this trait reduces armour check penalties by 1. The reason this is common is because now your rogue can run around with high STR. and average dex because mithral breastplate+darkwood shield. Then have feats like dodge or ironhide and your AC is higher then plenty of other rogues. The PROBLEM with making rogues survive and be effective in combat is you need specific, optimized builds to do this. Rogues are still martials, they are just worse then fighters at being martials. They are no more a lost cause then fighters or paladins.If your solution to playing a rogue is high dex, then they are a lost cause. There is no rogue that my fighter cannot outperform. Rogues are not martials. But since combat is divided between casters and martials, rogues fall into a "suck at combat" niche. Bards fall into this niche too, but they just make everyone else better at combat, and then personally are better than a rogue at combat. And they get spells and more skills.
Bards also buff their own to hit bonus and damage to a respectable degree. I think most groups benefit more from a bard then quite a few other classes.
If your solution to playing a rogue is high dex, then they are a lost cause. There is no rogue that my fighter cannot outperform. Rogues are not martials. But since combat is divided between casters and martials, rogues fall into a "suck at combat" niche. Bards fall into this niche too, but they just make everyone else better at combat, and then personally are better than a rogue at combat. And they get spells and more skills.Bards also buff their own to hit bonus and damage to a respectable degree. I think most groups benefit more from a bard then quite a few other classes.
That buff to themselves is what makes them equal or better than a rogue in combat from a personal standpoint. A bard will do more consistent and higher damage than a rogue and is buffing the party while he does it. Not to mention having spells and more skills than a rogue, meaning that bards are better equipped for unique combat situations too.
If you're able to steal enough gold to make a dent in WBL you're like stripping the walls out of some poor m&$!!$+*&$$*'s house on a regular basis past like level 8.Or rob places where lots of valuables are like mansions and banks.
Yeah, the mansion would be that house I was talking about.
Even stripping a mansion (at least as they are portrayed in APs and such) to the walls of all its paintings, adamantine trapdoors, and so on would only yield roughly 10k gold.
That's not a whole lot really by a certain level.
If you're able to steal enough gold to make a dent in WBL you're like stripping the walls out of some poor m&$!!$+*&$$*'s house on a regular basis past like level 8.Or rob places where lots of valuables are like mansions and banks.Yeah, the mansion would be that house I was talking about.
Even stripping a mansion (at least as they are portrayed in APs and such) to the walls of all its paintings, adamantine trapdoors, and so on would only yield roughly 10k gold.
That's not a whole lot really by a certain level.
What's to stop you from doing that 6-10 times a night?
Best thing about being skill based, is that a rogue is not limited to how often he can steal.*You could always just steal the items you want to buy.
What's to stop you from doing that 6-10 times a night?
Best thing about being skill based, is that a rogue is not limited to how often he can steal.*You could always just steal the items you want to buy.
Time constraints, chances of failure, the fact that someone would probably notice you hauling 1k+ lbs of stuff through a doorway like you're a moving man, the list goes on.
There's a reason thieves don't do this IRL very often. It's not feasible.
Umm nothing the rogue does is not mechanically better on the bard or a bard archetype. Bards can even get sneak attack.
Being clever is no thing. But the rogue has 0 mechanical advantages. Atleast fighters get bonus feats, weapon training, and armor training. The rogue gets nothing that other classes do not do better. There are even classes that do everything better at the same time.
Yes, you can be clever enough to play a rogue well, but the rogue has no strengths to play up. So I can argue that you can play a commoner well, but that doesn't mean the commoner has any advantages over any other class.
What's to stop you from doing that 6-10 times a night?
Best thing about being skill based, is that a rogue is not limited to how often he can steal.*You could always just steal the items you want to buy.
Time constraints, chances of failure, the fact that someone would probably notice you hauling 1k+ lbs of stuff through a doorway like you're a moving man, the list goes on.
There's a reason thieves don't do this IRL very often. It's not feasible.
Bags of holding. Pfff
If that's really true, all I can say is that the folks playing the rogues you're observing really suck. It takes intelligence, a bit of thinking on the spot, and lastly, some derring do to play a rogue effectively. But those who put in that effort get a lot in return. When you can't get a flank, and even when you can, Improved Feint is your friend as a rogue.
Forum at my post. Let's give the highlights.
You say this a lot, but you've never given an indication of what the "a lot" is that Rogues get.
Sneak Attack? Puts them roughly on par with a poorly optimized combat class in damage. With a lower to-hit. And the possibility to roll poorly on the dice and tehrefore not get much out of it.
Skills? They get plenty, but so do Bards and Rangers, with many otehr benefits on top of it.
Trapfinding? Would be great if traps were deadly still, but they're not, so it isn't.
Evasion? Pretty cool, but the Ranger gets it too (albeit later) and holds other advantages over the class.
Rogue Talents? Look me in the eyes and tell me they're any good with a straight face.
So, what is this "a lot" that they get?
"Creativity" is not a Rogue class feature. Any player can use it for any class. It confers no special advantage on the Rogue. The Rogue does not get some special "Creativity Modifier" that makes it better.
Bags of holding. Pfff
They still require time to fill them. And the Rogue will make sound getting these things down. And anybody with that much dosh is likely to have guards.
And people will notice if 6-10 houses have been ransacked in the night, and you WILL be caught eventually.
And I'm fairly certain anything you get still has to fit within the 2x4 ft. mouth of the bag to begin with, but I'm not entirely sure.
Now Rynjin. Summoners, rangers, and bards can have trapfinding too. Actually the bard has a version that is just better than the rogues.
Oh and other archetypes even get rogue tricks, for the 3 that are useful.
*Also rogues can steal things quietly. Stealth and sleight-of-hand cover a lot.
|
|
Bards are full caster skill monkeys. They may be ineffective full casters, but they make third rate healers, second rate buffers, and first rate skill monkeys. There is nothing startling about being better then rogues. At twentieth level, rogues become effective because they can deliver death effects with sneak attack. Before then they lack in effectivity. If you try to tell all but 7 people (including me) that rogues are weak, they will laugh you out of the store. The problem people have with rogues is assuming that they NEED weapons finesse. Its helpful to make high ac rogues, but you can strength build rogues if you are great at optimizing characters, or just don't give a s#!+ about AC and manage to kill things quickly enough. Yes you can play a commoner well, but it takes more skill at optimization.
A lot, maybe, but stripping a man's walls of paintings and removing his adamantine door hinges is gonna make noise, I don't care how high your Stealth is, unless you take an extraordinary amount of time to do it (and even then...).
It's not like you're walking in there and stuffing a bag with pure gold and other currency, the majority of a rich man's assets will be in objects, and the rest will be in a bank somewhere (and TBH in any city with a bank worth making a profit from, doing a heist on the thing would be a quest in itself. Which, while it may be very fun, isn't a reliable means of getting cash on the side).
This is not something that can be stated.
Indeed it can.
Trap are as deadly as the Dm wanted them to be.
I'll stop you right here.
"The DM can make it happen" deserves no place in a balance discussion. Ever.
A DM can make the Rogue have d16 HD, full BaB and Sneak Attack +2d6 at every level, but that doesn't mean the class is balanced as written.
Likewise, the DM can say "The trap goes off, you all die" but that doesn't mean that traps are dangerous in Pathfinder. It means traps are dangerous (b!~$@#$%, I might say, but whatever) in your GM's game.
As written, traps can be somewhat dangerous, but rarely deadly.
Bards are full caster skill monkeys. They may be ineffective full casters, but they make third rate healers, second rate buffers, and first rate skill monkeys. There is nothing startling about being better then rogues. At twentieth level, rogues become effective because they can deliver death effects with sneak attack. Before then they lack in effectivity. If you try to tell all but 7 people (including me) that rogues are weak, they will laugh you out of the store. The problem people have with rogues is assuming that they NEED weapons finesse. Its helpful to make high ac rogues, but you can strength build rogues if you are great at optimizing characters, or just don't give a s#!+ about AC and manage to kill things quickly enough. Yes you can play a commoner well, but it takes more skill at optimization.
Oh yeah, like building a non-dex rogue is even an option for most people. I'm sure that high str really helps your stealth and other skill checks.
SO trade your only advantage for less but still embarrassing combat prowess. I think I'll pass.
Oh yeah, like building a non-dex rogue is even an option for most people. I'm sure that high str really helps your stealth and other skill checks.You can get moderate dex and HIGHER STR. for better checks. This requires years of practice (that I don't care for) but is possible.
Sounds like a crappy build. High strength bruiser rogues isn't a rogue. It's a fighter with medium BAB, sneak attack, and some skill points to compensate for lack luster rogue talents.
If you want to play a rogue, bite the bullet and go high dex with like 10 strength. Atleast then you are playing a rogue instead of a crappy fighter.
Some rogues I've seen are built with 18 in both STR. and DEX. very specific build, but could be made more versatile.
Before or after items and levels?
Because 18 dex is nothing for a lvl 10 or 20 rogue to brag about.
Eh, 20 PB it's not that hard to do, but you'd either have to have 10's in everything else (Including Con. Aw hell naw.), or dump Wis (lolno), Int (negating much of your major skills advantage), or Cha (meaning no being the face and no great UMD, but still the most palatable option).
|
|
Before or after items and levels?
before items. Used dual talent human alternate trait. These stats were at 4th level, so he had a 13 Int (for feat pre-reqs) He didn't dump any stats, just started with 17 STR or DEX (not sure) and waited 4 levels). He was roughly as effective as some 4th level fighters
Before or after items and levels?before items. Used dual talent human alternate trait. These stats were at 4th level, so he had a 13 Int (for feat pre-reqs) He didn't dump any stats, just started with 17 STR or DEX (not sure) and waited 4 levels). He was roughly as effective as some 4th level fighters
Or you play a rogue as a rogue and hope no one plays a bard to steal your thunder. Because the rogue does fill a needed party niche. There are just a lot of options that fill that role better.
I've not looked at the mythic play test beyond a glance, but I wonder how mythic martials will stack up against non-mythic casters.
Or you play a rogue as a rogue and hope no one plays a bard to steal your thunder. Because the rogue does fill a needed party niche. There are just a lot of options that fill that role better.Before or after items and levels?before items. Used dual talent human alternate trait. These stats were at 4th level, so he had a 13 Int (for feat pre-reqs) He didn't dump any stats, just started with 17 STR or DEX (not sure) and waited 4 levels). He was roughly as effective as some 4th level fighters
but that niche doesn't need 26 dex and 30+ stealth. Stealth is useless anyway at high levels due to scent,tremorsense, blindsight.... and invisibility potions are cheap.
A half orc rogue with starting 18 str and 14 dex and a falchion can still do the skill monkey niche fairly well, and at least is not hopeless in combat against no-sneak enemies.
a half orc rogue with 18 strength and 14 dex/con 12 int/wis and 7 cha is what you call a bandit.
a bandit is still technically a type of rogue. it's just the kind that kills you then, takes your stuff.
it is very different from a traditional burglar rogue
bandits prefer the following things and do them better than a core rogue
wolf pack tactics
carrying loot
wearing armor
multiclassing with fighter
saving feats not wasted on weapon finesse or two weapon fighting
dealing damage with a longspear or falchion
being less screwed when not able to flank
able to flank from more squares from longspear and cestus
able to use composite bows more effectively.
better attack bonus in melee
more lethal crits
more benefit from haste and enlarge
able to turn power attack into a lethal engine of murder.
lets look at the following matchup at 10th level
the dex rogue with 22 dex, and 2 +1 agile gladiuses (bonus proficiency for being proficient with the shortsword) and improved 2WF chain
versus STR rogue with 22 STR, weapon focus, power attack, a +3 falchion, and furious focus
Dex Rogue; +14 1d6+7 19/20x2 +5d6 SA
STR Rogue +17 2d4+18 18-20x2 +5d6 SA
Dex Rogue 2WF Routine; +12/12/7/7 1d6+7 1d6 +7 1d6+4 1d6 +4
Strength Rogue; +17/10 2d4+18 /2d4+18
Dex Rogue's SA DPR
12.6
+ 7.0
+11.25
+6.25
0.475
37.575 DPR w/ 2WF SA
STR rogues SA DPR
28.35
14.175
4.2525
46.7775 DPR w/ SA.
the DPR isn't impressive, but the feats the strength rogue was able to purchase due to not being a dual wielder, the high attack bonus from being able to afford one +3 weapon instead of 2 +2 equivalent weapons that are +1 with a niche enchantment, and the fact that even sneak attacking, you still outdamage your dexterity based counterpart by a whole 9.2025 DPR proves that the strength rogue outshines the dexterity rogue in combat. and a trait tax can allow you to wear mithril breast plate without penalty.
So what you are getting at is that Rogues suck?
Rogues DO suck.
When compared to the other 3/4 BAB people who get spells, that is. And hey, that includes 6th and 9th level casters.
I fully agree with something said earlier on. Scaling back spellcasting does not help balance and funify the game. I think the big issue in here is that, around mid level (8+), spellcasters start having a solution to every problem, and their major limiting factor of times per day starts becoming unimportant since they have so much ammo. It's at that point that scaling changes dramatically in favor of spellcasters.
Martial characters tend to be excellent single-target bruisers, but without good AoE and utility, they fall short in both combat and out of combat. I feel like an effort to make martials better, especially to compete with the progression of usefulness and availability of spells.
There are all kinds of things that can be done, within the system, to make classes better.
For example, at level 10, barbarians stop getting useful rage powers. Only a few scattered totem abilities make it worth even staying a barbarian. That's a problem. At level 10, barbarians should start getting access to more ridiculous and awesome rage powers, such as shockwave abilities.
Rogue talents get more powerful at 10th level, but not much more powerful, unlike the Witch, who already scales her spells, also scales her selectable abilities into Major and then Greater (Dire?) hexes. The martial classes should be more like that. They should be getting abilities that are as potent and useful as spells of their level.
Look at Fighters, there is a whole theme that is very common to fighters in other game systems that pathfinder has started to look at, but fail to kick up to par with spellcasters, and that's equipment. Fighters are, and should be, the gods of weapons and armor. Their gear should be miles above anyone else's. Weapon and Armor training is a good start, but at a point, fighters really should be gaining access to abilities similar to that of an Artificer from Eberron in 3.5. Because after a certain point, a fighter is no longer a highly skilled soldier or mercenary. They are a legendary warrior, who's warrior spirit should involve a measure of fantastic, magic power.
That's how it should be with all the martial classes. They should gain more than mundane skill, there should be a measure of magic going into how skillful they are at their various crafts, because magic does not belong just to spellcasters in the majority of non-D&D fantasies I've seen.
Another solution is to give every class spellcasting. Screw rogue's spellcasting rogue talents, just give them a spellcasting chart. I've seen a Ranger's spells and holy crap, by the time they've got 3rd level spells, their animal companions are like furry T-rexes with meaner forward legs. This is a good reflection on that inclusion of magic into the nature of these kinds of characters, but one that could be better. Giving everyone a spellcasting progression would smooth out some of the lack of power balance, but then everyone would just be in the back row casting spells until a badguy gets too close. Hence my earlier statements about the martial classes' needing a magical but not spell improvement in potency and effect.
Personally, I see no issue in rogues having some illusion spell progress, or fighters having some transmutation progression. Those would be good ways to ramp things up to be more on par with the spell slingers. At least it'd be an easy way. A reworking of the rate of power progression for martial would be better. They should get awesome BEFORE capstone, rather than sucking till level 19.
So what you are getting at is that Rogues suck?
rogues suck HARD. But if your group "forces" you to play one to fill said niche (and doesn't allow bard archetypes or whatever) you cab try to suck less with a str rogue
To all those who ask for means to make fighters and rogues better:
Do you want something "official" so you can use it with PFS or advice for home games?
If it's for PFS, no point making thread after thread: the dev's have already stated their POV.
If it's for home games, why not try to incorporate the Tome of Battle Stuff into these classes?
Examples:
- the rogue has to sacrifice his sneak attack ability, but gains the maneuver and stance progression as if he were a Swordsage?
- the fighter has to sacrifice his bonus feats, but gains the maneuver and stance progression as if he were a Warblade?
- the monk has to sacrifice his flurry of blows, but gains the maneuver and stance progression as if he were a Crusader?
(no idea if this is balanced, just an idea thrown out there to get somewhere constructive instead of rant-counterrant about "martials suck - no, they don't")
Can we stop talking about why Rogues suck and focus on the more general issue of balancing the playing field between full/half casters and everyone else.