Thanks for all the input.Read some of your posts and some of Seans post it seems you are under the impression the problem with Rogue vs Ninja is the Ninja. I’d say the problem is the rogue.
Basing a class on the ability to fix traps, lot of skills and being able to do a lot of damage under very specific circumstances is in my opinion wrong. Here is why:
I hear what you are saying, but that has been the rogue for many decades. This is a point of balance that I'm talking about. We entrusted to reproduce a very core experience in fun and interesting way. You may think that the rogue should not be the guy that disarms traps and has a lot of skills, but many (including myself) define the rogue by that mix of skills and combat expertise.
The ninja on the other hand has a very different set of skills in history, pop-culture, and literature. And when we designed the ninja, we attempted to reproduce that experience.
The problem is neither with the rogue or the ninja, but looking at them through the very strict lens of balance most people are talking about in the thread. If you define your play experience only about what you can do in the stage of the combat round, and think the ability to do great amounts of damage during you play on that stage, you are going to find the rogue lacking compared to the ninja. And you are going to devalue her other abilities.
One could argue while the combat stage is important, it is not the only stage of Pathfinder. I like combat a lot, but I am one of those people who would make that argument.
Please see my page 2 post regarding how there are number of spells that can replace skills. While some are not as effective as a Rogue who has spent feats specializing on that skill, others give a massive bonus or more utility. That list is not exhaustive and I'll add few more examples here.
Climb v. Spider Climb - This one is pretty much entirely in Spider Climb's favor. Climb lets you move at 1/4th your speed (or 1/2 speed for a -5 penalty), while Spider Climb just flat gives you 20ft. of Climb. Using Climb prevents you from getting Dex to AC, while Spider Climb lets you keep your Dex to AC and prevents your opponents from getting any special bonus. Spider Climb just keeps delivering by allowing the subject to not have to make checks for vertical or horizontal movement. Oh you also get a +8 racial Climb bonus. Basically the take away here is that Climb is inferior to Spider Climb and wholly replaced by it.
Linguistics v. Tongues - Tongues just wins. All Languages... all the time.
That is why I place the focus on rules being consistent and clear, over balance, because no one is going to agree on what level of balance is appropriate. It does not mean balance should be ignored, but consitency and clarity goes a long way to help resolve disputes.
Please see my page 2 post regarding how there are number of spells that can replace skills. While some are not as effective as a Rogue who has spent feats specializing on that skill, others give a massive bonus or more utility. That list is not exhaustive and I'll add few more examples here.
Climb v. Spider Climb - This one is pretty much entirely in Spider Climb's favor. Climb lets you move at 1/4th your speed (or 1/2 speed for a -5 penalty), while Spider Climb just flat gives you 20ft. of Climb. Using Climb prevents you from getting Dex to AC, while Spider Climb lets you keep your Dex to AC and prevents your opponents from getting any special bonus. Spider Climb just keeps delivering by allowing the subject to not have to make checks for vertical or horizontal movement. Oh you also get a +8 racial Climb bonus. Basically the take away here is that Climb is inferior to Spider Climb and wholly replaced by it.
Linguistics v. Tongues - Tongues just wins. All Languages... all the time.
Nice spells, indeed. For relatively short periods of time and for a trade-off in costs. Climb and Linguistics cost the rogue skill points, of which they have quite a few. Spider climb and tongues cost spell slots or money, both of which may be better spent elsewhere, depending on the campaign and situation. Why worry about using the spells when you can have a skill monkey use and re-use his skill investments without a per/use cost? Save those spells for when the skill monkey isn't around or invest in things the skill monkey can't do and carve out separate niches.
Lots of people complain about how it's too easy to replace some classes in the game or to upstage someone with your spellcaster's goodies. But I really think that's more of an inter-group problem than a problem with the rules. If you're always upstaging another character, why are you doing that? Do you need to do that? Why not let him do the stuff he's geared up for an gear yourself up for something else? Having the Whiz-Bang Bat-o-Manic Wonder Utility Belt(tm) may mean you can do virtually anything... except apparently let the guy with the carpenter's toolbelt have his fun in the sun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please see my page 2 post regarding how there are number of spells that can replace skills. While some are not as effective as a Rogue who has spent feats specializing on that skill, others give a massive bonus or more utility. That list is not exhaustive and I'll add few more examples here.
I read it. I'm very aware of them. I've been working on this style of game for over a decade, and know what is there, what they do, and the differences between the skill economy, itemization, and the spell resource economy.
Coming from a different point of view, and apologies in advance if this is needlessly snide, but:
Wizzo, your job is to make us win!
Fighto, your job is to kill anything that will stand still long enough for you to full attack!
Roguo, your job is to save us a few gold on cheap slippers or wands of dispel magic.
Given that the game designers don't care about game balance, why are there so many posts on these boards about game balance? Isn't that like complaining that a B1 Bomber makes a terrible submarine? If you're concerned about balance, why not play a game for which balance is a design goal?
Sorry. Late to the thread and some of these points may have been mentioned.
1) Not creating 100% balance and not caring about balance are I think two different animals. The developers have said that total balance is neigh impossible to achieve, but that doesn't mean they don't try. Otherwise there would never be any errata... Just a new book with new abilities further widening the gap.
2) As to why there are so many posts about balance; Some people like to see changes that help the game become a little more balanced. The best way to do that is to bring it to peoples attention via these forums. But that doesn't mean they don't like the game, just that they would like to see positive change in certain area's. Not everybody will get what they want, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't try.
3) Telling people that are expressing their opinions to go play a different game comes off a bit rude.
Coming from a different point of view, and apologies in advance if this is needlessly snide, but:
Wizzo, your job is to make us win!
Fighto, your job is to kill anything that will stand still long enough for you to full attack!
Roguo, your job is to save us a few gold on cheap slippers or wands of dispel magic.
What part about that doesn't seem balanced to you?
I sort of left the thread for awhile. I want to respond to something from earlier, re: why I assume that if a class were truly broken, people wouldn't play it.
How do you know that?
Because I assume that, since this is a game, and games are generally played for fun, that if the 'fun' factor of a class were consistently so low that the class was not 'fun' that people wouldn't play them.
It could be that the concepts being played are fun-enough to override mechanical faults, but I just find that unlikely given that the classes in question (assuming they're base classes) have been around for a decade.
if the 'fun' factor of a class were consistently so low that the class was not 'fun' that people wouldn't play themThat's a faulty assumption. There can be other reasons why a person plays the game and plays a particular class in the game.
I don't think it's a faulty assumption that the majority of people who regularly take part in an activity intended for entertainment do so to be entertained. If you're taking part in what is meant, at its very base, to be a method of entertaining yourself and having fun, for reasons other than having fun, then you're doing it wrong. You might derive your fun from it in different ways, but if you're truly doing it and not having fun, then you're foolish for not stopping.
I'm trying not to be snarky here, but if you really believe that even a large minority of people in the tabletop gaming community are doing it for some reason other than pleasure - a.k.a. 'fun' - then I'm not certain we even have a basis for discussion.
As to why someone might play a particular class, that I can understand. A person might play a Rogue because the party needs trapfinding.
But one of the original topics of conversation in the thread was that there are other classes that can perform the roles of the so-called 'weak' classes and do those jobs as well or better, while performing better in other areas as well.
So if that's true, then why aren't they playing those other classes instead?
Show me ONE class that hasn't gone through significant changes since a decade ago. You can't. So, the classes haven't been around for a decade.
It could be that the concepts being played are fun-enough to override mechanical faults, but I just find that unlikely given that the classes in question (assuming they're base classes) have been around for a decade.
Considering that D&D 3.5 released back in 2003 and it was the last major full d20 update prior to Pathfinder?
Yeah, they have been around for a decade in their current core form. Are there FAQs and errata that have been released during that time? Yes - but the core concepts and mechanics of the classes have remained the same.
I hear what you are saying, but that has been the rogue for many decades. This is a point of balance that I'm talking about. We entrusted to reproduce a very core experience in fun and interesting way. You may think that the rogue should not be the guy that disarms traps and has a lot of skills, but many (including myself) define the rogue by that mix of skills and combat expertise.
The problem is not necessarily that the Rogue is a skill guy/trap disarmer, but is a s&#@ty combatant.
The problem is that "Skill Guy/Trap Disarmer" as a class role is something the game does its best to discourage as an only role.
The Ranger gets 8+Int skill points to play around with, and he has Trapfinding (letting him disarm magical traps). This is supposed to be his major advantage over other classes.
However, due to a combination of other factors, this is not enough of an advantage to justify his existence.
1.) The Ranger. I like the Ranger. I think he is one of the most balanced classes, alongside the Paladin, Barbarian, and most of the half-casters (Magus, Inquisitor, and Alchemist). The Ranger gets a mere 2 skill points less than the Rogue, AND he's a better combatant. The Alchemist does this too, with his 4+Int and Int focus (since it determines both his skills, Extracts, AND damage with Bombs).
So the niche of "Skill Guy" is already on shaky ground. So all he has left is Trapfinding.
Which leads into point 2.
2.) Trapfinding has been stolen by other classes. The Trapper Ranger, while he gives up his spells, gains Trapfinding. While losing his spells may seem like a hefty downside (and it is), looking even slightly below the surface still reveals that the Ranger now has skills (he's the skill guy), can disarm traps (he's the trap guy) AND can fight better than the Rogue. THe Rogue is now ENTIRELY redundant, since his major role has been 1-Upped by a different class. The Archaeologist Bard can also do this (though at a later level I believe).
3.) Spells, for the most part, have the capability to obsolete skills. Spells like Spider Climb, Invisibility, Water Walking/Water Breathing, and Knock (to a much lesser extent) can make the use of Climb, Stealth, Swim, and Disable Device fairly redundant. It's one of my major issues with the spell system as-is, that spells do TOO much.
In the hypothetical PF 2.0 I don't think a spell overhaul would be remiss (as well as a skill overhaul) making skills better (to super-human heights, as per SKR's post a while back), and spells less overshadowing of them (spells like Spider Climb giving a skill bonus and a climb speed/enhancement to such that scales with your skill instead of flat out making Climb not worth having).
Social skills are still pretty nice...but the Bard exists so yeah.
4.) Traps, for the most part, aren't very dangerous. There's no need for a dedicated trap guy when traps mostly just ding you on the shin or deal 1d2 ability damage. I'm not saying that returning to instakill traps or anything like that is a good idea, but making them more dangerous, and more varied in their danger IS a good idea.
5.) This point is a bit unrelated to the others, but it also highlights another of the problem with the class: Rogue Talents. In a game where you have these fun, flavorful, and powerful options for "Feat-like Non-Feats" like Discoveries, Rage Powers, Revelations, Hexes, and so on...Rogue Talents are lackluster to put it mildly. When I first looked over the list I found about 10 I thought were good enough to take. That number dropped to about 6 once I followed the link to the in-depth description of some of them (Powerful Sneak? Seriously? WHY?). The remaining were ones that gave Feats, Ninja Trick, and Dispelling Strike (Minor Magic and Major Magic being prerequisites was okay I guess, though they're kinda meh too.).
This is kind of a bad thing when Rogue Talents make up the majority of Rogue Class Feature gains across the levels.
Basically, if you want the Rogue to be the Trap/Skill Guy...make that a role worth having. Stop giving it to other classes, and make it a needed role again. If not, at least make him a worthwhile combatant in SOME way. Not necessarily DPR, but some support abilities, like the Bard has.
That's just my 2 cents on the Rogue class, take it or leave it.
I don't remember barbarians getting rage powers, monks getting a ki pool, wizards having an arcane bond, etc. in core 3.5
Considering that D&D 3.5 released back in 2003 and it was the last major full d20 update prior to...
Additions from Pathfinder, yes. Rage powers were an expansion on the base uses of Rage by Barbarians in 3.5. Monks had ki strike, which ki pool powers expanded upon; wizards had a familiar rather than an arcane bond; and etc.
In other words, they were additional systems tacked on to the core class mechanics and concepts - which is what I clarified had not changed.
My basic point for even bringing up the existence of these classes in 3.5 was the fact that they were played in 3.5, and they're still played in Pathfinder.
The core mechanics of the classes stretch back a decade, and people have been playing them for a decade...apparently even though they're unbalanced to the point that their 'fun factor' is low.
I don't buy it, sorry.
At this point I'm done derailing the thread with personal conversation. Do I believe that many of the classes have room for improvement? Yeah.
Do I believe that they are as 'broken' as the posts on the forums would leave the designers to believe? Nope, sorry, and no one's said anything to convince me otherwise.
Then again, whether I accept the argument as valid or not is irrelevant.
[edit]
If not, at least make him a worthwhile combatant in SOME way. Not necessarily DPR, but some support abilities, like the Bard has.
That's just my 2 cents on the Rogue class, take it or leave it.
I personally like the idea of the Rogue as a decent combatant who also applies debuffs to foes through his attacks. I don't see it as a buff class necessarily, but debuffing a foe so that your allies can more effectively take them down sort of amounts to the same thing.
Give the Rogue the ability early on to forego sneak attacks on a foe to deny it its DEX versus other party members, or to reduce its attack bonuses against allies.
Please see my page 2 post regarding how there are number of spells that can replace skills. While some are not as effective as a Rogue who has spent feats specializing on that skill, others give a massive bonus or more utility. That list is not exhaustive and I'll add few more examples here.I read it. I'm very aware of them. I've been working on this style of game for over a decade, and know what is there, what they do, and the differences between the skill economy, itemization, and the spell resource economy.
First, Thank you very much for your response. I have no doubt that you are aware of these spells and didn't intend to imply otherwise. Apologies if it came across that the way. The response was more to list the ways in which one of the Rogues key niche's can be replaced or superseded. I guess the question then is do you feel that these spells do not cut deeply enough into the Rogue's niche to be a balance concern? Or is the issue more that the skills are considered a less valuable economy than the item or spell economy? I must admit the value that developers place on the Feat/Skill/Item/Spell economies would be a very interesting. If possible could you please elaborate on where each stands relative to the others from a design perspective? I will list my own perspective on the economies values below so that my approach can be noted.
From my perspective, skills are permanent character resource, once a skill point is invested you won't be able to get it back later. Spells in contrast only function that way on the spontaneous casters. A Wizard is free to learn these skill replacing spells at a small cost. His selections can also be changed from day to day, situation to situation. The Rogue who has decided to specialize in Stealth is not going to get those permanent character choices back, while a Wizard need simply choose to not prepare Invisibility if he wishes.
Now I recognize that Wizards have a limited number of spell slots, while a Rogue can perform their skills without limitation. To borrow the Climb v. Spider Climb situation though, how often is Climb really going to be needed? I can't think of many adventures that have called for more then 30 minutes worth climbing. Thus from my point of view having a spell to handle the given situation is more efficient than investing in a skill only to see it be used a small number of times. Whereas a single 2nd level slot (possible left open to be filled in later) while very expensive at level 3 is less so at level 5 and by level 7 is much cheaper (to me anyway) than 7 ranks in Climb.
First, Thank you very much for your response. I have no doubt that you are aware of these spells and didn't intend to imply otherwise. Apologies if it came across that the way. The response was more to list the ways in which one of the Rogues key niche's can be replaced or superseded. I guess the question then is do you feel that these spells do not cut deeply enough into the Rogue's niche to be a balance concern?
I'm trimming you here, because I just wanted to respond to some of your comments earlier in a general sense, rather than attempt to argue the entire discussion in detail with you. I'm going to ignore the obvious limitations of spells vs. skills (e.g. spells used towards these ends could be used elsewhere, you can't have them all prepared at once and still cover your bases, ect), and just touch on some specific situations in which the skills tend to trump the spells.
I'll also ignore random events that negate magics or certain types of magic for plot purposes, even though they frequently come up in high end games and even in the later parts of official adventure paths.
Stealth v. Invisibility
Other than the obvious limitations of invisibility - beaten by a number of second level spells (some with large areas and very long durations), beaten by running water, beaten by weather effects, short duration, ect - the largest advantage of stealth over invisibility is that it is much more reliable and likely to at high levels produce much larger bonuses. It's also all the better when used in conjunction with stealthy characters than when used alone. On the whole it works as long as you need it whenever you need it, and without requiring that you speak loudly and in a clear voice for a round before you want to use it (take a look at how low the perception check is to hear someone talking).
Disable Device v. Knock
Disable device scales much more quickly than knock does, both at low and high levels. It can also be retried without any loss of resources if it fails the first or second time. It can take twenty. That might not seem like much, but consider the DC of even a simple lock that's been hit with an arcane lock, which the rogue likely can't beat with a take ten, and which knock likely won't overcome with the caster level check. This could rapidly deplete more than its usual share of resources. Disable device is also used to rig devices to fail. Disable device also does not require chanting, and is thus much more viable in an exploration that is attempting to remain stealthy (especially for a scout ahead of a party).
Disable Device v. Dispel Magic
The most obvious example of the limitations here are non-magical traps, effects not subject to dispel magic (many force effects). The above examples of relative quiet and difficult DCs that require multiple checks to overcome apply here as they did with knock.
Charm Person v. Diplomacy
Generally speaking I think most people would respond hostilely to attempts to magically compel them to do your will, as opposed to simply convince them that it is in their best interests/the right thing to do via mundane means such as diplomacy. Diplomacy also creates long lasting allies. Diplomacy can be used to negotiate with powerful creatures that have allies who may attack if you attempt to charm them. The king's guards for instance, or even the duke's guards, might respond negatively to spellcasting in their presence or be clued in by a sudden shift in personality and feelings towards the party. It's extremely easy to detect magical compulsion with sense motive (DC 15 for domination, 20 for charms if I recall correctly). Those are checks even relatively low level people can make - and which they are not likely to respond kindly too. Finally, even if the beings in question you are attempting to charm do not know you are charming them, they may respond to unprovoked spellcasting with immediate violence. These both have there pros and cons, but there are some big negatives associated with using charm spells. It's also much easier to build up very high diplomacy checks than it is to build up high enchantment DCs.
All of these spells have uses - I'm just not certain they make other classes nearly as irrelevant as some people think.
Those are the best possible examples in favor of skills, however.
You can't really tell me that it's worth having ranks in Climb when Spider Climb and Fly exist.
Also, as written, Diplomacy is often temporary as well:
Any attitude shift caused through Diplomacy generally lasts for 1d4 hours but can last much longer or shorter depending upon the situation (GM discretion).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
....there are other pivots of balance in the Pathfinder game. Some of which, I would argue are far more important to the designers of the game.
There is the balance of giving players interesting things to play, archetypes (and I mean that mostly in the loose sense rather than the mechanical set of the word) that multiple player types and styles of play will enjoy playing.
There is the balance of giving the GM enough tools, toys, and advice to frame the stories that she wants to create.
There is the balance of giving both players and GMs the best expression of the rules given the framework of the 3.5 ruleset it is based on.
There is the balance of presenting those rules, archetypes, toys, and advice in a way that rings true to the customs set down from decades of RPG social play and discussion, while being innovative and creating new design space and play experiences that will create a livid and more inclusive game experience.
There is the balance of fun and quick, vs. complete and vibrant.
And I haven't even mentioned the balance of business vs. the ideal. The balance of change for change's sake vs. "fixing" critical parts of the rules.
Thanks for this post. I've always considered myself someone who doesn't care about balance in RPGs. On reflection after reading this, I think it's probably more accurate to say that there are other factors I like to see balanced against the goal of "mathematical rigour". (Speed, simplicity and ability-to-replicate-fantasy-novel-characters being my most valued traits in an rpg, I think).
I appreciate that it's something the designers are considering on top of more numerical considerations of balance.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like this thread, I think it offers a lot more than most threads, but sometimes when I read about balance on these forums, all I can picture is a bunch of mathematicians solving equations on a chalkboard and dumping the variables that end up lower.
Who cares what the numbers say about balance? You have a person - a person, who is alive and free thinking and intelligent - who spends his time trying to come up with ways for you guys to have fun together. If you end up with a higher to-hit than you really ought to at that level, he can just change the encounters appropriately. If you end up with a crappy to-hit, he can do the same thing.
But, a'course, a lot of this thread isn't about numbers. It's about class redundancy and narrative power, issues that are much harder to solve than a simple tweak here or there to a stat block.
I've played more wizards than anything else, and I love not having to worry about keeping Knock prepared or on a scroll because we don't have a rogue. I love knowing I can stop preparing a Summon Monster spell or two every day because the new armor the fighter just got is the bee's knees, and he's going to take hits that much better. If my fellow party member can cover something one of my spells do, then I can get another spell to cover something we couldn't have without him. -He- is the one adding versatility to the group, not me! His presence and skill set are the very conditions I require to bring the new component to the group, so without him, there is no new component.
This is not a competitive game. This is a team game. The party works together. My toolkit is also my party's toolkit. Just as if we were to find a locked door, the party would look at the rogue to pick it, I have no problems with the party looking at the wizard to change the story's direction with a spell. Remember, though, the party is a subset of the full team. The full team includes the GM. If the GM doesn't want the wizard bending time and space and circumventing a plot point, the party should respect that. I don't get upset because my thing is swinging a sword, but my buddy's is altering reality, I get happy that I have two things I can rely on.
I've played more wizards than anything else, and I love not having to worry about keeping Knock prepared or on a scroll because we don't have a rogue. I love knowing I can stop preparing a Summon Monster spell or two every day because the new armor the fighter just got is the bee's knees, and he's going to take hits that much better. If my fellow party member can cover something one of my spells do, then I can get another spell to cover something we couldn't have without him. -He- is the one adding versatility to the group, not me! His presence and skill set are the very conditions I require to bring the new component to the group, so without him, there is no new component.
I feel like most people miss this.
I've played more wizards than anything else, and I love not having to worry about keeping Knock prepared or on a scroll because we don't have a rogue. I love knowing I can stop preparing a Summon Monster spell or two every day because the new armor the fighter just got is the bee's knees, and he's going to take hits that much better. If my fellow party member can cover something one of my spells do, then I can get another spell to cover something we couldn't have without him. -He- is the one adding versatility to the group, not me! His presence and skill set are the very conditions I require to bring the new component to the group, so without him, there is no new component.I feel like most people miss this.
Just because he feels BAD that he has to scale back to make the other classes worthwhile doesn't mean it's balanced that he can do all that in the first place.
If an entire class is adding versatility because he's saving the Wizard a few spell slots something is terribly wrong here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just because he feels BAD that he has to scale back to make the other classes worthwhile doesn't mean it's balanced that he can do all that in the first place.If an entire class is adding versatility because he's saving the Wizard a few spell slots something is terribly wrong here.
He's not scaling back, he's directing his investment in another area because someone else has that area covered. There's nothing wrong with that.
All of these spells have uses - I'm just not certain they make other classes nearly as irrelevant as some people think.
Agreed. I'll even make a stronger statement, in the years of playing this game, similar games, and overseeing organized play for similar games, I've never seen these spells make the rogue irrelevant. They've only served as a back-up when the rogue fails or in some other way can't do her job in certain circumstances.
Spellcasters typically have better things to do with their slots and time.
I appreciate that it's something the designers are considering on top of more numerical considerations of balance.
I'm happy you appreciate it. :)
Scrolls are cheap. Magic items, such as the Hat of Disguise and Slippers of Spider Climbing, are also cheap.
Rogues are cheaper and add to the overall skill set of the party. Not to mention their resources.
I'd like Pathfinder 2.0 to remove all spells which replace skills (including stuff like teleport and fly). If a character wants to fly, they can train a hippogrif or the like (it'll make animal handling actually useful). I'd also increase skill points by level by about 2. I'd also expand the equipment available to include -mundane- gear to help with common problems such as flying enemies. This will make skills more valuable and make magic feel more magical (instead of common, like it does now).
Given you just mentioned two staple spells (teleport and fly) I'd say you are unlikely to see what you want. Pathfinder is a high magic game. The answer to the problem of balance is not to jealously protect the niche of weaker characters. It is to bring them into line and make them interesting to play regardless of what other characters bring to the table.
By all means lets endeavor to make skills more important. But that does not require spells to be changed, it requires skills to be changed. Things like skill tricks from 3.5 are a start. They just need to be expanded on, and should be part of the base assumption of the rogue specifically, but perhaps also any skill focused character.
If you want a low magic game, pathfinder (and indeed dnd) isnt the right choice. It has a base assumption of abundant magic. 2 of the 4 clasic character types are literal miracle workers. You need lots of magic to deal with those invisible, flying, poison weilding, paralyzing, fear inducing, ability draining, mind warping monsters that litter every beastiary.
I appreciate that it's something the designers are considering on top of more numerical considerations of balance.I'm happy you appreciate it. :)
Hi Stephen, any thoughts on my previous post about narrative power balance as opposed to numerical balance?
I respectfully ask that you justify that statement. How are Rogues cheaper when the party is constantly dragging around that dead weight, spending resources on that dead weight, and dividing treasure with that dead weight?
How is the rogue adding to the overall skill set when any class that has Int as a prime req will have more skill points?
Well wizards are not trained in the same skills, they have a limited pool of resources to draw upon (either spell slots or gp) and the rogue is free, takes an equal share of the treasure, and uses that treasure to enhance her skills.
I respectfully disagree that the rogue is dead weight--I disagree. No no rogue that has ever been in a party that I've played with has ever been dead weight. I've played with a lot of parties.
Hi Stephen, any thoughts on my previous post about narrative power balance as opposed to numerical balance?
I think you made some good points and added positively to the discussion.
This statement makes no sense. I think you're confusing "high magic" with "banal magic". Consider Conan. The world is high magic. Casters can do stuff that Pathfinder wizards can't. But, magic in Conan is not banal, because it is not common. It is reserved for the amazing.
Pathfinder is a high magic game. The answer to the problem of balance is not to jealously protect the niche of weaker characters.
Huh?
Are you talking Conan the Cimmerian, or Conan O'Brien?
Because I've read all of Howard's Conan, and lots of other books and comics. It ain't high magic, except for a very select instances of moderately awesome stuff, but none of it surpasses Pathfinder magic's power levels.
Oh, did you mean those totally non-canonical movies that were "Conan lite" for the unread masses..?
Poor joking aside, the Conan comparison fails. Pick another example.
Also, what does your assertion that rogues are a "dead weight" assume rogues are doing in combat? I'm pretty sure that a scroll of Knock is not going to be damaging enemies or flanking.
I think calling them dead weight is a little exaggerative, but if you had the choice between a rogue, a ranger, and a wizard who would you rather have, eh?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No no rogue that has ever been in a party that I've played with has ever been dead weight. I've played with a lot of parties.
I think this is an important point to follow up with. Sometimes it gets lost amidst the clamor, but I think the key question is, "Do the published rules support the play style we're shooting for."
In your experience, clearly they have -- but I'd respectfully suggest that this may be an artefact of the fact that, in your games, that playstyle is already assumed by default, and that everyone is already "on board" with it. In other words, in that experience, the rules are tangential to the playstyle and aren't permitted to unduly influence it.
A better test is to take a group who habitually uses a different playstyle, teach them the Pathfinder rules as written, and see if using those rules changes their playstyle to something closer to yours. If so, the rules are a great success; the more their style comes to conform to what you wanted, as a consequence of following the rules, the better those rules are. If not -- if after a bit of experience they end up with all-caster parties and view rogues as pointless -- then that would tend to lead to the opposite conclusion.