One Thread To Rule Them All: The Rogue and the ACG Classes


Advanced Class Guide Playtest General Discussion

51 to 100 of 178 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

@ wraithstrike what do you define as a casual gamer
Just wondering


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Nicos wrote:
Darth Grall wrote:
This thread is surprisingly calm. Guess that just shows how bad off the Rogue was...
I am somewhat annoyed that they were stubbor and did not fixed the rogue in all this years but c´est la vie.

It's not about stubbornness, but about practicality. They've already said multiple times in the past that they will not obsolete older copies of their current edition core rulebook, by changing out entire sections. Errata which stays on the same page is fine, but just flat-out changing entire classes won't happen for this editon of the game.

Sczarni RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

My favorite PFS character remains my Rogue, though I had to go with Scout and dip Urban Barbarian to even try to stay consistent with attack and damage rolls at high levels, and I totally acknowledge that I need help from casters no matter how well I prepare. Even so, I won't try and rebuild my poor rogue as a newer class to see what might have been...

Maybe it's time for all of our rogues to head off to the Grey Havens and take ship for Valinor in the West. There where the grass is always green, the loot is always shiny, the backs are always ready for stabbing, and no one's ever heard of an extract.

EDIT -- To say something about the ACG in this ACG post, I'll say that I really enjoy the possibilities outlined with the new class! I'm sad the rogue is gone, but I'm very happy with these new options.

Silver Crusade

tony gent wrote:

@ wraithstrike what do you define as a casual gamer

Just wondering

I'd define it as someone who'd look over the core rule book for their character only, not really doing a lot of research on other options. For a rogue like character, a CRB reader would obviously pick the Rogue. But once you get more system mastery, you'll start to get a better picture of what does and doesn't work.

The Rogue to me is dead mechanically, although people will still play them for the reasons stated above. People want the name brand that is "Rogue", and will complain if you call it something else (Ninja, Vivisectionist, Investigator, etc) so they'll go to the mechanically inferior choice in order to get that feel.

To me the Rogue has been dead since the Alchemist came out, but now with a more rogue-like version of it (Investigator, of whom I WILL be doing a guide for when it comes out), there's almost no reason mechanically to play one unless you're staunchly against magic. I get that it's an issue for some people not to have more complexity to their character, and that's going to be those who gravitate towards the Rogue, but the Investigator and others fill its thematic role well enough and mechanically soundly enough as to invalidate it from a more metagame sense.

Goodbye Rogue, you were never truly treated for the symptoms of poor design.


honestly i wouldnt be surprised if the base monk went the same way with the next major book--or even with an archetype of the brawler when the acg actually comes out next year. the sheer logistics of trying to fix the rogue or monk (and the reprints that would follow) to keep them out of their children's shadow means that neither will ever be fixed, only replaced, and it saddens me.

NO! The monk of the core rulebook is one of the best melee class. I recently participated in an arena match with my friends. We each had to make a 20th level, 10th tier mythic, character (no spellcasters for obvious reasons) with 500,000 gp to spend on items and gear (Again, we banned wands, scrolls, and most other spellcasting items). We fought each other in tournament style 1 on 1 matches.

I was a monk, and I went undefeated, and slaughtered everyone I faced in the first round (a barbarian, a gunslinger, and a cavalier). The monk is great.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Monk is not great. You may be able to build a better character than the others, but that's not the class.

Granted, Mythic may skew that, but that's Mythic.


At least monks are far superior to rogues


There's plenty of reasons to continue playing a Rogue.
1) your GM only allows Core Rulebook
2) your GM only allows Core Rulebook & APG
3) your GM doesn't allow Investigator, Slayer, Swashbuckler, Ninja, or Vivsectionist
... Yeah.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
In_digo wrote:

There's plenty of reasons to continue playing a Rogue.

1) your GM only allows Core Rulebook
2) your GM only allows Core Rulebook & APG
3) your GM doesn't allow Investigator, Slayer, Swashbuckler, Ninja, or Vivsectionist
... Yeah.

Well darn! Guess I'll play a Bard then.


Malodeus wrote:
At least monks are far superior to rogues

I find no disagreement with this statement.


TarkXT wrote:
It's an advanced talent.

The real problem is that rogues won't live to see advanced talents. They can't afford the saves to reach those levels.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't get the uproar. The rogue gets sneak attack sooner, rogue talents sooner, uncanny dodge, evasion, advanced talents... The rogue looks a little weak, as always, but not invalidated. By second level, a rogue has +1d6 sneak attack; with Surprise Attack, that could potentially be a lot of damage in the first round of combat.

That said, the investigator is a six level caster, and as such, there ought to be a couple of gaps in their abilities by level. The bard has such gaps, and many of the entries on the Inquisitor table are progressions of existing abilities. It's not really fair for the investigator to get a full table progression AND casting. My first suggestion would be for investigator talents or sneak attack to be pushed back to every three levels, rather than two.


RJGrady wrote:

I don't get the uproar. The rogue gets sneak attack sooner, rogue talents sooner, uncanny dodge, evasion, advanced talents... The rogue looks a little weak, as always, but not invalidated. By second level, a rogue has +1d6 sneak attack; with Surprise Attack, that could potentially be a lot of damage in the first round of combat.

That said, the investigator is a six level caster, and as such, there ought to be a couple of gaps in their abilities by level. The bard has such gaps, and many of the entries on the Inquisitor table are progressions of existing abilities. It's not really fair for the investigator to get a full table progression AND casting. My first suggestion would be for investigator talents or sneak attack to be pushed back to every three levels, rather than two.

Remember now the investigator is modeled off the alchemist, not the bard nor the inquisitor.

And keep in mind Alchemy and Inspiration are very much abilities I'd rather have at level one than either rogue talents or sneak attack.

And in terms of rogue talents it's true they get them a level later. But they are also better I get all the rogues goodies, plus I have the means to get a free +1d8 to any number of d20 rolls I'll make ever. And to nail that coffin shut we have lots of alchemist goodies (yes we cna even get there mutagen) at our disposal.

Even if we removed Trapsense, poison resistance, and poison use we'd still have a very very powerful argument against the rogue.


Ironically, my rogue PC is a private eye. So in theory the Investigator class should be perfect. But it's not. Giving him all that alchemy stuff just doesn't belong at all in the character conception. OTOH, rogue is perfect.

Any ideas what fictional examples the Investigator might have been drawn from?


Mudfoot wrote:

Ironically, my rogue PC is a private eye. So in theory the Investigator class should be perfect. But it's not. Giving him all that alchemy stuff just doesn't belong at all in the character conception. OTOH, rogue is perfect.

Any ideas what fictional examples the Investigator might have been drawn from?

Sherlock Holmes.


Tels wrote:
Mudfoot wrote:

Ironically, my rogue PC is a private eye. So in theory the Investigator class should be perfect. But it's not. Giving him all that alchemy stuff just doesn't belong at all in the character conception. OTOH, rogue is perfect.

Any ideas what fictional examples the Investigator might have been drawn from?

Sherlock Holmes.

CSI.


Tels wrote:
Mudfoot wrote:

Ironically, my rogue PC is a private eye. So in theory the Investigator class should be perfect. But it's not. Giving him all that alchemy stuff just doesn't belong at all in the character conception. OTOH, rogue is perfect.

Any ideas what fictional examples the Investigator might have been drawn from?

Sherlock Holmes.

i Don't recall Sherlock Holmes shanking people or poisoning them, the inspiration and poison resistance works though,


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kekkres wrote:
Tels wrote:
Mudfoot wrote:

Ironically, my rogue PC is a private eye. So in theory the Investigator class should be perfect. But it's not. Giving him all that alchemy stuff just doesn't belong at all in the character conception. OTOH, rogue is perfect.

Any ideas what fictional examples the Investigator might have been drawn from?

Sherlock Holmes.
i Don't recall Sherlock Holmes shanking people or poisoning them, the inspiration and poison resistance works though,

"And how did you develop your resistance to Opiates Mr Holmes? "

" The path of the red dragon"

"... what is that? Some Oriental meditation technique? An obscure rossicurian alchemist sect? A forgotten masonic rite?"

"No, its the opium den on the corner of oxford and regent...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Kekkres wrote:
Tels wrote:
Mudfoot wrote:

Ironically, my rogue PC is a private eye. So in theory the Investigator class should be perfect. But it's not. Giving him all that alchemy stuff just doesn't belong at all in the character conception. OTOH, rogue is perfect.

Any ideas what fictional examples the Investigator might have been drawn from?

Sherlock Holmes.
i Don't recall Sherlock Holmes shanking people or poisoning them, the inspiration and poison resistance works though,

"And how did you develop your resistance to Opiates Mr Holmes? "

" The path of the red dragon"

"... what is that? Some Oriental meditation technique? An obscure rossicurian alchemist sect? A forgotten masonic rite?"

"No, its the opium den on the corner of oxford and regent...

And to elaborate further.

The poor dog...


I recall Holmes being very smart, able to break down and analyze forensic evidence, which the 'Alchemist' abilities would let him do, while the rest of his Investigator abilities lets him deduct and solve crimes.


Mudfoot wrote:

Ironically, my rogue PC is a private eye. So in theory the Investigator class should be perfect. But it's not. Giving him all that alchemy stuff just doesn't belong at all in the character conception. OTOH, rogue is perfect.

Any ideas what fictional examples the Investigator might have been drawn from?

I have a PC in my home game that is in the same situation: he's a detective doing detecting things, but has absolutely no knowledge of alchemicals and would never rely on them to begin with.

That being said, even with the introduction of the Investigator, I will still be using rogues for my NPCs for two reasons. First, simplicity. I don't want to bother having to track what kind of extracts and how many they have left should I replace my rogues with the much more mechanically improved Investigator.

Second - but more importantly - I will keep using the rogue class because I can keep re-"skinning" the rogue to fit whatever kind of skilled NPC I need to build. Returning to my home game, my players have faced more rogues than they realize because of the different archetypes and situations they find the NPCs in...until a handful of sneak attack damage dice are being rolled, and then the groans begin).

Liberty's Edge

One idea that would help raise the rogue's profile and give some build options to the new Sneak Attack classes would be to create some juicy and powerful new feats with SA as a prerequisite. Maybe some debuffing to go along with (not replace) the extra damage, maybe a chance to make some skill checks and benefit from them the way a lot of the Combat Style feats do. The Slayer and the Investigator would have some options but the Rogue would get them sooner and be better able to take advantage of them.


For me the rogue problmes are not his DPR. their problems is their low saves and the low ussefulness of skill compared against spells. Few people really takes the rogue to be a combat machine, it is more about the feeling of a being "roguish". Sadly the class just fail at it the bard is just better. And it is sad that paizo never really wanted to desing good rogues talents for that.


tony gent wrote:

@ wraithstrike what do you define as a casual gamer

Just wondering

I think the definition is different for everyone. For me it is someone who will play the game, and know most of the rules, but they may not think it is worth the trouble, or don't care enough to go online and participate in gaming forums. They won't go through the "trouble" of starting a playtest...etc..

The rules knowledge thing is subjective but mostly I would say the interest in the hobby is a factor. I am assuming for the point of this post that they real life things such as kids, are not the main reason they are not more involved.

As an example I have a player that like to play, but he does not visit the site*, and he only knows about new books or classes when I tell him something new is out. He may or may not buy a book, but he will stop by the local FLGS if he has free time to look at it.

*Yes he is aware of its existence, and has a membership here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Darth Grall wrote:
This thread is surprisingly calm. Guess that just shows how bad off the Rogue was...
I am somewhat annoyed that they were stubbor and did not fixed the rogue in all this years but c´est la vie.
It's not about stubbornness, but about practicality. They've already said multiple times in the past that they will not obsolete older copies of their current edition core rulebook, by changing out entire sections. Errata which stays on the same page is fine, but just flat-out changing entire classes won't happen for this editon of the game.

It does not have to be erratas to the core books. look at the barbarian, with the notable exception of superstition all the great barbarian rage power are in non core material: Beast totems (other totems are good too), come and get me, spell sunder, etaer of magic...

Besides the calss also recieved several good archetypes: INvulnerable rager, urban barbarian, mounted fury, titan mauler...

Instead what the rogue recieved? mediocre rogues talents, a couple of decent enough archetyeps (thug, scout, sniper).

With the new books teh barbarian just became stronger and stronger, and witht he new books the rogue just saw how more and more of his thunder was stolen by other classes.

Yeah, the problem was not only in core.


Hound wrote:

Good point, but a blender-rogue can be a strong class.

1.Dex is the main stat, intelligence is nice but the rogue gets a base of 8 to start so assuming..

1.Perception
2.Acrobatics
3.Disable Device
4.Stealth
4 'Wild card' points for personalizing the character

A rogue can get by with his favored class bonus just fine so INT can stay at 10.

Getting back to Crippling strike and TWF, a good flank can rack up at least 3 SAs

1.1d6+mod+6d6+2 Str damage
2.1d6+mod+6d6+2 Str damage
3. 1d4/1d6(depend on weapon)+6d6+2 Str damage

so a potential for 2d6+1d4+18d6+6 str damage. Granted every blow has to hit and a good Dm will make it harder to pull off but still..

Don't be surprised if the Investigator gets changed so not to dominate over the rogue so much.

Anyway,a rouge can't deal so much dmg in normal situation because normally you cannot hit the enemy so many times

1.Rouge is a 3/4 bab class,so your ab is naturlly lower than a TWF fighter or some other full BAB classes
2.To get high Str is much easier than to get a higher Dex
3.A fighter can use weapon training,a Barbarian can rage,a Pal can use smite,the Rangers have their favourive enemies,bards can use music,a magus can use spell to make sure he can hit,a gunslinger don't need that because they only need to hit touch AC.
But a rouge don't have some ways to improve his ab,and most of the enemies' AC come from Natural or Aromr,that will not lose even without dex bonus
4.The Twf fight will reduse the AB again

Liberty's Edge

Not all GMs allow all content.

I do not allow the Ninja class since it is an early European themed game with no ties to Asian-type lands and I don't allow the Alchemist class because the Jekyll and Hyde concept does not fit the flavor of the campaign.

This means that the Rogue certainly still has his place in my game.

I personally don't care for these half-breed classes in any case. I think that archetypes do a nice job helping players theme their characters already.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
N. Jolly wrote:
tony gent wrote:

@ wraithstrike what do you define as a casual gamer

Just wondering

I'd define it as someone who'd look over the core rule book for their character only, not really doing a lot of research on other options. For a rogue like character, a CRB reader would obviously pick the Rogue. But once you get more system mastery, you'll start to get a better picture of what does and doesn't work.

The Rogue to me is dead mechanically, although people will still play them for the reasons stated above. People want the name brand that is "Rogue", and will complain if you call it something else (Ninja, Vivisectionist, Investigator, etc) so they'll go to the mechanically inferior choice in order to get that feel.

Putting it bluntly, don't think that you are in my head knowing how my decision process goes. I have every Core Rulebook and I have read them all. I am far from a casual player. I choose the class that fits the concept, I don't do it to "get that feel." I do it because the mechanics, from skill selection to concept to abilities. I have experimented with Rogue-like classes and have found that in each case, when I wanted to play a Rogue, Rogue was the best choice for me, even over Ninja which is really just Archetype of Rogue.

Spoiler:
yes I know it is an Alternate Class, but an Alternate Class is just an Archetype that makes more expansive changes to the class.

Quote:


To me the Rogue has been dead since the Alchemist came out, but now with a more rogue-like version of it (Investigator, of whom I WILL be doing a guide for when it comes out), there's almost no reason mechanically to play one unless you're staunchly against magic. I get that it's an issue for some people not to have more complexity to their character, and that's going to be those who gravitate towards the Rogue, but the Investigator and others fill its thematic role well enough and mechanically soundly enough as to invalidate it from a more metagame sense.

So I am simpleminded now? hmm try making your point without insulting others why don't you.

I have chose to play Rogue-like classes where it makes sense, in fact I am converting a character for PFS, who was a Gunslinger(Pistolero)/Alchemist(Crypt Breaker)/Rogue and making him full Investigator, with the intent of playing him at the next Con I am going to. Why am I changing him? Because the Investigator class fits my concept better, both in theme and mechanics, than any other class or combination of classes.

reason why I am not breaking PFS rules:
The character in question is a GM baby that I never got around to playing.

Quote:


Goodbye Rogue, you were never truly treated for the symptoms of poor design.

Honestly I will never understand why people think the PF Rogue is so weak. I think it does its job and does it better than the 3.5 Rogue ever did.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graywulfe wrote:
Honestly I will never understand why people think the PF Rogue is so weak. I think it does its job and does it better than the 3.5 Rogue ever did.

Because you're comparing it to a 3.5 rogue.

As to your decision making process no one can speak for that. But in my case at least I've never come up with a concept for a rogue not easily accomplished with another class.

Liberty's Edge

TarkXT wrote:
graywulfe wrote:
Honestly I will never understand why people think the PF Rogue is so weak. I think it does its job and does it better than the 3.5 Rogue ever did.

Because you're comparing it to a 3.5 rogue.

As to your decision making process no one can speak for that. But in my case at least I've never come up with a concept for a rogue not easily accomplished with another class.

I never understood why people hated on 3.5 Rogue so much. I would also note that I said the PF Rogue does its job, that is one statement. That it does its job better than the PF Rogue is a separate statement. In my opinion all of the PF classes do their job better than their 3.5 versions.

I will not debate this last point, I will not engage in edition warring, I am just placing my perspective out here.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
graywulfe wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
graywulfe wrote:
Honestly I will never understand why people think the PF Rogue is so weak. I think it does its job and does it better than the 3.5 Rogue ever did.

Because you're comparing it to a 3.5 rogue.

As to your decision making process no one can speak for that. But in my case at least I've never come up with a concept for a rogue not easily accomplished with another class.

I never understood why people hated on 3.5 Rogue so much. I would also note that I said the PF Rogue does its job, that is one statement. That it does its job better than the PF Rogue is a separate statement. In my opinion all of the PF classes do their job better than their 3.5 versions.

I will not debate this last point, I will not engage in edition warring, I am just placing my perspective out here.

I do not think somebody have stated that the rogues does not do his job. The statement is that several other classes can do that job (equally or better) and at the same time do something else.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As a fix for the next addition PFRPG, the rogue needs to have access to a luck pool to power dirty tricks and attack opponents weaknesses rather than try to duke it out with brute force like the fighter/barbarian. This could also be used to fuel their magic sensing/using/disabling talents.


TarkXT wrote:
In_digo wrote:

There's plenty of reasons to continue playing a Rogue.

1) your GM only allows Core Rulebook
2) your GM only allows Core Rulebook & APG
3) your GM doesn't allow Investigator, Slayer, Swashbuckler, Ninja, or Vivsectionist
... Yeah.
Well darn! Guess I'll play a Bard then.

Poor Rogues. They just never get a break, do they?


Nicos wrote:
I do not think somebody have stated that the rogues does not do his job. The statement is that several other classes can do that job (equally or better) and at the same time do something else.

Well, past 9th level, Rogues are pretty terrible at doing their job. At that point, having weak defenses (such as low AC and abysmal saves) is such a burden that Rogues will have a hard time staying alive long enough to do anything...

Unless, of course, your GM is pulling his punches, but in that case you don't really to worry about what your class can do.


lichzeta wrote:
Hound wrote:


Anyway,a rouge can't deal so much dmg in normal situation because normally you cannot hit the enemy so many times

1.Rouge is a 3/4 bab class,so your ab is naturlly lower than a TWF fighter or some other full BAB classes
2.To get high Str is much easier than to get a higher Dex
3.A fighter can use weapon training,a Barbarian can rage,a Pal can use smite,the Rangers have their favourive enemies,bards can use music,a magus can use spell to make sure he can hit,a gunslinger don't need that because they only need to hit touch AC.
But a rouge don't have some ways to improve his ab,and most of the enemies' AC come from Natural or Aromr,that will not lose even without dex bonus
4.The Twf fight will reduse the AB again

A good case for the problems a 'base state' rogue has, because of the many different classes that might be in a party, one can't take everything into account. Without going into Bard song/haste/etc, let's just see what an 11th level rogue might have..

Base Bab +8/+3
Assumed Dex of 20 (Stat gains and dex belt)+5
Flank +2
+2 weapons +2

So +17/+12 +15/+10 for TWF. Not horrid for a TWF this can be bumped up by +2 or+3 if a bard is with the group, so as a secondary damage dealer, IMO, this is good.


And then you look at his damage...

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The rogue is dead. Long live the "rogue".

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
ChexMix wrote:
One idea that would help raise the rogue's profile and give some build options to the new Sneak Attack classes would be to create some juicy and powerful new feats with SA as a prerequisite. Maybe some debuffing to go along with (not replace) the extra damage, maybe a chance to make some skill checks and benefit from them the way a lot of the Combat Style feats do. The Slayer and the Investigator would have some options but the Rogue would get them sooner and be better able to take advantage of them.

Agree completely. Sneak attack progression still favors the Rogue, for anything where that is important. Similarly, Rogue still makes a better multiclass/Prestige Class chassis than the others. (Ninja is plenty good, too, but can be too fiddly.)

But as a single-classed, 20-level character? Yeah, I'd have a hard time choosing a Rogue over the new characters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cheapy wrote:
I was expecting significantly more discussion. Huh.

None here. I like the rogue and monk, but what I really want is when a player comes up and says, "I want to play a (blank)!" then there's something I can offer them...

...that doesn't require four or five splatbooks and seven hours of explaining, but that fits their needs right away...

...and clearly explains its theme. So, they start playing earlier. Get into the game faster, and are happier. There's enough crunch that down the line, the crunchies can dig in, too.

"Monk" is fragmented. So is "rogue." While both classes suggested concepts...well, look at the forum.

Or, based on the recent book, Paizo's own market studies.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
greywulfe wrote:
N.Jolly wrote:
To me the Rogue has been dead since the Alchemist came out, but now with a more rogue-like version of it (Investigator, of whom I WILL be doing a guide for when it comes out), there's almost no reason mechanically to play one unless you're staunchly against magic. I get that it's an issue for some people not to have more complexity to their character, and that's going to be those who gravitate towards the Rogue, but the Investigator and others fill its thematic role well enough and mechanically soundly enough as to invalidate it from a more metagame sense.

So I am simpleminded now? hmm try making your point without insulting others why don't you.

I have chose to play Rogue-like classes where it makes sense, in fact I am converting a character for PFS, who was a Gunslinger(Pistolero)/Alchemist(Crypt Breaker)/Rogue and making him full Investigator, with the intent of playing him at the next Con I am going to. Why am I changing him? Because the Investigator class fits my concept better, both in theme and mechanics, than any other class or combination of classes.

...who called you simpleminded? Some people like less complex characters for whatever reason. I didn't insult anyone, so I'd prefer you not assuming I did.

greywulfe wrote:
Honestly I will never understand why people think the PF Rogue is so weak. I think it does its job and does it better than the 3.5 Rogue ever did.

Yeah, the 3.5 Rogue isn't a good benchmark when other rogue substitutes, like the Beguiler and more importantly, the Factotum, both did its job infinitely better.

This is what we're seeing in the Swashbuckler/Slayer/Investigator, an upswing in mechanical power to match the rest of the game. Every other class that was weak got a boost where it needed it, while our Rogue Talents were...well...

Actual Advanced (Not until Level 11) Rogue Talent wrote:

Rumormonger (Ex)

Prerequisite: Advanced talents

Benefit: A rogue with this talent can attempt to spread a rumor through a small town or larger settlement by making a Bluff check. She can do so a number of times per week equal to her Charisma modifier (minimum 0). The DC is based on the size of the settlement, and it takes a week for the rumor to propagate through the settlement. If the check succeeds, the rumor is practically accepted as fact within the community; succeeding by 5 or more over the DC decreases the time it takes the rumor to propagate by 1d4 days. A failed check means the rumor failed to gain traction, while failing by 5 or more causes the opposite of the rumor or some other competing theory involving the rumor’s subject to take hold.

I don't know about you, but I can't wait to hit level 11 so I can start spreading rumors.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't know how people here feel about the tier system but I do have this to say about it: I have absolutely no problem with new classes being introduced that are more powerful than the weakest classes that already exist, and weaker than the strongest classes. We already have a wide variety of power levels to choose from. Having some more in the middle is just fine.

I actually find it fairly elegant to take the tropes the rogue was also used to express and give them each a good fleshed out class.


Andrea1 wrote:
lichzeta wrote:
Hound wrote:


Anyway,a rouge can't deal so much dmg in normal situation because normally you cannot hit the enemy so many times

1.Rouge is a 3/4 bab class,so your ab is naturlly lower than a TWF fighter or some other full BAB classes
2.To get high Str is much easier than to get a higher Dex
3.A fighter can use weapon training,a Barbarian can rage,a Pal can use smite,the Rangers have their favourive enemies,bards can use music,a magus can use spell to make sure he can hit,a gunslinger don't need that because they only need to hit touch AC.
But a rouge don't have some ways to improve his ab,and most of the enemies' AC come from Natural or Aromr,that will not lose even without dex bonus
4.The Twf fight will reduse the AB again

A good case for the problems a 'base state' rogue has, because of the many different classes that might be in a party, one can't take everything into account. Without going into Bard song/haste/etc, let's just see what an 11th level rogue might have..

Base Bab +8/+3
Assumed Dex of 20 (Stat gains and dex belt)+5
Flank +2
+2 weapons +2

So +17/+12 +15/+10 for TWF. Not horrid for a TWF this can be bumped up by +2 or+3 if a bard is with the group, so as a secondary damage dealer, IMO, this is good.

Well,at the same time a core barbarian or fighter will have a 27AB and more stable dmg.

What I want to say is that dealing dmg is not the job of the rouge.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree with the rest of the thread in that I think it's better for the long-term health of the game to let the rogue fade into a niche class, rather than to let it drag down everything similar to it by trying to use it as a precedent for balance. I do think there are drawbacks; it's not great that there's a trap option (no pun intended) right there in core where it's very visible, but making things that are comparable anemic to avoid that situation is much worse in my eyes. Over the very long term, I think it's best if every new class (or any character option, really) is as well-designed relative to the system as possible.

3.5 also had to deal with an unbalanced core (a much worse one, even), and when it introduced new classes it sometimes introduced new classes that took core at face value as a point of balance, like the Samurai and the Archivist, and it sometimes ignored that in favor of introducing classes that were at a point that worked well relative to the system, like the Warblade and the Beguiler. I'd much rather see a future of Pathfinder that has a lot of Warblades and Beguilers than one that has a lot of Archivists and Samurai. (In terms of where things sit relative to the game in terms of power level, not in terms of specific mechanics.)


I get the feeling that paizo is going down the powercreep path with its extra books
I doubt its on purpose but it's a common problem when a system goes beyond a certain size there just become to many options and some combinations give an advantage mechanically in game its just something that happens
To quote gandalf " not even the very wise can see all ends" (or something like that)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't have a problem with the "rogue-like" classes discussed, but I expect that brand-name "Rogue(tm)" will continue to see play for a long time.

I'll offer my own gaming circle as an example of the mythical "casual gamer" discussed previously: 15 or so people overlapping in about 4 active games, somewhat evenly split between folks who have played since 1e/2e and folks who have never played anything but Pathfinder. Of those, only three of us own any products beyond CRB + APG; the solid majority don't own even a CRB.

These are folks who are enthusiastic about playing and meet every 1-2 weeks, in games that run a couple years at a time. When they're making a new character, the method is, "I think I'll play a [flips open CRB] ....elf [flips pages] .... barbarian," then start rolling while figuring out a backstory around that. No interest in poring through multiple books, little interest in planning "builds" beyond "I'm going to take point-blank shot b/c it's a pre-req for a lot of stuff," minimal effort put into party balance. (That's how the last campaign I GMed wound up with 2 monks, sword-and-board fighter, archery ranger, cleric tank, and bard. Everybody had a blast.)

In this context, the Rogue is and, I think, will remain popular. unless somebody comes to the table wanting to play Indiana Jones, we won't see a bard(archeologist). Slayer might draw attention, but as a "ranger without the nature" rather than a "better slasher rogue", and Swashbuckler as a "lightly armored fighter", and probably first in a Skull & Shackles game, rather than "better finesse rogue". Investigator...has a lot going on, most of it coming from a not-core class and so not automatically familiar, so will have that hurdle to adoption.

So while the Rogue may be dead to the forum-going public, "eclipsed" by "better" classes, I think it'll remain popular at tables like these for the foreseeable future -- and I don't see that changing unless/until the CRB Rogue is replaced with a new "Rogue" that doesn't have some other thematic flavor to it (I don't see the investigator filling this niche, even if placed in the CRB, because alchemy.)

And I think that's fine: we *can* have it both ways.


Totally coincidental case in point: one of the games I play in lost one of our 3 players, and two others from our gaming group are joining the campaign.

The GM just told me what the two joiners rolled up...a pair of rogues.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

It should, as always, be re-stressed: in any tabletop RPG, your group takes what you want, changes what you need, and discards the rest. Paizo has not forgotten this rule. the rogue may no longer have a strong mechanical niche, at least in some expressed opinions, but it is virtually impossible to completely invalidate a class. This is because a class is more than a combo of features.

It is an identity.

the rogue is the everyman, who lives by his wits, his reflexes, and his ability to capitalize on the moment. He does not rely on magic, gods, massive armor, or even his own party members. He counts on himself to get the job done. that ideology fuels the existence of the rogue class, and it always will.

the investigator crosses the magical line. the slayer becomes a single-minded killer. The hunter brings a friend along. A purist rogue quite possibly shuns all these things as baggage--crutches, even, that will leave him dependent and weakened at the crucial moment when he is denied them.

Take a wizard's book or bonded object, and he's on borrowed time.
Take a fighter's armor, and he starts thinking twice about wading into a crowd.
Take a cleric's god, and he's a poor fighter.

But a classic rogue? What can you take away to kill the rogue? the shadows? He still has his skills and reflexes. His armor? He probably won't miss it. His party? He goes black ops. Magic? He laughs. His weapon? He can still get sneak attacks with his hands from ambush. His poisons and potions? He just picks his fights better.

Now, RAW, I know some of this may fall away; the rules aren't perfect, and neither are we (y'know, human fallibility and all that.) but RAI, you have a guy who lives on guts alone; who looks at the wizard's book, the fighter's armor, and the cleric's deity, and just chuckles out a single word:

"Amateurs."

THAT is why people love the rogue. THAT is why rogues will never die.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Daynen wrote:


But a classic rogue? What can you take away to kill the rogue? the shadows? He still has his skills and reflexes. His armor? He probably won't miss it. His party? He goes black ops. Magic? He laughs. His weapon? He can still get sneak attacks with his hands from ambush. His poisons and potions? He just picks his fights better.

Now, RAW, I know some of this may fall away; the rules aren't perfect, and neither are we (y'know, human fallibility and all that.) but RAI, you have a guy who lives on guts alone; who looks at the wizard's book, the fighter's armor, and the cleric's deity, and just chuckles out a single word:

"Amateurs."

THAT is why people love the rogue. THAT is why rogues will never die.

Hey you just described all my rangers.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Daynen wrote:


But a classic rogue? What can you take away to kill the rogue? the shadows? He still has his skills and reflexes. His armor? He probably won't miss it. His party? He goes black ops. Magic? He laughs. His weapon? He can still get sneak attacks with his hands from ambush. His poisons and potions? He just picks his fights better.

Now, RAW, I know some of this may fall away; the rules aren't perfect, and neither are we (y'know, human fallibility and all that.) but RAI, you have a guy who lives on guts alone; who looks at the wizard's book, the fighter's armor, and the cleric's deity, and just chuckles out a single word:

"Amateurs."

THAT is why people love the rogue. THAT is why rogues will never die.

This is the beginning of a tragedy where the guy with the arrogance to assume others relying on "crutches" to succeed are inferior is brutally beaten, humiliated, and killed because he relied on his own meager talents, right?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
Daynen wrote:


But a classic rogue? What can you take away to kill the rogue? the shadows? He still has his skills and reflexes. His armor? He probably won't miss it. His party? He goes black ops. Magic? He laughs. His weapon? He can still get sneak attacks with his hands from ambush. His poisons and potions? He just picks his fights better.

Now, RAW, I know some of this may fall away; the rules aren't perfect, and neither are we (y'know, human fallibility and all that.) but RAI, you have a guy who lives on guts alone; who looks at the wizard's book, the fighter's armor, and the cleric's deity, and just chuckles out a single word:

"Amateurs."

THAT is why people love the rogue. THAT is why rogues will never die.

This is the beginning of a tragedy where the guy with the arrogance to assume others relying on "crutches" to succeed is brutally beaten, humiliated, and killed because he relied on his own meager talents, right?

By a naked Tetori Monk.

51 to 100 of 178 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Advanced Class Guide Playtest / General Discussion / One Thread To Rule Them All: The Rogue and the ACG Classes All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.