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


Advanced Class Guide Playtest General Discussion

101 to 150 of 178 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:


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?

This is not a PvP game. I don't give a rats ass that there are many other classes out there that can outperform the Rogue. What I care about is that the Rogue can handle CR-appropriate challenges. And it can, just like every other PC base class in Pathfinder can.

Sure, they do need items for some, but that's the point of WBL - making sure every class has the items it needs to succeed.


tony gent wrote:
I get the feeling that paizo is going down the powercreep path with its extra books

Powercreep has such negative connotations. However, in this and other cases, it isn't necessarily bad for a system.

People have complained for a long time about the mechanical abilities of the Rogue class. For numerous valid non-game reasons, such as not invalidating all old Rogue statblocks, heavy changes to the class are not a possibility. In this case, without power creep, a certain character niche will forever remain weaker than others.

Instead, power creep has reopened that conceptual space. Investigators (as well as Archaeologists, Vivisectionists, and other classes) give players that want a "Rogue" class with a potential closer to that of other classes the option, while not completely invalidating older material. Overall, I think this is better to the health of the system than remaining tied to a very low bar for "Rogue" types, simply because the original rendition was not up to snuff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Psyren wrote:
Rynjin wrote:


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?

This is not a PvP game. I don't give a rats ass that there are many other classes out there that can outperform the Rogue. What I care about is that the Rogue can handle CR-appropriate challenges. And it can, just like every other PC base class in Pathfinder can.

Sure, they do need items for some, but that's the point of WBL - making sure every class has the items it needs to succeed.

I think the point being made in what you quoted is that the rogue has all this done to him by a CR appropriate challenge.

But, assuming he can beat the CR appropriate challenge look at it from the perspective of the professionals with him. Why take him along over a ranger, bard, or alchemist?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Psyren wrote:
Rynjin wrote:


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?

This is not a PvP game. I don't give a rats ass that there are many other classes out there that can outperform the Rogue. What I care about is that the Rogue can handle CR-appropriate challenges. And it can, just like every other PC base class in Pathfinder can.

Rogues do have probelms with CR appropiate challenges, particularly when something (whatever) target ther weak saves.

Besides, and more importantly, if you do not have problems now then you should not have probelms if the calss were jsut better. Everyone will be happy.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

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

The rogue haters, immovable in their position, feel like the newer classes replace the rogue. And they are fairly satisfied with what they see as replacements.

Those who enjoy the rogue still see a position for it even amongst classes that share a similar role. And they are fairly satisfied with having more skillmonkey options while still feeling like they can enjoy the existing class they like.

The two groups will not ever listen to each other, let alone see eye to eye.

And yet they are both ultimately satisfied with the situation, each for their own reasons.

So there's nothing to discuss.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I am not really satisfised. The rogue is dead (mechanically speaking), I woudl have prefered that one of the core original classes( printed in the most imporntat book of pathfinder), were not ...bad.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DeathQuaker wrote:
Cheapy wrote:
I was expecting significantly more discussion. Huh.
The rogue haters, immovable in their position, feel like the newer classes replace the rogue. And they are fairly satisfied with what they see as replacements.

Acknowledging something is flawed or simply mechanically inferior to other similar options is not hate, just realism.

I like the concept behind the Rogue class, but it doesn't change the fact that they are a weak class.

Just like the fact that I love junk food doesn't change the fact that it's really bad for my health. That fact might not stop me from eating junk food, but it doesn't make it any healthier either.

Liberty's Edge

Heh, monks don't rely on much else besides themselves; if a rogue is satisfied losing to anyone, it'll be a monk. ranger may be a close second, but divine spells, my friend. divine spells.

The reason the rogue is not completely overhauled is because, as mentioned, he can handle CR appropriate challenges if he's played well. The reason he is seen as weak is because other classes can be optimized, some of them casually, to handle far greater challenges. they have higher skill caps and, in some cases, lower skill requirements, in other words. the rogue's limits are harder to breach with optimization, and competency takes a greater minimum of effort to acheive. That's all that needs to really be "fixed" without sacrificing the flavor, and I feel like both camps would be perfectly happy.

Side note: that monologue was epic and you know it. Don't be hatin'.


Daynen wrote:


Side note: that monologue was epic and you know it. Don't be hatin'.

Soooo, what you're saying is it's not the rogue that's bad it's jsut the people playing it suck?

Dark Archive

TarkXT wrote:


I think the point being made in what you quoted is that the rogue has all this done to him by a CR appropriate challenge.

Then that is the player's fault, because with appropriate wealth any PC class can handle any appropriate challenge. Some classes are merely more forgiving to a lower skill gap (e.g. Druid and Sorcerer) or lower wealth, and those classes are thus rightfully ranked higher, but with sufficient skill and wealth all classes can win.

Nicos wrote:


Besides, and more importantly, if you do not have problems now then you should not have probelms if the calss were jsut better. Everyone will be happy.

Except Paizo, who would have to issue a pile of errata.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Psyren wrote:
TarkXT wrote:


I think the point being made in what you quoted is that the rogue has all this done to him by a CR appropriate challenge.

Then that is the player's fault, because with appropriate wealth any PC class can handle any appropriate challenge. Some classes are merely more forgiving to a lower skill gap (e.g. Druid and Sorcerer) or lower wealth, and those classes are thus rightfully ranked higher, but with sufficient skill and wealth all classes can win.

The ironic part of this "well the player just sucks" statement is that I've seen new players gravitate towards rogues more often than I've seen older ones.


Daynen wrote:
The reason the rogue is not completely overhauled is because, as mentioned, he can handle CR appropriate challenges if he's played well.

The design decisions that went into the Core rogue almost certainly have much more to do with backwards compatibility with 3.5 OGL material. I thought Paizo did a credible job of updating the rogue within that rather strong constraint. However, the fact remains that for most campaigns the rogue is an 'expert' class in that you need to be an expert to contribute meaningfully in combat and expect to survive.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
DeathQuaker wrote:
Cheapy wrote:
I was expecting significantly more discussion. Huh.
The rogue haters, immovable in their position, feel like the newer classes replace the rogue. And they are fairly satisfied with what they see as replacements.

Acknowledging something is flawed or simply mechanically inferior to other similar options is not hate, just realism.

She knows. I think she's saying the rogue haters are those happy to see it obsoleted.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Grimmy wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
DeathQuaker wrote:
Cheapy wrote:
I was expecting significantly more discussion. Huh.
The rogue haters, immovable in their position, feel like the newer classes replace the rogue. And they are fairly satisfied with what they see as replacements.

Acknowledging something is flawed or simply mechanically inferior to other similar options is not hate, just realism.

She knows. I think she's saying the rogue haters are those happy to see it obsoleted.

I'm happy to see the rogue get obsoleted for some values of those words, but it's not because I hate the rogue. I like the rogue and I wish it was better. I'd just rather it be obsoleted than for it to drag down every future concept that plays in a similar space because they don't want to obsolete the rogue. If I could manifest Reality Revision, I wouldn't kill the rogue; I'd make it BETTER.

Nobody non-imaginary "hates" the rogue. Some people just recognize that it's significantly below the curve established by the rest of the game. (Note that this is not the same as "useless" or "you can't play the rogue or you will automatically die and fail.")


Psyren wrote:
TarkXT wrote:


I think the point being made in what you quoted is that the rogue has all this done to him by a CR appropriate challenge.

Then that is the player's fault, because with appropriate wealth any PC class can handle any appropriate challenge. Some classes are merely more forgiving to a lower skill gap (e.g. Druid and Sorcerer) or lower wealth, and those classes are thus rightfully ranked higher, but with sufficient skill and wealth all classes can win.

Nicos wrote:


Besides, and more importantly, if you do not have problems now then you should not have probelms if the calss were jsut better. Everyone will be happy.
Except Paizo, who would have to issue a pile of errata.

cant "fix" the class without a reprint, which makes folks whove bought the older prints rather miffed that their book is worthless for a section, and too many people are reluctant to use pdfs (which they could change as needed and redistribute free to folks with a purchase code from a previous version) over hardcover books.

and so the rogue (and monk) have to suffer because of money.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Joyd wrote:

I'm happy to see the rogue get obsoleted for some values of those words, but it's not because I hate the rogue. I like the rogue and I wish it was better. I'd just rather it be obsoleted than for it to drag down every future concept that plays in a similar space because they don't want to obsolete the rogue. If I could manifest Reality Revision, I wouldn't kill the rogue; I'd make it BETTER.

Nobody non-imaginary "hates" the rogue. Some people just recognize that it's significantly below the curve established by the rest of the game. (Note that this is not the same as "useless" or "you can't play the rogue or you will automatically die and fail.")

Couldn't have said it better.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
DeathQuaker wrote:
Cheapy wrote:
I was expecting significantly more discussion. Huh.
The rogue haters, immovable in their position, feel like the newer classes replace the rogue. And they are fairly satisfied with what they see as replacements.

Acknowledging something is flawed or simply mechanically inferior to other similar options is not hate, just realism.

I like the concept behind the Rogue class, but it doesn't change the fact that they are a weak class.

Just like the fact that I love junk food doesn't change the fact that it's really bad for my health. That fact might not stop me from eating junk food, but it doesn't make it any healthier either.

First, whether the rogue is flawed is a matter of both opinion and personal experiences, which vary widely. I am NOT going to get into the details of this opinion in this thread. I think as I said people have their mind made up one way or another and nothing is going to be resolved here any more than in prior discussions of the rogue.

Secondly, you are right in that I chose my words poorly. Let's try again:

The people who either dislike playing the rogue OR who feel it is mechanically inferior, feel like the newer classes replace the rogue. And MANY (but not all) are satisfied with what they see as replacements, or at least glad there are other options if they accept the fact that Paizo is NOT going to revise core at this juncture.

The people who are more or less happy with the rogue's mechanics, at least as much as they are with any class's mechanics, and/or who enjoy playing the rogue, feel like there is room for both the rogue and the new classes.

And yes, again, let me be clear, I did choose my words poorly. I should not have chosen something as emotionally charged as "hater," and I apologize if that muddied the waters.

The fact that we are getting into rather pedantic debates over semantics I think justifies my opinion that there is little substantive to discuss as regards to the rogue "versus" the ACG, at least nothing the various camps could see eye to eye upon or convince the other upon, save that the newer skill monkey classes have a lot to offer to the game.

And otherwise, despite the pleas for civility, it will just descend into "I'm right/you're wrong about the rogue" and offer nothing substantive or helpful to this playtest.

If anyone proves me wrong, I shall be delighted. I expect, however, more semantic arguments, pedantry, and nitpicking instead. Again, if my expectations are not met, I shall be delighted.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darth Grall wrote:
This thread is surprisingly calm. Guess that just shows how bad off the Rogue was...

Not really. I can't speak for others, but I generally see little benefit in posting in threads laden with rogue-sucks-hyperbole. I apparently failed my Will save today.

The rogue is extremely versatile. If you're going to look at it solely from a munchkin perspective, you'll find DPR winners but that's hardly a good measure of a classes effectveness in-game.

Anecdotally, the rogue remains the most popular class among all 3 of my current campaigns.

I like the other niches the new classes fulfil, but as with the ninja, the ineffectiveness of the rogue is VASTLY overstated by some vocal posters on these boards.

Liberty's Edge

So, I guess the Slayer replaces the my current character, a fighter/rogue who relied on combat techniques and feint, essentially a thug?

Sovereign Court

Would it truly be so awful to errata rogues with Inspiration for the next CRB printing and call it a day?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
BPorter wrote:

The rogue is extremely versatile.

Yeah I've seen them die in a variety of fun ways.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Something that confuses me about the rogue, is why they didn't just decide to publish stronger Talents and Advanced Talents. The basic class structure seems to be pretty good, it's just the abilities aren't all that great. The Barbarian saw a nice upgrade in the APG from the new rage powers, and the rogue has a similar structure there already that makes it easy to add new powers to the class.


Caedwyr wrote:
Something that confuses me about the rogue, is why they didn't just decide to publish stronger Talents and Advanced Talents. The basic class structure seems to be pretty good, it's just the abilities aren't all that great. The Barbarian saw a nice upgrade in the APG from the new rage powers, and the rogue has a similar structure there already that makes it easy to add new powers to the class.

Different freelancers with differing opinions I imagine.

The guy who did the barbarians in the APG flat out stated he wanted the barbarians to get nice things. As for the rogue it's basically a mystery.

There are other problems besides. Sneak Attack is one of those abilities that is basically killed by a smoke stick, or fog, or darkness, or blur, etc. etc.

And then there are the issues with skills. Getting more skills does not necessarily translate to MORE skills. If the investigator and bard have taught us anything it's that certain class abilities can push you beyond normal limitations with relative ease and with greater results (see versatile performance and inspiration) at earlier levels.

Archetypes can help with some of these problems, but then that's where we find new problems. Nearly all of them replace trap sense and trapfinding meaning you can find few combinations you can toss together to get the rogue flavor you want out of it. That's almost why I want the investigator to keep Poison Use, not because it's thematic but because I can trade it out for other things.


Rynjin wrote:
BPorter wrote:
The rogue is extremely versatile.
Yeah I've seen them die in a variety of fun ways.

Exactly. I love rogues but they're just kind of death-prone.


I assume, especially since many of these classes are borrowing class features from existing classes, that we will get a decent bit of support for existing classes (including rogue talents) in the new book.


Caedwyr wrote:
Something that confuses me about the rogue, is why they didn't just decide to publish stronger Talents and Advanced Talents. The basic class structure seems to be pretty good, it's just the abilities aren't all that great. The Barbarian saw a nice upgrade in the APG from the new rage powers, and the rogue has a similar structure there already that makes it easy to add new powers to the class.

They sticked to the opinion that everything is fine in core and the rogue have no problem, and the fighter does not need more out of combat options and it needed a lot of nerd-rage to make them desist from the Flurry of blow stricly equal to TWF.


Humphrey Boggard wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
BPorter wrote:
The rogue is extremely versatile.
Yeah I've seen them die in a variety of fun ways.
Exactly. I love rogues but they're just kind of death-prone.

Oh my god that spawned a montage of rogues dying in horrible ways. My favorite image was a rogue touching an artifact as his party watches his soul get ripped away and body obliterated.


Neverwillibreak wrote:
Would it truly be so awful to errata rogues with Inspiration for the next CRB printing and call it a day?

I'm not yet sold on the Inspiration mechanic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Caedwyr wrote:
Something that confuses me about the rogue, is why they didn't just decide to publish stronger Talents and Advanced Talents. The basic class structure seems to be pretty good, it's just the abilities aren't all that great. The Barbarian saw a nice upgrade in the APG from the new rage powers, and the rogue has a similar structure there already that makes it easy to add new powers to the class.

This is a great mystery to me.

Dark Archive

Joyd wrote:

I'm happy to see the rogue get obsoleted for some values of those words, but it's not because I hate the rogue. I like the rogue and I wish it was better. I'd just rather it be obsoleted than for it to drag down every future concept that plays in a similar space because they don't want to obsolete the rogue. If I could manifest Reality Revision, I wouldn't kill the rogue; I'd make it BETTER.

Nobody non-imaginary "hates" the rogue. Some people just recognize that it's significantly below the curve established by the rest of the game. (Note that this is not the same as "useless" or "you can't play the rogue or you will automatically die and fail.")

Very well said.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The Rogue is mechanically dead and has been for a while.

Bard variants
Ranger variants
Seeker Sage Sorcerers
Oracle Variants
Alchemist class as a whole, but especially Vivisectionist
and Crypt Breaker.

There is no real justifiable reason to play straight up 1-20 rogue anymore unless you're a total masochist. Investigator ruins Skill/Trap/Sneak Attack Rogues, the Swashbuckling Zorro and Scarlet Pimpernel and 3 Muskateers sort of Rogue is done in by the Swashbuckler, the damage dump sort is best suited for Urban Rangers with Instant Enemy, Hunters and Slayers.

I wonder what argument can be made that at the end of an Investigator's career that he can be at 22 Intelligence... (14+6 item+2 from leveling or race) and be only down...

1d6 Sneak Attack
A few talents
Evasion/Improved Invasion
Uncanny Dodge

But be up...

2d8, roll twice, take best, 16 times a day on saves or attacks
7/7/6/6/6/6 on spells
A Good Will Save
2d8, roll twice take best on all of my skills, pretty much
Poison Resistance

I mean, come on. The only reason to not play one of these is if you don't want a character that can cast magic, otherwise known as "I don't want to win the game."


SPCDRI wrote:

The Rogue is mechanically dead and has been for a while.

Bard variants
Ranger variants
Seeker Sage Sorcerers
Oracle Variants
Alchemist class as a whole, but especially Vivisectionist
and Crypt Breaker.

There is no real justifiable reason to play straight up 1-20 rogue anymore unless you're a total masochist. Investigator ruins Skill/Trap/Sneak Attack Rogues, the Swashbuckling Zorro and Scarlet Pimpernel and 3 Muskateers sort of Rogue is done in by the Swashbuckler, the damage dump sort is best suited for Urban Rangers with Instant Enemy, Hunters and Slayers.

I wonder what argument can be made that at the end of an Investigator's career that he can be at 22 Intelligence... (14+6 item+2 from leveling or race) and be only down...

1d6 Sneak Attack
A few talents
Evasion/Improved Invasion
Uncanny Dodge

But be up...

2d8, roll twice, take best, 16 times a day on saves or attacks
7/7/6/6/6/6 on spells
A Good Will Save
2d8, roll twice take best on all of my skills, pretty much
Poison Resistance

I mean, come on. The only reason to not play one of these is if you don't want a character that can cast magic, otherwise known as "I don't want to win the game."

I agree with everything except "I don't want to win the game"

Winning the game can only be accomplished when you have fun and if someones idea of fun does not include spells, then they shouldn't have to cast spells to win the game.

Of course for them there is a 1 level dip into rogue or trapper ranger and 19 levels of any other class.


RJGrady wrote:
Neverwillibreak wrote:
Would it truly be so awful to errata rogues with Inspiration for the next CRB printing and call it a day?
I'm not yet sold on the Inspiration mechanic.

I was going to make a long post but it's 1am and i have to get up at like 6. SO, I'll just say that it's really really good on this particular chassis with the addition of talents to make it better.

So yeah. It's good.


TarkXT wrote:
RJGrady wrote:
Neverwillibreak wrote:
Would it truly be so awful to errata rogues with Inspiration for the next CRB printing and call it a day?
I'm not yet sold on the Inspiration mechanic.

I was going to make a long post but it's 1am and i have to get up at like 6. SO, I'll just say that it's really really good on this particular chassis with the addition of talents to make it better.

So yeah. It's good.

Tired TarkXT is Tired.

Dark Archive

But they just lost their last role, that "sometimes-sneaking but mostly Skillmonkey out-of-combat" role. The investigator is better at skills because of their inspirations. They're slightly worse at sneak attacks, but with Alchemical Allocation during combats they should at the least be heroismed (40 minutes without taking into consideration possible extend / level-adjust discoveries). So they're a better skill monkey, with spell (potion) support, and sneak attack (less 5.25 damage; which is 1.5 levels worth).

So there's not much of a leg to stand on to say "rogues should still see play", except for very niche audiences (thug still has a unique effect that several classes can splash 1 level for, for instance).


Thalin wrote:

Investigators are a better skill monkey, with 6th level spell (potion) support and sneak attack.

The rogue cannot see play except with very niche audiences (thug still has a unique effect that several classes can splash 1 level for, for instance).

Well, not only are they substantially better with skills, they are substantially better in combat with a whole host of spells that completely negate skill checks.

Alchemical Allocation, Heroism/Greater Heroism, Fly, Haste, Barkskin, Blur/Displacement and Invisibility/Greater Invisibility make the Investigator a self-buffing Bard/Rogue and the trade offs are all minor abilities.

Combat wise he could take the 1d8 talent, roll and take best talent and only use 1 Inspiration point to apply to saves and combat (+5 to a save or attack roll something like 7 to 10 times a day by level 10 as an immediate action) and in exchange for being down 1d6 damage at 10th level, he's casting multiple 2nd, 3rd and 4th level spells on himself. This frees up the other classes to do more than buff the rogue. The resource savings are tremendous.

I don't even think a Rogue does as much damage as an Investigator after you factor in buffing and Combat Inspiration.

Inspiration at 1d8 re-roll take best+Heroism=Nice try at being the skillmonkey, pal.

We already saw this in 3.5 when the Factotum gave the Rogue a run for the money. This thing is just everything a Factotum was and then some.

Rogue power level cannot be the baseline because it is one of the weakest classes in the game. When you set the baseline for Rogue replacement at Fighter Archetype, Ranger Archetype and 6th level casters like Alchemist, Bard and Inquisitors...

No Mechanical Reason To Play A Rogue...

Liberty's Edge

Neverwillibreak wrote:
Would it truly be so awful to errata rogues with Inspiration for the next CRB printing and call it a day?

Yes.


Why do people talk as if, at the levels Investigators are turning invisible, rogues won't also be turning invisible? Between the party wizard, potions, and scrolls, if a rogue really needs to be invisible, he'll find a way to turn invisible. The great thing about scrolls of greater invisibility is they don't even require you to burn a class option to have one.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Because the Investigator can do it himself, and isn't dependent on a party member or a shopkeeper to provide the resource for him.


Orthos wrote:
Because the Investigator can do it himself, and isn't dependent on a party member or a shopkeeper to provide the resource for him.

This.

Instead of draining resources the investigator is giving resources to the party.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RJGrady wrote:
Why do people talk as if, at the levels Investigators are turning invisible, rogues won't also be turning invisible? Between the party wizard, potions, and scrolls, if a rogue really needs to be invisible, he'll find a way to turn invisible. The great thing about scrolls of greater invisibility is they don't even require you to burn a class option to have one.

Because if the rogue is turning invisible via these options, then so can the investigator.

The ironic part about this statement is. Thanks to the infusion discovery the investigator can in fact turn the rogue invisible.

It's sort of telling that while the investigator is simultaneously doing your job he's handing out buffs to the party to use with their own action economy.


The previous three pages become pretty funny to read if you peruse them after reading today's blog post


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lamontius wrote:

The previous three pages become pretty funny to read if you peruse them after reading today's blog post

Meh. Oh no! We won't have sneak attack! What if they replace it with something better! Le Gasp!

Yeah count me as an investigator fan. :)


i like the new classes that have replaced the rogue. the slayer, swashbuckler and investigator, and could care less if they obsolete the rogue on a mechanical level. in fact, the rogue never did a good job as a straight 20 level class anyway. in fact, 3.5 realized the issues with the rogue and made 5 attempts to replace it, 3 in complete adventurer, 1 in players handbook 2, and 1 in dungeonscape. and in every edition of D&D from 3.5 and before. the rogue was merely multiclass fodder. in 3.0 and 3.5, it existed as a trapfinding dip, and maybe to gain skills for PRC entry, in 1st and 2nd edition, it was multiclass fodder for demihumans whom wanted to ignore the level cap. and well multiclass fodder for humans too.

i'm a fan of the slayer, swashbuckler and investigator, plus i like the fact the investigator has a sneak attack progression similar to the rogues. means i can build that magic using assassin type character (AKA a spellcloak) with a bit of spell list tweaking and reskinning.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TarkXT wrote:
Lamontius wrote:

The previous three pages become pretty funny to read if you peruse them after reading today's blog post

Meh. Oh no! We won't have sneak attack! What if they replace it with something better! Le Gasp!

Yeah count me as an investigator fan. :)

i liked the sneak attack progression. if made it a possible option for reskinning the investigator as a magic using arcane assassin. something the rules currently lack. i'd be fine if they staggered the progression a bit (slayer progression) but please don't remove it entirely.

Sovereign Court

Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
Lamontius wrote:

The previous three pages become pretty funny to read if you peruse them after reading today's blog post

Meh. Oh no! We won't have sneak attack! What if they replace it with something better! Le Gasp!

Yeah count me as an investigator fan. :)

i liked the sneak attack progression. if made it a possible option for reskinning the investigator as a magic using arcane assassin. something the rules currently lack. i'd be fine if they staggered the progression a bit (slayer progression) but please don't remove it entirely.

I'm glad they've removed sneak attack progression from the investigator I hope they don't increase the slayer's skill points for similar reasons. Sloppy design to introduce a pair of classes that step all over core material. What most are ignoring is that the rogue as a concept won't ever be rendered obsolete by a hodgepodge of awkward alternative classes Just say "archeologist bard" or "vivisectionist" (corny) aloud. They don't exactly roll off the tongue do they?

I'll continue to live with the rogue's lack of parity, until Paizo gets around to addressing it. I'm not going to start playing an investigator, the concept is just too niche.


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's not at all impractical to greatly change a class's balance without changing a single line of the Core Rulebook. We saw that with the barbarian, which is massively more powerful than it was in CRB only, mainly due to improved rage powers printed in later books.

(If you like, I could dig up Paizo comments dating from the run-up to the APG in which they stated that they were planning to improve the barbarian by doing just that).

Rogue would even lend itself easily to this approach, due to an almost identical mechanic in the rogue talent.

Now, that's not to say that it is the best approach. Especially now that rogue talents are not rogue-exclusive. It's certainly possible though, and has been done before - even if Paizo seems to be taking a different approach to "fixing" the rogue, working via new base classes, than they did with the barbarian, working via improving existing options.


Coriat wrote:
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's not at all impractical to greatly change a class's balance without changing a single line of the Core Rulebook. We saw that with the barbarian, which is massively more powerful than it was in CRB only, mainly due to improved rage powers printed in later books.

(If you like, I could dig up Paizo comments dating from the run-up to the APG in which they stated that they were planning to improve the barbarian by doing just that).

Rogue would even lend itself easily to this approach, due to an almost identical mechanic in the rogue talent.

Now, that's not to say that it is the best approach. Especially now that rogue talents are not rogue-exclusive. It's certainly possible though, and has been done before - even if Paizo seems to be taking a different approach to "fixing" the rogue, working via new base classes, than they did with the barbarian, working via improving existing options.

Keep in mind, however, that the barbarain's problems were not about a weakness in fundamental mechanics, but a weakness in class options.

Rogues not only suffer weaknesses in options, but a weakness in fundamental mechanis as well.

Trapfinding isn't valuable, sneak attack is difficult to pull off and too easy to shut down (even by accident!), it has too few unique features that cna be replaced for archetypes, and other classes flat out perform all the tassks a rogue is expected to do better.

I mean Im sitting on an archaeologist bard that's a better trapspringer, scout, and archer than any rogue of his equivalent levels. And he was made as an educational tool. :/


TarkXT wrote:

Trapfinding isn't valuable, sneak attack is difficult to pull off and too easy to shut down (even by accident!), it has too few unique features that cna be replaced for archetypes, and other classes flat out perform all the tassks a rogue is expected to do better.

I mean Im sitting on an archaeologist bard that's a better trapspringer, scout, and archer than any rogue of his equivalent levels. And he was made as an educational tool. :/

Yes but tihs become after the core rulebook, so instead of trying to improve the rogue they make him obsolete, several times, in several books.

This is why I do not understand the fear for sneak attack in the investigator and the SKR comment about not making the rogue feel sad for giving the slayer acces to all rogues talents.


To be clear I woudl prefer the option when the rogue exist as a perfectly functional non-obsolete mundane class alongside the bard,ranger alchemist, investigator, inquisitor and slayer.

But that will not happen, so there is no point in punishing the investigator and the slayer for all the years of abbandon the rogue have suffered.

101 to 150 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.