...
@ Sangalor: ...
But if you want the trap expert role filled by one class ...
Well, funny thing is I do not want that :-)
The entire thread I have tried to make clear that I simply feel that the trait is too cheap. It has nothing to do with the rogue in that sense, it's just one of its classic abilities...Others asked what I would feel an adequate cost, and I replied. And to make it crystal clear again:
1. I do not think the rogue only has trapfinding left. So the class isn't killed by the trait.
2. I do think the Trap Finder trait as written is too cheap. Here are examples (not perfect, but a quick write-up to illustrate what I think is right):
Trap Finder trait
Benefit(s): Disable Device is always a class skill for you. In addition, you can use Disable Device to disarm magic traps, like a rogue, but you take a -5 penalty to the the check. If you have the ability to disarm magic traps from another class feature, like the rogue's trapfinding or the archaeologist bard's clever explorer, you do not take this penalty and gain a +1 trait bonus instead.
Trap Finder feat
Benefit(s): You gain a +2 bonus on Disable Device checks, and that skill is always a class skill for you. You are treated as if having the trapfinding class feature of the rogue for the purpose of meeting prerequisites of prestige classes, spells etc.
In addition, you can use Disable Device to disarm magic traps, like a rogue. If you have the ability to disarm magic traps from another class feature, like the rogue's trapfinding or the archaeologist bard's clever explorer, the bonus increases to +4.
This way it is at least worth considering it for everyone:
- Trait: A class with trapfinding (like core rogue) gets a bonus along the typical lines of a trait. An archaeologist bard, for example, gets more - disable device as a class skill.
- Trait: A class without trapfinding gets a class skill and the ability to disarm magic traps. The penalty is almost equaled out by the trained bonus.
- Feat: Similar arguments as the trait, but the bonuses are larger, and no penalty to them.
- Feat: Trapfinding of the rogue (and other classes, I think the trapper ranger also gets one) still has the scaling bonuses on perception and disable device checks, so it's still good. If you took the feat in addition you just improve it further, enabling you to either sink less skills into it or be very good at it even at low levels.
Something along the lines would be fine IMO.
Just not the trait as written. :-)
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
You keep saying this, but you have yet to show in any fashion why you need to intentionally search for traps. It does not, in any way, say this explicitly.
Not explicitly, no. But the existence of the Trap Spotter talent heavily hints at it.
But that's really all beside the point, because any time that you think there could be a trap nearby and aren't in a major rush you should be taking 20 anyway. ;)
I for one am glad that someone else can now look for magical traps.Yes, as DrDeth says, it is a Good Thing for almost any tabletop gaming group to have More Options to cover their bases. The more PCs that can heal, the better too.
The Rogue (Thief) is undoubtedly awaiting on an iteration from the Paizo Team - we've seen Ultimate Combat and Ultimate Magic. There's certainly another Ultimate XYZ coming.
I predict we see the rogue doing what it's best at - stealing stuff - and by stuff, I mean goodies from all the other classes.
I'd predict rogue talents that let them act as full BAB with any light weapon (like the new Warpriest), talents that let them grab a mutagen, an inquisition, maybe even a bardic performance.
It doesn't take many pages for the PDT to give the rogue class a lot of legs, and it doesn't require a massive revision to its core printing.
It's a shame that Jason is committed to maintaining the balanced laid down in core. Which means the rogue and her talents have to suck.
You keep saying this, but you have yet to show in any fashion why you need to intentionally search for traps. It does not, in any way, say this explicitly.Not explicitly, no. But the existence of the Trap Spotter talent heavily hints at it.
But that's really all beside the point, because any time that you think there could be a trap nearby and aren't in a major rush you should be taking 20 anyway. ;)
I don't take that as evidence of anything other than a poorly written rogue talent.
But even so, taking a single move action to search everything in line of sight is ridiculously easy to do.
I've rarely taken 20 on searching for traps, and even then at low levels. But my group really likes to pump their perception, and the DC to find traps is usually very low comparatively. Example: my Magus had a +34 Perception at later levels, and it wasn't a class skill and he had a 10 wisdom. With a take 10 I could spot the hardest traps from 100 feet!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a shame that Jason is committed to maintaining the balanced laid down in core. Which means the rogue and her talents have to suck.I for one am glad that someone else can now look for magical traps.Yes, as DrDeth says, it is a Good Thing for almost any tabletop gaming group to have More Options to cover their bases. The more PCs that can heal, the better too.
The Rogue (Thief) is undoubtedly awaiting on an iteration from the Paizo Team - we've seen Ultimate Combat and Ultimate Magic. There's certainly another Ultimate XYZ coming.
I predict we see the rogue doing what it's best at - stealing stuff - and by stuff, I mean goodies from all the other classes.
I'd predict rogue talents that let them act as full BAB with any light weapon (like the new Warpriest), talents that let them grab a mutagen, an inquisition, maybe even a bardic performance.
It doesn't take many pages for the PDT to give the rogue class a lot of legs, and it doesn't require a massive revision to its core printing.
There is hope yet Marthkus. The Barbarian Rage Powers were pretty craptacular in the CRB. That changed so we can at the very least hope for good Rogue Talents.
|
It's a shame that Jason is committed to maintaining the balanced laid down in core. Which means the rogue and her talents have to suck.
I disagree. I believe Jason & company are more committed to designing and putting their names on one of the best tabletop systems - and this trumps any perceived "commitment" by an individual that would hold a particular class back.
Give the team another year to move some puzzle pieces around - we're at a very interesting point in the lifespan and evolution of this system. I suspect 2014 will be a big year of system refinement through rules rather than just pure bloat. The fact the devs are so actively engaged in the forums means they have this goal, and not that they're just clocking into factory that churns out new half-baked feats and powers each week.
You keep saying this, but you have yet to show in any fashion why you need to intentionally search for traps. It does not, in any way, say this explicitly.
It doesn't but it's pretty clear when you read other stuff, like what I posted earlier:"Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus. Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action."
Note the wording in the spell Find trap "You receive a check to notice traps within 10 feet of you, even if you are not actively searching for them. "
Also take a look at "Heightened Trap Sense: Source Osirion, Land of the Pharaohs pg. 29
"You are acutely attentive to the subtleties of traps and how they are hidden.
Prerequisites: Search 6 ranks, trap sense +1.
Benefit: When you pass within 5 feet of a trap, you are entitled to an automatic Search check to notice the trap. This check is made at a –10 penalty, or –5 if you are moving at half speed and taking no actions other than moving.
Normal: You must take an action to actively search."
So, that's a talent, a feat, and a spell, all of which tell you that in general, searching for traps is intentional searching, not passive reaction.
I agree the skill could be better worded, but it's pretty obvious that's the rule.
There is hope yet Marthkus. The Barbarian Rage Powers were pretty craptacular in the CRB. That changed so we can at the very least hope for good Rogue Talents.It's a shame that Jason is committed to maintaining the balanced laid down in core. Which means the rogue and her talents have to suck.I for one am glad that someone else can now look for magical traps.Yes, as DrDeth says, it is a Good Thing for almost any tabletop gaming group to have More Options to cover their bases. The more PCs that can heal, the better too.
The Rogue (Thief) is undoubtedly awaiting on an iteration from the Paizo Team - we've seen Ultimate Combat and Ultimate Magic. There's certainly another Ultimate XYZ coming.
I predict we see the rogue doing what it's best at - stealing stuff - and by stuff, I mean goodies from all the other classes.
I'd predict rogue talents that let them act as full BAB with any light weapon (like the new Warpriest), talents that let them grab a mutagen, an inquisition, maybe even a bardic performance.
It doesn't take many pages for the PDT to give the rogue class a lot of legs, and it doesn't require a massive revision to its core printing.
Superstition was in the CRB.
Superstition > Pounce.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a shame that Jason is committed to maintaining the balanced laid down in core. Which means the rogue and her talents have to suck.I disagree. I believe Jason & company are more committed to designing and putting their names on one of the best tabletop systems - and this trumps any perceived "commitment" by an individual that would hold a particular class back.
Give the team another year to move some puzzle pieces around - we're at a very interesting point in the lifespan and evolution of this system. I suspect 2014 will be a big year of system refinement through rules rather than just pure bloat. The fact the devs are so actively engaged in the forums means they have this goal, and not that they're just clocking into factory that churns out new half-baked feats and powers each week.
*reads crane wing nerf justification*
*hope dies*
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree the skill could be better worded, but it's pretty obvious that's the rule.
Or rather that is how the designers think the rules are. Much like the designer of Monkey Lunge seems to have written it with the idea that Lunge included an attack in its design. The PDT has obviously written with an idea of how the rules work in regards to traps when the rules do not explicitly support that idea.
It's a shame that Jason is committed to maintaining the balanced laid down in core. Which means the rogue and her talents have to suck.I disagree. I believe Jason & company are more committed to designing and putting their names on one of the best tabletop systems - and this trumps any perceived "commitment" by an individual that would hold a particular class back.
Give the team another year to move some puzzle pieces around - we're at a very interesting point in the lifespan and evolution of this system. I suspect 2014 will be a big year of system refinement through rules rather than just pure bloat. The fact the devs are so actively engaged in the forums means they have this goal, and not that they're just clocking into factory that churns out new half-baked feats and powers each week.
I agree, and in a PM one Dev did tell me that they were working on a "bunch of cool new rogue talents".
And, that's the weak spot here, I admit.
Take a look at this Talent:" Resiliency (Ex): Once per day, a rogue with this ability can gain a number of temporary hit points equal to the rogue's level. Activating this ability is an immediate action that can only be performed when she is brought to below 0 hit points. This ability can be used to prevent her from dying. These temporary hit points last for 1 minute. If the rogue's hit points drop below 0 due to the loss of these temporary hit points, she falls unconscious and is dying as normal." Pretty good- except it's ONCE per day. Why?
Compare to this Wizard school ability :"Shift (Su): At 1st level, you can teleport to a nearby space as a swift action as if using dimension door. This movement does not provoke an attack of opportunity. You must be able to see the space that you are moving into. You cannot take other creatures with you when you use this ability (except for familiars). You can move 5 feet for every two wizard levels you possess (minimum 5 feet). You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Intelligence modifier." Note a Wiz can use that 6+ times a day, more likely at least 7 even at first level.
Why are so many of the cool rogue talents once a day rather than 3+ DEX modifier?
So, even tho I have no problem with this trait- in it's limited campaign setting- I do think they really need a Ultimate book for rogues, etc, as wakedown said.
You keep saying this, but you have yet to show in any fashion why you need to intentionally search for traps. It does not, in any way, say this explicitly.It doesn't but it's pretty clear when you read other stuff, like what I posted earlier:"Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus. Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action."
Note the wording in the spell Find trap "You receive a check to notice traps within 10 feet of you, even if you are not actively searching for them. "
Also take a look at "Heightened Trap Sense: Source Osirion, Land of the Pharaohs pg. 29
"You are acutely attentive to the subtleties of traps and how they are hidden.Prerequisites: Search 6 ranks, trap sense +1.
Benefit: When you pass within 5 feet of a trap, you are entitled to an automatic Search check to notice the trap. This check is made at a –10 penalty, or –5 if you are moving at half speed and taking no actions other than moving.
Normal: You must take an action to actively search."
So, that's a talent, a feat, and a spell, all of which tell you that in general, searching for traps is intentional searching, not passive reaction.
I agree the skill could be better worded, but it's pretty obvious that's the rule.
They've made silly mistakes in the past based on previous rules of DnD. It's no stretch to believe they messed up there either.
They've made silly mistakes in the past based on previous rules of DnD. It's no stretch to believe they messed up there either.
You keep saying this, but you have yet to show in any fashion why you need to intentionally search for traps. It does not, in any way, say this explicitly.It doesn't but it's pretty clear when you read other stuff, like what I posted earlier:"Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus. Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action."
Note the wording in the spell Find trap "You receive a check to notice traps within 10 feet of you, even if you are not actively searching for them. "
Also take a look at "Heightened Trap Sense: Source Osirion, Land of the Pharaohs pg. 29
"You are acutely attentive to the subtleties of traps and how they are hidden.Prerequisites: Search 6 ranks, trap sense +1.
Benefit: When you pass within 5 feet of a trap, you are entitled to an automatic Search check to notice the trap. This check is made at a –10 penalty, or –5 if you are moving at half speed and taking no actions other than moving.
Normal: You must take an action to actively search."
So, that's a talent, a feat, and a spell, all of which tell you that in general, searching for traps is intentional searching, not passive reaction.
I agree the skill could be better worded, but it's pretty obvious that's the rule.
Four times, in four different sources, and only one of those is based upon 3.5? That's a stretch.
It's a shame that Jason is committed to maintaining the balanced laid down in core. Which means the rogue and her talents have to suck.I disagree. I believe Jason & company are more committed to designing and putting their names on one of the best tabletop systems - and this trumps any perceived "commitment" by an individual that would hold a particular class back.
Give the team another year to move some puzzle pieces around - we're at a very interesting point in the lifespan and evolution of this system. I suspect 2014 will be a big year of system refinement through rules rather than just pure bloat. The fact the devs are so actively engaged in the forums means they have this goal, and not that they're just clocking into factory that churns out new half-baked feats and powers each week.
*reads crane wing nerf justification*
*hope dies*
Yeah, honestly. The nerf was bad, but what was worse was the reasoning. It basically came down to "if it was underpowered by CRB, we're not going to try to fix it because... reasons*"
*(I understand some of the reasons of their justification; after all, one of the big issues of 3.5 was power creep, and I can see Paizo's reluctance to repeat that as reasonable. However, I hold that it's not power creep, if you're buffing the classes that are almost universally regarded as underpowered.)
Four times, in four different sources, and only one of those is based upon 3.5? That's a stretch.
It's not that much of a stretch when folks who started playing the game from 3.5 default to rules from that when PF doesn't have it spelled out quite so well for them. Several times it's been seen where they haven't clearly seen the ramifications of what look like simple rules changes.
You for instance believed you still had to search 5 by 5 squares.
However, I hold that it's not power creep, if you're buffing the classes that are almost universally regarded as underpowered.)
Same posters saying the same thing over & over & over does not make it "universal".
However, I hold that it's not power creep, if you're buffing the classes that are almost universally regarded as underpowered.)Same posters saying the same thing over & over & over does not make it "universal".
Its hard to get past hard numbers. Also the Rogue is a pretty textbook example of underpowered. Most classes perform at a level above it. It brings no resources to the party. It can't fight as well. Skills can be done equally if not better by other classes.
Seems pretty clearcut.
However, I hold that it's not power creep, if you're buffing the classes that are almost universally regarded as underpowered.)Same posters saying the same thing over & over & over does not make it "universal".
No really. Rogues are underpowered. This has been objectively proven.
I have about a thousand post and started a few threads trying to defend the rogue. Once the theorycraft met actual play, did I realize just how wrong I was.
Keep in mind the PDT also thought that monks could not make a flurry with just one hand while everyone that responded said they played that way.
Paizo has said themselves that they have a particular playstyle the envision, which obviously has an affect on how they write rules.
Potion sponge
I designed the original Thief class.If this is true there is not a soul on earth, or in heaven or hell less objective about the merits of the thief than you.
That doesn't have to be true.
Its hard to get past hard numbers.However, I hold that it's not power creep, if you're buffing the classes that are almost universally regarded as underpowered.)Same posters saying the same thing over & over & over does not make it "universal".
Those "hard numbers' compare DPR. DPR is nice, but it's limited. Let us take two made up classes;
Warrior Type 1. One good save, 2 SkP. Gets a extra one point of damage per hit every five levels.
vs
Warrior Type 2. Three good saves, 8 SkP. Does not get the extra damage.
"By the hard numbers" Warrior type 1 wins. But most would agree that more SkP and better saves is worth a little more damage. Type 2 is a way better class.
Its hard to get past hard numbers.However, I hold that it's not power creep, if you're buffing the classes that are almost universally regarded as underpowered.)Same posters saying the same thing over & over & over does not make it "universal".Those "hard numbers' compare DPR.
No they don't. They compare Skill Points, Resources, defenses, and DPR.
The Rogue falls short to others in some of these places, then the Rogue falls short to some in all of them.
Man, I guess all those posts and threads talking about things besides DPR that the rogue is subpar at were really about DPR instead. I must've been misreading them.
However, I hold that it's not power creep, if you're buffing the classes that are almost universally regarded as underpowered.)Same posters saying the same thing over & over & over does not make it "universal".No really. Rogues are underpowered. This has been objectively proven.
No, it has not. DPR comparos don't hold any meaning to me. And, besides in those comparos they have done things like not allow the rogue Sneak attack, and compare the base rogue class with others classes archetypes. If we're gonna compare base classes, compare bases classes. If we're gonna compare archetypes, then compare archetypes.
No nailing the rogue's foot to the floor then saying it's a fair comparison.
Its hard to get past hard numbers.However, I hold that it's not power creep, if you're buffing the classes that are almost universally regarded as underpowered.)Same posters saying the same thing over & over & over does not make it "universal".Those "hard numbers' compare DPR. DPR is nice, but it's limited. Let us take two made up classes;
Warrior Type 1. One good save, 2 SkP. Gets a extra one point of damage per hit every five levels.
vs
Warrior Type 2. Three good saves, 8 SkP. Does not get the extra damage.
"By the hard numbers" Warrior type 1 wins. But most would agree that more SkP and better saves is worth a little more damage. Type 2 is a way better class.
Generally, when people compare the numbers, they also take into account skill points and saves. The issue also is, comparing the rogue to a Fighter is a poor metric; a fighter is rarely in competition for the 'rogue' role. More often, I find the rogue is compared to the Vivisecionist Alchemist, or the Bard or other such characters more in direct competition for the slot. And on multiple levels, the rouge falls flat of both of them.
However, I hold that it's not power creep, if you're buffing the classes that are almost universally regarded as underpowered.)Same posters saying the same thing over & over & over does not make it "universal".No really. Rogues are underpowered. This has been objectively proven.
No, it has not. DPR comparos don't hold any meaning to me. And, besides in those comparos they have done things like not allow the rogue Sneak attack, and compare the base rogue class with others classes archetypes. If we're gonna compare base classes, compare bases classes. If we're gonna compare archetypes, then compare archetypes.
Lets not compare the Rogue against archetypes who do his job better since the Rogue has no real good archetypes.
I designed the original Thief class.If this is true there is not a soul on earth, or in heaven or hell less objective about the merits of the thief than you.
Possibly. But in general, if you read this thread and others, we almost all agree the original Thief was awesome. I think the Rogue is Ok*, mind you- but just OK. No way is it awesome like the Thief was. It's a pale shadow.
* especially with archetypes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I designed the original Thief class.If this is true there is not a soul on earth, or in heaven or hell less objective about the merits of the thief than you.Possibly. But in general, if you read this thread and others, we almost all agree the original Thief was awesome. I think the Rogue is Ok*, mind you- but just OK. No way is it awesome like the Thief was. It's a pale shadow.
* especially with archetypes.
Thief was aight. I wouldn't exactly say awesome...
EDIT: You mean archetypes that take away Trapfinding? The whole thing this thread is meant to be ABOUT?!
*flips table*
|
|
Generally, when people compare the numbers, they also take into account skill points and saves. The issue also is, comparing the rogue to a Fighter is a poor metric; a fighter is rarely in competition for the 'rogue' role. More often, I find the rogue is compared to the Vivisecionist Alchemist, or the Bard or other such characters more in direct competition for the slot. And on multiple levels, the rouge falls flat of both of them.
Tabletop RPGs attract a wide, diverse range of players.
Some groups get together and spend 6 hours where they enter "rooms" with monsters, roll initiative, and generally see a combat resolved in 2-3 rounds because all the characters have amazing action economy and over half the party can produce tremendous DPR.
Some groups get together for 6 hours and never roll initiative once.
Some groups have the player who wants to be the "roguish type" and then they read the flavor text of the vivisectionist and say "no way in Cheliax do I want to be that kind of person..."
There are plenty of tables where a core rogue will outshine an archaeologist bard aplenty, especially if they exercise the self-control to stay away from using a trait to supercharge luck bonuses.
Some groups have the player who wants to be the "roguish type" and then they read the flavor text of the vivisectionist and say "no way in Cheliax do I want to be that kind of person..."
There are plenty of tables where a core rogue will outshine an archaeologist bard aplenty, especially if they exercise the self-control to stay away from using a trait to supercharge luck bonuses.
And sometimes they decide to play a rogue, and then die, and decide it was a bad idea.
More often, they read bard and go "yeah, that sounds like what I'm looking for."
And then, sometimes, people are rubes.
Lets not compare the Rogue against archetypes who do his job better since the Rogue has no real good archetypes.However, I hold that it's not power creep, if you're buffing the classes that are almost universally regarded as underpowered.)Same posters saying the same thing over & over & over does not make it "universal".No really. Rogues are underpowered. This has been objectively proven.
No, it has not. DPR comparos don't hold any meaning to me. And, besides in those comparos they have done things like not allow the rogue Sneak attack, and compare the base rogue class with others classes archetypes. If we're gonna compare base classes, compare bases classes. If we're gonna compare archetypes, then compare archetypes.
Ninja? Scout? Sapmaster? I mean, in the "Rogues are teh suxxor threads' everyone is pointing out that the Ninja is the best rogue by far.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ninja isn't a rogue archetype...
Generally, when people compare the numbers, they also take into account skill points and saves. The issue also is, comparing the rogue to a Fighter is a poor metric; a fighter is rarely in competition for the 'rogue' role. More often, I find the rogue is compared to the Vivisecionist Alchemist, or the Bard or other such characters more in direct competition for the slot. And on multiple levels, the rouge falls flat of both of them.Tabletop RPGs attract a wide, diverse range of players.
Some groups get together and spend 6 hours where they enter "rooms" with monsters, roll initiative, and generally see a combat resolved in 2-3 rounds because all the characters have amazing action economy and over half the party can produce tremendous DPR.
Some groups get together for 6 hours and never roll initiative once.
Some groups have the player who wants to be the "roguish type" and then they read the flavor text of the vivisectionist and say "no way in Cheliax do I want to be that kind of person..."
There are plenty of tables where a core rogue will outshine an archaeologist bard aplenty, especially if they exercise the self-control to stay away from using a trait to supercharge luck bonuses.
So how does the rogue outshine again...
That just means that a person has no imagination/creativity and is being stifled by nothing more than the class name/fluff. So I guess that guy would immediately think that Ninja's must be clothies in pajamas and Kusari-gamas right?
Tabletop RPGs attract a wide, diverse range of players.Some groups get together and spend 6 hours where they enter "rooms" with monsters, roll initiative, and generally see a combat resolved in 2-3 rounds because all the characters have amazing action economy and over half the party can produce tremendous DPR.
Some groups get together for 6 hours and never roll initiative once.
Some groups have the player who wants to be the "roguish type" and then they read the flavor text of the vivisectionist and say "no way in Cheliax do I want to be that kind of person..."
There are plenty of tables where a core rogue will outshine an archaeologist bard aplenty, especially if they exercise the self-control to stay away from using a trait to supercharge luck bonuses.
What does this have to do with the discussion? You can play a commoner and have fun with it because you're a good player.
Saying folks will play a Rogue since people will avoid better options doesn't sound like a good argument. An Archeologist Bard functions at a higher level than the Rogue. A Vivisectionist Mindchemist Alchemist can explicitly do everything the Rogue can but better.(Swap Mindchemist for Beastmorph if we're talking Strength Rogues)
And sometimes they decide to play a rogue, and then die, and decide it was a bad idea.More often, they read bard and go "yeah, that sounds like what I'm looking for."
Bard is nice. I prefer bard to rogue. But if I want to play a bard, I play a bard (or archetype), and if I want to play a rogue, I play a rogue (or archetype).
Ninja? Scout? Sapmaster? I mean, in the "Rogues are teh suxxor threads' everyone is pointing out that the Ninja is the best rogue by far.
I wasn't aware Sap Master was a Rogue Archetype. Scout is a band-aid that doesn't solve the Rogue's Problems and could be detrimental to the class as a whole. I.E Charging the dragon to get Sneak Attack is not a healthy investment for your Rogue.
Ninja is an entirely different class.
Some groups get together and spend 6 hours where they enter "rooms" with monsters, roll initiative, and generally see a combat resolved in 2-3 rounds because all the characters have amazing action economy and over half the party can produce tremendous DPR.
I think we all agree the rogue loses here.
Some groups get together for 6 hours and never roll initiative once.
Rogues perform poorly in those games too. A bard or inquisitor (with the right options) is much better at social encounters than a rogue. If you want to convince Duke Frege to send his army to the border to help defend against the invading dwarves, it's better to send the bard than the rogue. Rogue loses.
Some groups have the player who wants to be the "roguish type" and then they read the flavor text of the vivisectionist and say "no way in Cheliax do I want to be that kind of person..."
That one's easy! You aren't beholden to the written fluff for an archetype. If you don't want to play someone who slices up living creatures, then don't do it! Rogue loses.
There are plenty of tables where a core rogue will outshine an archaeologist bard aplenty, especially if they exercise the self-control to stay away from using a trait to supercharge luck bonuses.
I'm skeptical, but I'll be generous and just give this one to you. Rogue wins.
So three out of four, the rogue is overshadowed by others, sometimes vastly.
Traps and Puzzles were definitely favored.
Made things more sensible - treasures tend to be trapped and traps make more sense for ancient treasures and complexes than ecologys with no food sources, room to room competing monsters in great numbers (that don't eat each other) and complexes where the occupants cannot fit or move around.
It wasn't about how you can munchkin your character or the meta-game of probabilities you (in character) know nothing about but how well you can use your wit on the fly and your actual smarts.
As opposed to testing your free time and inherent lawfulness/ability/willingness to read and copy optimization guides at the expense of personal liberty, freedom, creativity and wit.
Please, tell me more about how roleplayers were just better people back in the day and how kids these days are metagaming munchkins who lack creativity and wit. It's all very interesting and true.
I think this Trait would work better if it applied vs. a specific subset of traps, i.e. 'Ancient Osirioni Magic Traps'.
Serves the purpose of the AP, without being overly broad in stealing the Rogue's role.
I think this Trait would work better if it applied vs. a specific subset of traps, i.e. 'Ancient Osirioni Magic Traps'.
Serves the purpose of the AP, without being overly broad in stealing the Rogue's role.
On the other hand, you run the risk of having an overly specific trait and I'm not sure what qualifies as 'Ancient Osirioni". Similarly, would suck if other traits followed suit.[/devil'sadvocate]
Then again, I may be biased since I don't think the trait is a big deal.
Ninja? Scout? Sapmaster? I mean, in the "Rogues are teh suxxor threads' everyone is pointing out that the Ninja is the best rogue by far.Lets not compare the Rogue against archetypes who do his job better since the Rogue has no real good archetypes.However, I hold that it's not power creep, if you're buffing the classes that are almost universally regarded as underpowered.)Same posters saying the same thing over & over & over does not make it "universal".No really. Rogues are underpowered. This has been objectively proven.
No, it has not. DPR comparos don't hold any meaning to me. And, besides in those comparos they have done things like not allow the rogue Sneak attack, and compare the base rogue class with others classes archetypes. If we're gonna compare base classes, compare bases classes. If we're gonna compare archetypes, then compare archetypes.
Ninja is a different class.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nowadays it's a builder free for all, where the DPR Olympics holds full court, and spreadsheet analysis wins the day. So now you have folks instead of using roleplaying to identify their characters, you now have folks creating roleplaying oddities to justify implausible character builds to explain min-max builds.
I'd like to correct you here. Players ALSO use builds to identify their characters. The worst munchkins I've ever played with were in 2E, and the best roleplayers I've ever encountered have been in 3.0+. Maybe you just have bad luck.
