So here is a question for you all.
With the upcoming Investigator and Slayer, what is the point of the rogue now...
If you want super skills and utility: play the Investigator.
If you want the more combat rogue: play the Slayer...
Both classes are awful.
That books exist mainly for the shaman.
Well from the playtest it sure looked like the popular classes were:
Bloodrager (because 4 level arcane warrior who is part BARBARIAN was definetely drool worthy)
Arcanist (for mechancial reasons. Fluff was lacking)
Shaman
Investigator
and the 2nd revision Warpriest (that guys is now awesome)...
Revised Investigator was meh at best. It will be the only class worse at combat than the Rogue if they don't make Studied Combat worthwhile (though Stephen-Radney McFarland seemed to be working on that).
Hilariously, the Bloodrager actually got worse with it's own Spell List.
I'm far more interested in what is going to be in the rest of the book than the classes.
So here is a question for you all.
With the upcoming Investigator and Slayer, what is the point of the rogue now...
If you want super skills and utility: play the Investigator.
If you want the more combat rogue: play the Slayer...
Both classes are awful.
That books exist mainly for the shaman.
Interesting.
Though I downloaded the playtest, I barely skimmed it.I'm interested to hear what people think about the classes. Where would you put them on power level/cool factor/usefulness compared to the extant classes.
So here is a question for you all.
With the upcoming Investigator and Slayer, what is the point of the rogue now...
If you want super skills and utility: play the Investigator.
If you want the more combat rogue: play the Slayer...
Both classes are awful.
That books exist mainly for the shaman.
Interesting.
Though I downloaded the playtest, I barely skimmed it.I'm interested to hear what people think about the classes. Where would you put them on power level/cool factor/usefulness compared to the extant classes.
It really depends on what the feats/archetype/magic item support there will be in the books. The Brawler for instance isn't much better than the Fighter. Ultimately he is a class that can do nothing out of combat.
The Slayer and Investigator are looking much better than the Rogue.
I have no clue how they'll fix the Hunter. It's quite likely it will be the worst designed class in the book.
The Arcanist is fine as 9th level casters are.
The Shaman is a weird place alongside the Druid with druid casting.
The Bloodrager is slightly less powerful than a Barbarian.
The Swashbuckler is in trouble with saves, but theres also talk of a dex to damage option in the book as a feat.
The Warpriest looks good, but has far too many resource pools to be healthy. Also they mostly run off swift actions and Blessings were poorly designed.
Revised Investigator was meh at best. It will be the only class worse at combat than the Rogue if they don't make Studied Combat worthwhile (though Stephen-Radney McFarland seemed to be working on that).
I can't stand the investigator. I can only assume it was decided that it needed to suck because of it's rogue elements.
So here is a question for you all.
With the upcoming Investigator and Slayer, what is the point of the rogue now...
If you want super skills and utility: play the Investigator.
If you want the more combat rogue: play the Slayer...
Both classes are awful.
That books exist mainly for the shaman.
Interesting.
Though I downloaded the playtest, I barely skimmed it.I'm interested to hear what people think about the classes. Where would you put them on power level/cool factor/usefulness compared to the extant classes.
It really depends on what the feats/archetype/magic item support there will be in the books. The Brawler for instance isn't much better than the Fighter. Ultimately he is a class that can do nothing out of combat.
The Slayer and Investigator are looking much better than the Rogue.
I have no clue how they'll fix the Hunter. It's quite likely it will be the worst designed class in the book.
The Arcanist is fine as 9th level casters are.
The Shaman is a weird place alongside the Druid with druid casting.
The Bloodrager is slightly less powerful than a Barbarian.
The Swashbuckler is in trouble with saves, but theres also talk of a dex to damage option in the book as a feat.
The Warpriest looks good, but has far too many resource pools to be healthy. Also they mostly run off swift actions and Blessings were poorly designed.
This mostly.
I would like to say though that depending on how they rule things that the Bloodrager can get really funny and cheesy. If thye say that the bloodrager's "bloodline" is not hte same as the SOrcerer's then they can get really stupid with the Abyssal Bloodline and get Eldritch Heritage for the Abyssal sorcerer bloodline and stack up some STUPID levels of strength.
If they rule that the bloodlines ARE the same then the Dragon Bloodline Bloodrager gets funny when paired with the Dragon Disciple.
Revised Investigator was meh at best. It will be the only class worse at combat than the Rogue if they don't make Studied Combat worthwhile (though Stephen-Radney McFarland seemed to be working on that).I can't stand the investigator. I can only assume it was decided that it needed to suck because of it's rogue elements.
Studied Combat is actually really really good. An attack bonus and damage bonus on par with a Paladin's smite.
This of course speaks of the change Stephen mentioned.
Revised Investigator was meh at best. It will be the only class worse at combat than the Rogue if they don't make Studied Combat worthwhile (though Stephen-Radney McFarland seemed to be working on that).I can't stand the investigator. I can only assume it was decided that it needed to suck because of it's rogue elements.Studied Combat is actually really really good. An attack bonus and damage bonus on par with a Paladin's smite.
This of course speaks of the change Stephen mentioned.
Combine that with Combat Inspiration and Amazing Inspiration and you get get some really fun stuff actually (get a 1d8 to attack and damage rolls seems nice, especially at lower levels).
My thoughts so far on the new classes
Brawler: combine the meh elements of both fighters and monks for a class that is overall worse than either. Brawler archetype fighter is still better at unarmed combat.
Investigator: Kill that with fire. Worthless class.
Shaman: Druid with a greater focus on spellcasting. Basically a better cleric
Skaald: Cause we needed the whole party to have pounce and superstition. Approve.
Have not formed informed opinions on the rest.
Shaman: Druid with a greater focus on spellcasting. Basically a better clericSkald: Cause we needed the whole party to have pounce and superstition. Approve.
Yeah thats why I was super opposed to the Shaman getting more buffs and versatility. Its got better class features than a Cleric as well. And then it had all the amazing CoDZilla spells from both.
The Skald I'm actually happy with. Spell Kenning is really cool.
Revised Investigator was meh at best. It will be the only class worse at combat than the Rogue if they don't make Studied Combat worthwhile (though Stephen-Radney McFarland seemed to be working on that).I can't stand the investigator. I can only assume it was decided that it needed to suck because of it's rogue elements.Studied Combat is actually really really good. An attack bonus and damage bonus on par with a Paladin's smite.
This of course speaks of the change Stephen mentioned.
Lasting half int mod rounds and takes a standard action to use and can only be used on a target once (because only triggers on a knowledge).
Unless the ability has been completely reworked, it's trash.
Revised Investigator was meh at best. It will be the only class worse at combat than the Rogue if they don't make Studied Combat worthwhile (though Stephen-Radney McFarland seemed to be working on that).I can't stand the investigator. I can only assume it was decided that it needed to suck because of it's rogue elements.Studied Combat is actually really really good. An attack bonus and damage bonus on par with a Paladin's smite.
This of course speaks of the change Stephen mentioned.
Lasting half int mod rounds and takes a standard action to use and can only be used on a target once (because only triggers on a knowledge).
Unless the ability has been completely reworked, it's trash.
It was. It works full Int Mod now. Still only works once per target though. It doesn't trigger off Knowledge.
It was. It works full Int Mod now. Still only works once per target though. It doesn't trigger off Knowledge.Revised Investigator was meh at best. It will be the only class worse at combat than the Rogue if they don't make Studied Combat worthwhile (though Stephen-Radney McFarland seemed to be working on that).I can't stand the investigator. I can only assume it was decided that it needed to suck because of it's rogue elements.Studied Combat is actually really really good. An attack bonus and damage bonus on par with a Paladin's smite.
This of course speaks of the change Stephen mentioned.
Lasting half int mod rounds and takes a standard action to use and can only be used on a target once (because only triggers on a knowledge).
Unless the ability has been completely reworked, it's trash.
Ok, but still a standard action and may work for like 5 rounds by level 20.
|
Rogues, when played well, can be very versatile... he is both a good attacker AND a solid face (not to mention a trap finder/remover).So can you give me some tips?
I've PM'ed you, but to sum up...
Two-Weapon fighting with dual Gladii... with Two-Weapon Defense, Combat Expertise, Two-Weapon Feint, and Offensive Defense.
At level 8 I was getting an AC 29 if I hit with a sneak attack, and hitting for good damage. I could crank that up to 35 against a target that was easy to hit (Fight Defensively and Combat Expertise), but that leaves him an attack bonus of +9 with a single attack and flank. Bleeding attack is in the build for use with iterative attacks after he gets his defense.
Sure, many people will say that he isn't min-maxed enough, but I always have a lot of fun playing him. He may never be the best at any particular thing he does (but sometimes he is!), but he can always be effective.
Okay... so, keeping this as brief as possible as I don't use HL so this isn't just a copy/paste job for me. The attack portions are:
Wraith Slayer, shoanti superstitious barbarian 11
+24/20/17/12 doing 2d6+28
+2 furious greatsword with rage, power attack, and furious focus
Variel Thrune, elf rogue 11
+15/15/15/10/10 doing 1d6+8 w/ 6d6 sneak attacks
2, +1 agile shortswords with twf, gtr twf, and double slice
dex of 24 for +7
I'm remembering I did factor in haste in my numbers before. We have a wizard who casts haste like it's going out of style. It was an assumption when building these characters.
Hmm... Variel's numbers are only coming to 105 on average. Unsure where I was getting the rest looking at the sheet now. Wraith Slayer's come to 136. So, not as close as I was thinking. Variel's damage isn't bad to any degree, though.
Double slice does not work on dex per RAW because agile does not allow dex to replace strength for all purposes. So if double slice only calls out strength that is all that it can affect.
Variel was played not in PFS... thankfully.
Double slice does not work on dex per RAW because agile does not allow dex to replace strength for all purposes. So if double slice only calls out strength that is all that it can affect.Okay... so, keeping this as brief as possible as I don't use HL so this isn't just a copy/paste job for me. The attack portions are:
Wraith Slayer, shoanti superstitious barbarian 11
+24/20/17/12 doing 2d6+28
+2 furious greatsword with rage, power attack, and furious focus
Variel Thrune, elf rogue 11
+15/15/15/10/10 doing 1d6+8 w/ 6d6 sneak attacks
2, +1 agile shortswords with twf, gtr twf, and double slice
dex of 24 for +7
I'm remembering I did factor in haste in my numbers before. We have a wizard who casts haste like it's going out of style. It was an assumption when building these characters.
Hmm... Variel's numbers are only coming to 105 on average. Unsure where I was getting the rest looking at the sheet now. Wraith Slayer's come to 136. So, not as close as I was thinking. Variel's damage isn't bad to any degree, though.
Wow no. Not the RAW interpretation I would use. I also doubt many PFS GMs would go for that.
Wow no. Not the RAW interpretation I would use. I also doubt many PFS GMs would go for that.Double slice does not work on dex per RAW because agile does not allow dex to replace strength for all purposes. So if double slice only calls out strength that is all that it can affect.Okay... so, keeping this as brief as possible as I don't use HL so this isn't just a copy/paste job for me. The attack portions are:
Wraith Slayer, shoanti superstitious barbarian 11
+24/20/17/12 doing 2d6+28
+2 furious greatsword with rage, power attack, and furious focus
Variel Thrune, elf rogue 11
+15/15/15/10/10 doing 1d6+8 w/ 6d6 sneak attacks
2, +1 agile shortswords with twf, gtr twf, and double slice
dex of 24 for +7
I'm remembering I did factor in haste in my numbers before. We have a wizard who casts haste like it's going out of style. It was an assumption when building these characters.
Hmm... Variel's numbers are only coming to 105 on average. Unsure where I was getting the rest looking at the sheet now. Wraith Slayer's come to 136. So, not as close as I was thinking. Variel's damage isn't bad to any degree, though.
I might allow it at my table, but the rules don't support that dex replaces strength for the purpose of this feat, just like having a 13 dex would not suddenly qualify you for power attack because you have an agile weapon.
"Benefit: Add your Strength bonus to damage rolls made with your off-hand weapon."
If it just said you can do full damage with your off-hand without calling out strength that would give it more room to work.
edit: I had no idea who you were agreeing with.. :)
Wow no. Not the RAW interpretation I would use. I also doubt many PFS GMs would go for that.Double slice does not work on dex per RAW because agile does not allow dex to replace strength for all purposes. So if double slice only calls out strength that is all that it can affect.Okay... so, keeping this as brief as possible as I don't use HL so this isn't just a copy/paste job for me. The attack portions are:
Wraith Slayer, shoanti superstitious barbarian 11
+24/20/17/12 doing 2d6+28
+2 furious greatsword with rage, power attack, and furious focus
Variel Thrune, elf rogue 11
+15/15/15/10/10 doing 1d6+8 w/ 6d6 sneak attacks
2, +1 agile shortswords with twf, gtr twf, and double slice
dex of 24 for +7
I'm remembering I did factor in haste in my numbers before. We have a wizard who casts haste like it's going out of style. It was an assumption when building these characters.
Hmm... Variel's numbers are only coming to 105 on average. Unsure where I was getting the rest looking at the sheet now. Wraith Slayer's come to 136. So, not as close as I was thinking. Variel's damage isn't bad to any degree, though.
I might allow it at my table, but the rules don't support that dex replaces strength for the purpose of this feat, just like having a 13 dex would not suddenly qualify you for power attack because you have an agile weapon.
"Benefit: Add your Strength bonus to damage rolls made with your off-hand weapon."
If it just said you can do full damage with your off-hand without calling out strength that would give it more room to work.
Yes and agile let's you replace strength mod with dex mod for weapon damage rolls. No problems
I think the premise of the thread falls flat when you consider that Paizo continues to release new Archetypes and Options for Rogues, many that Ninjas cannot take. I'm sure that doesn't change many people here's opinino on the Rogue, but it certainly does not amount to them being "resigned" with the Rogue, even if Paizo is not exactly conforming to these critics' wishes. Options like the Trapfinding Trait in fact also work great for those Rogue Archetypes that replace it for other abilities (which people seem to find compelling).
The only archetypes rogues get that Ninjas don't involve trapfinding (they substitute it for their new abilities). Which means even Pathfinder realizes trapfinding sucks.
Yes and agile let's you replace strength mod with dex mod for weapon damage rolls. No problemsWow no. Not the RAW interpretation I would use. I also doubt many PFS GMs would go for that.Double slice does not work on dex per RAW because agile does not allow dex to replace strength for all purposes. So if double slice only calls out strength that is all that it can affect.Okay... so, keeping this as brief as possible as I don't use HL so this isn't just a copy/paste job for me. The attack portions are:
Wraith Slayer, shoanti superstitious barbarian 11
+24/20/17/12 doing 2d6+28
+2 furious greatsword with rage, power attack, and furious focus
Variel Thrune, elf rogue 11
+15/15/15/10/10 doing 1d6+8 w/ 6d6 sneak attacks
2, +1 agile shortswords with twf, gtr twf, and double slice
dex of 24 for +7
I'm remembering I did factor in haste in my numbers before. We have a wizard who casts haste like it's going out of style. It was an assumption when building these characters.
Hmm... Variel's numbers are only coming to 105 on average. Unsure where I was getting the rest looking at the sheet now. Wraith Slayer's come to 136. So, not as close as I was thinking. Variel's damage isn't bad to any degree, though.
I might allow it at my table, but the rules don't support that dex replaces strength for the purpose of this feat, just like having a 13 dex would not suddenly qualify you for power attack because you have an agile weapon.
"Benefit: Add your Strength bonus to damage rolls made with your off-hand weapon."
If it just said you can do full damage with your off-hand without calling out strength that would give it more room to work.
..but that does not mean it can stand in place of str when a feat calls out str. It only does what it says it does. Like I said, I would allow it, but I don't think it is RAW or RAI.
Revised Investigator was meh at best. It will be the only class worse at combat than the Rogue if they don't make Studied Combat worthwhile (though Stephen-Radney McFarland seemed to be working on that).I can't stand the investigator. I can only assume it was decided that it needed to suck because of it's rogue elements.
I think that was about as close as paizos come to seeing/admiting the rogue problem. They were trying to give the investigator something.. anything! remotely roguey but as soon as they crossed the line over to "not suck" they were firmly in the "makes the rogue obsolete" territory.
Double slice does not work on dex per RAW because agile does not allow dex to replace strength for all purposes. So if double slice only calls out strength that is all that it can affect.Okay... so, keeping this as brief as possible as I don't use HL so this isn't just a copy/paste job for me. The attack portions are:
Wraith Slayer, shoanti superstitious barbarian 11
+24/20/17/12 doing 2d6+28
+2 furious greatsword with rage, power attack, and furious focus
Variel Thrune, elf rogue 11
+15/15/15/10/10 doing 1d6+8 w/ 6d6 sneak attacks
2, +1 agile shortswords with twf, gtr twf, and double slice
dex of 24 for +7
I'm remembering I did factor in haste in my numbers before. We have a wizard who casts haste like it's going out of style. It was an assumption when building these characters.
Hmm... Variel's numbers are only coming to 105 on average. Unsure where I was getting the rest looking at the sheet now. Wraith Slayer's come to 136. So, not as close as I was thinking. Variel's damage isn't bad to any degree, though.
I noticed it too but i let it slide since there are some arguements that can be made so that it works. Even with that the DPR results showed that their respective DPRs aren't close.
The only archetypes rogues get that Ninjas don't involve trapfinding (they substitute it for their new abilities). Which means even Pathfinder realizes trapfinding sucks.
FYI, besides Rogue Archetypes which replace/alter Trapfinding/Trapsense and Uncanny Dodge/IUD, there are ones that replace/alter: Class Skills and Weapon Proficiencies exclusive to Rogue, Evasion Class Feature, Rogue Talent as Class Feature at certain levels, and the Capstone Master Strike.
That includes Vishkanya, Gillman, Half-Orc, Tengu, Halfling, and Kobold Racial Archetypes, and the Smuggler, Carnivalist, Pirate, Scroll Scoundrel, and Burglar Archetypes.
My thoughts so far on the new classes
Brawler: combine the meh elements of both fighters and monks for a class that is overall worse than either. Brawler archetype fighter is still better at unarmed combat.
Yeah, as usual the designers have a vastly over-inflated idea of the value of adaptability. They seem to think martial maneuvers is so damned good that it means they can gimp the rest of the class abilities good and hard.
The plusses to the brawler over a fighter:
extra good save (but it's reflex)
2 more skill points
a few other class skills (acrobatics and perception are nice)
Minuses:
Nothing to boost accuracy (unless you count greater weapon focus)
the flurry trap
lousy AC
martial maneuvers is pretty awful and will almost guarantee the 15 minute adventuring day.
The unarmed fighting trap
With crane style nerfed into goo, I cannot see how a really survivable brawler option remains in the cards (perhaps one based on snake style, but that's really about it).
I did a lot of DPR test builds during the playtest and honestly the brawler seems to trade good AC for lousy damage. Now there's a win.
Truthfully I have to hope there are good archetypes or the class will simply be another trap.
|
Me too, I think that they are thoroughly underestimated, and if played correctly can be a great deal of fun. I don't go with the common opinion you will find here that unless something is optimized to within an inch of it's life then it is useless. I like to play for fun.
This is key. Also a rogue can be optimized to an inch within its life but still isn't going to function like a paladin, fighter, barbarian, etc in combat. I see rogues as high risk high reward characters. A player playing argue should never be concerned about doing the most damage to an enemy and if they are, they shouldn't be playing a rogue.
Can other classes do what a rogue can do? Yes. Can some do it better? Hmmm individual aspects but not all of them put together in one package.
I’ve noticed a trend in the forums that basically DPR/DPS = quality character and I disagree with that so much. If someone is playing in a combat heavy game then rogue may not be the best option but if there is any amount of actual role playing then the rogue will be more then fine and will bring a lot of flavor with him.
In my experience, the Rogue is the most dangerous combat class in most situations. They also get the most skill points. Never have understood the 'Rogues are so mis-treated' angst.
I'd agree at the lower levels but at higher levels the rogue is not dangerous. They just have lot of potential and if the dice allow it. If they get lucky and roll high they can be very dangerous. Chances are that won't happen. I'd fear a fighter hitting hard all the time compared to rogue who could get lucky an hit me for more than the fighter but odds won't.
This the problem I find with rogues. It happens all the time in the last book of every AP I've run. The rogue can hit consistently and can't take the damage they get if they miss on the tough fights. The APs seem to put weak mooks in and the rogue does well there. I think they put encounters in like that for the rogue. They could easily have all the encounter with few higher CR monsters that can actually hurt the party.
Me too, I think that they are thoroughly underestimated, and if played correctly can be a great deal of fun. I don't go with the common opinion you will find here that unless something is optimized to within an inch of it's life then it is useless. I like to play for fun.This is key. Also a rogue can be optimized to an inch within its life but still isn't going to function like a paladin, fighter, barbarian, etc in combat. I see rogues as high risk high reward characters. A player playing argue should never be concerned about doing the most damage to an enemy and if they are, they shouldn't be playing a rogue.
Can other classes do what a rogue can do? Yes. Can some do it better? Hmmm individual aspects but not all of them put together in one package.
I’ve noticed a trend in the forums that basically DPR/DPS = quality character and I disagree with that so much. If someone is playing in a combat heavy game then rogue may not be the best option but if there is any amount of actual role playing then the rogue will be more then fine and will bring a lot of flavor with him.
Clearly we've all been talking about DPR and not the Rogues usefulness at skills, or ability to disarm magic traps... or their completely overpowered ability to start rumors. /sarcasm.
There are many options that contribute far more then the Rogue and all you need to do to completely beat them at their supposed best areas is to take a trait, put on a magic ring, have skills and be able to deal damage. The list of other classes that can do this is considerable.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a pretty complex issue, with lots of facets to it. In many ways, it's an issue of perspective, both from the side of us the players and the side of the design team.
I used to think the rogue was so weak as to ban it from one of my games. That was partially to see how the party would deal with no rogue type character, but also because I didn't like the rogue. In fact, I used to make many of these threads myself. I was saddened by the Dungeoneer's Handbook when it made an alchemist that had trapfinding, and could stack with Vivisectionist. That to me was the official deathknell of the rogue. Then I started working on archetypes for the ACG, and saw the investigator, and thought that was surely the death of the rogue. We joked that the full name of the ACG was "Advanced Class Guide: The Rogue Is Dead".
But in talking with the devs, and reading their posts the few times they commented on this issue, I've come to understand their point of view, whereas it was once foreign to me.
Basically, what the designers care about is ensuring that as many viable character concepts are accounted for. They want as many tools out there for players to use in cool ways. One thing I mentioned in my Rogues and the ACG Classes thread was that the rogues place is still there as the non-magical skillful guy. Whether or not you agree he's good at this is mostly irrelevant, as that's the niche he's meant to be in, and just about every other example people have of classes encroaching on the rogue are magical classes. Understanding this mindset is very important to understanding this overall issue, I think. When you look at the rogue as a class, it's easy to see him be, well, outclassed by other people. But when you see it from the perspective of the developers and designers, a lot of the decisions make sense. Especially once you start to believe that the "rogue" is a personality, moreso than a class.
As I mentioned above, I used to be an ardent anti-rogue guy. A lot of what's tempered my views is the realization that I'm not so sure these concerns truly play out in real play. In simulations, they absolutely do. But rogue is one of the most popular classes, and I've seen many people love the crap out of their rogues (in one case, literally.) And they all seem to have fun.
BTW, I recommend Rogue Glory for anyone who wants to buff up rogues for their campaigns.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The internal/vivisectionist alchemist I mentioned at the top of the page gets all that and more. They get full sneak attack progression, trapfinding from the trait or a 1 lv dip, they get uncanny dodge at 6th lv and will have at least 7 skill points per level. Then you can take 2 levels in master chymist and get evasion by 9th lv. Being an int based "caster" class they will likely have 7 skill points a level (8 with favored class bonus).They also get +4 to saves vs poison and diseases at 6th lv, which increases to +6 at 8th lv and becomes immunity at 10th lv. That's in additional to all the discoveries and extracts they get. Depending on the rogues int, they could have a couple more skill points per level. But even if you don't get trap finding, I'd say that's a fair trade compared to everything else the alchemist gets.
You'll have to forgive me, I don't see them getting uncanny dodge either on the PRD or PFSRD and I don't have access to my books while at work, I didn't realize they get that.
I also do have a slightly skewed perspective as I play in PFS, that archetype is not allowed.
Finally, Evasion at 2 and Uncanny dodge at 4 I find important to my play style. I did forget that you can be an ex-monk and get Barbarian that way.
All of that said, yes, I am disappointed by the current state of rogues. I do believe there is a lot they could do to improve the class including archtypes that slow down sneak progression or forgo rogue talents and give them abilities of a similar power level.
Other classes can perform rogue roles, and by narrowly focusing on one aspect, they can outperform the rogue in that given role. By narrowly focusing, at times, the rogue can often keep up, but rarely excel. This is also something I'm not thrilled with. I still find that a well built rogue is a great addition to the party.
Here in San Diego, in the PFS community, rogues are often well built and well played. As I result I see them outperforming other classes that should be by all accounts solid classes that could beat a rogue into the ground.
I feel that rogues are the unloved child often times, we so rarely get toys that are actually beneficial in the PFS environment. In a home campaign though, a rogue should be an amazing addition to the party.
Evasion - This is an amazing class feature, you can dip into it and other classes get it at higher levels, heck, the monk gets it at the same level. It's worth 24,000gp to people. If you are hit repeatedly with a fireball, I've seen evasion be the difference between life and death. It's one of the best defensive abilities in the game IMHO.
Uncanny Dodge - For players who rely on Dexterity and Dodge for their AC, this class features is almost a requirement. It allows you to not be caught flat footed and in most cases allows you to excel at both armor class and touch AC. Again, other classes also offer this class feature, I've even given it up for scout, then dipped barbarian just to get it back.
Skill points - A lot of classes have this available to them, but I do love having a lot of skills.
Trapfinding - This class feature has been heavily penalized since traps can be detected by anyone with a good perception now unless it's a symbol. Even magic traps if not hidden well can be seen with a simple level 0 spell. I have still found it useful in multiple scenarios. And though I know there is debate even in this thread, but unless actively searching in PFS, trap spotter is an amazing talent.
Trap Sense - Meh.
I personally prefer Rogues to Ninjas. I know this is not well received on these forums, but giving up evasion is a massive blow. I know you can get it back at level ten, but again, PFS. Level 12 is the general cap. Heck, most home games I've seen don't even go much further than 13-14.
I know that this will mainly fall on deaf ears but I still love the rogue. The gigantic brute hulking in the shadows, the swashbuckling ne'er do well with a wit as sharp as his blade, the intelligent and nerdy safe cracker who is super methodical, the seedy fellow on the corner, and the urchin on the corner who's hand is now holding your purse.
A rogue relies on his skill, luck, and moxy. That is all they really need. No resource management, no external force. A rogue is a rogue. All he really needs to survive is set of lock picks, he'll figure out the rest on his own.
I do hope to see more toys. So for that purpose; yeah, they totally need a buff and are completely ineffective unless built and played intelligently. Subtle, am I right?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can other classes do what a rogue can do? Yes. Can some do it better? Hmmm individual aspects but not all of them put together in one package.
I’ve noticed a trend in the forums that basically DPR/DPS = quality character and I disagree with that so much. If someone is playing in a combat heavy game then rogue may not be the best option but if there is any amount of actual role playing then the rogue will be more then fine and will bring a lot of flavor with him.
DPR is the most reasonable way to measure a rogue's contribution specifically to combat, since the class doesn't have any clean avenues to contributing in any other fashion aside from Any Warm Body stuff like holding the light or something. It's a relatively fragile class without good access to tricks.
Out-of-combat comparisons might flatter the rogue a little more, but it's still cleanly in the lower half. I feel as though this thread has a fair bit of handwaviness regarding a rogues skill advantages, as though its traditional label as a "skillsy" class lets it go without saying that the rogue has exceptional out-of-combat utility, rather than merely modest.
I feel as though an assertion that rogues are justified on the grounds that they have "flavor" doesn't really mean much, unless someone's willing to argue that they have way more flavor than other classes. "A player can have fun with a rogue with ROLEPLAYING" is trivially true, and it's trivially true of any class, and isn't really what anybody is debating. If anything, the rogue's general hopelessness and tendency to be outclassed hurts the flavor, since that's not something that's consistent with the archetype. Finally, even if the rogue is, by whoever's standards, substantially more flavorful than other classes, that's so totally orthogonal to the class's power level as to be essentially irrelevant, unless someone is willing to advance the argument that being a basement-tier class outflanked on all sides at the stuff it's supposed to be good at is contributing to the flavor. Why not a class that has "flavor" AND is more mechanically on-par with the rest of the system.
I agree with the perspective, Cheapy. Agree meaning I see it. It does seem, though, in the gulf of martials and casters that the casters are filling up the gradient toward the martials and not the other way around. So, it appears as though that is a one way street in terms of which classes get to mix in different niches.
There are only a couple examples of anything counter to this such as the superstitious barbarian builds, the stuff ki monks can do which is very cool yes, and likely an exception to his as they can cast spells with ki, the minor and major magic tricks of the rogue. However, casters seem to be getting the full array of martial abilities depending on archetype and build.
I don't see the rogue archetype that gives limited casting with a spell selection that lets him do his job is very awesome ways. I don't see the arcane fighter (don't mention the magus - completely different concept) that uses rituals to enhance his combat effectiveness.
There are many ways that martials could start filling in gaps toward casters but it simply isn't happening. The rogue is probably just the lowest man on the totem pole and everyone can see the refuse piling on his head.
@Cheapy
Ok i think i can understand this point of view, i don't know if i agree or not but still i can't understand why classes like the investigator need to be kept low because of it.
People here are using "martial" to mean "non-spellcasting martial", right?
And the Arcanist which looks crazily good.Both classes are awful.
That books exist mainly for the shaman.
Yes there are plenty of good classes in there. I just gave up after reading brawler, hunter, and investigator, and then looking at shamans.
Swashbuckler seems nice, seems like I will see str-rogue builds of it though...
Slayer and War-priest are both OK, Slayer has rogue-poisoning problems. War-priest is a lot like a paladin except more casting, less defensive auras, and no RP restrictions.
People here are using "martial" to mean "non-spellcasting martial", right?
I am. A magus does not qualify, imo.
People here are using "martial" to mean "non-spellcasting martial", right?
Adding spellcasting to a martial doesn't make them a better martial.
Regardless both Rangers and Paladins are martials, but a Fighter best epitomizes the idea of a martial. Which is really sad.
Basically, what the designers care about is ensuring that as many viable character concepts are accounted for. They want as many tools out there for players to use in cool ways. One thing I mentioned in my Rogues and the ACG Classes thread was that the rogues place is still there as the non-magical skillful guy.
But they aren't particularly GOOD at this.
The only advantage they have is a wide variety of skills and skill points. For any individual skill they are still more or less capped at ranks + stat. In 3.5 this was pretty useful since anyone else was capped at half level + stat, but a trained skill is now a mere +3, which is only a trait or a feat away.
They don't have many (any?) unique uses for their skills, or really gain that much use out of their skills with talents.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People here are using "martial" to mean "non-spellcasting martial", right?Adding spellcasting to a martial doesn't make them a better martial.
Regardless both Rangers and Paladins are martials, but a Fighter best epitomizes the idea of a martial. Which is really sad.
Really? You think that not a single martial character who can cast spells enhances their martial capabilities with the spells?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People here are using "martial" to mean "non-spellcasting martial", right?
Not me, when i say martial i mean full BAB.
Basically, what the designers care about is ensuring that as many viable character concepts are accounted for. They want as many tools out there for players to use in cool ways. One thing I mentioned in my Rogues and the ACG Classes thread was that the rogues place is still there as the non-magical skillful guy.But they aren't particularly GOOD at this.
The only advantage they have is a wide variety of skills and skill points. For any individual skill they are still more or less capped at ranks + stat. In 3.5 this was pretty useful since anyone else was capped at half level + stat, but a trained skill is now a mere +3, which is only a trait or a feat away.
They don't have many (any?) unique uses for their skills, or really gain that much use out of their skills with talents.
^This. Cheapy the argument would be different if the Rogue kept up skillfully while still being the non-magical skillful guy but he doesn't.
He is clearly inferior. I really like the concept of a Rogue. I want them to be better.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He is clearly inferior. I really like the concept of a Rogue. I want them to be better.
Cheapy's point it that the Rogue fits the nonmagical skill guy niche. He may not do it well, but that is what the designers want him to be. Hopefully we will see the weaknesses addressed in the near future.
I'm starting to get the inclination that everyone is using `martial` differently.
That's not going to help anyone.