I think the full bab test is sufficient to qualify for a 'martial.'
I generally go with full BAB as the definition.
K, so if "martial" means Full BAB, then why are we talking about martials in a thread about rogues?
G~$+@#n your logic!
But, really, I think he gets included out of sympathy. If he's not a caster and not a martial, then what is he? I don't think anyone is heartless enough to leave him completely adrift.
|
I'm starting to get the inclination that everyone is using `martial` differently.
That's not going to help anyone.
Par for the course, really. :)
If he's not a caster and not a martial, then what is he?
He's always been called skillmonkey in my groups. I make no claim to it being appropriate or relevant.
|
I'm starting to get the inclination that everyone is using `martial` differently.
That's not going to help anyone.
Par for the course, really. :)
If he's not a caster and not a martial, then what is he?He's always been called skillmonkey in my groups. I make no claim to it being appropriate or relevant.
I think I've heard the 3/4 bab often called specialist. They have combat capabilities plus tricks, be it limited spell sets, abilities or other fun stuff.
FWIW, my definition of "martial" is class that is intended to fight with weapons or has options that allow them to use weapons to fight. To me, anyone with at least 3/4ths BAB and class features that can help fight with weapons in combat is a martial.
Which, currently, stands at just about every 3/4ths and full BAB class except the summoner (in most cases).
The cleric, for example, is absolutely a martial, as they can't just rely on their spells, which are mostly reactive. They need to get some armor on and bash skulls in, which is what martials do. They can use their spells and abilities to augment their martial capabilities.
The alchemist similarly is a martial, because one of their most popular builds, the vivisectionist / feral mutagen-er is all about tearing enemies to shreds in combat. A pure bomber alchemist straddles the line, as they usually have some backup capabilities, but otherwise bombs work like spells.
The rogue and ninja are martials too, because what else do they have to do? Cast spells? They don't have any, so they need to fight with weapons.
The inquisitor? Half their class features exist to take enemies down faster using weapons. They're martials through and through.
I like this definition a lot because it's more nuanced and doesn't leave a gap in terminology. If martials means full BAB, that leaves a lot of classes unaccounted for, and I can only assume people are including monk and rogue in their cries about a widening gap for martials.
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 consider the Alchemist to be non-magical. They don't technically cast spells.
K, so if "martial" means Full BAB, then why are we talking about martials in a thread about rogues?
Rogues are forced to fight like martials. As in they have to hit-things with their pointy stick to contribute to combat.
But no, I do not consider the rogue to be a martial.
I don't really consider the monk to be a martial either. But if we have to classify the monk, that's its best place.
Whaaaaat? That bit about the Bard has to be a joke, right? Bards way out-DPR Rogues, in particular when you consider that a Bard will be buffing the rest of the party, too.We don't misunderstand what the OP is saying. We simply flat out don't agree with it.Quick, lets not talk about what MrSin was and tell him he's wrong and tell the OP he's wrong!Quick! Let's momentarily switch sides so we can narrate what we're doing!
Quick! Let's pointlessly deride an irrelevant posting quirk without contributing to the argument!
Quick! Let's confuse ourselves getting meta and...uh...wait, wasn't I supposed to switch my side back to yours? Crap, now I really am confused. I'm outta here!
** spoiler omitted **
Also, I notice a lot of the potential counters to my arguments involve complicated builds, so here's a question for that: If a class needs a convoluted design to beat it, isn't it already, if not perfect, good enough?
Pssht, if we're gonna count buffs as "DPR", I have no clue what DPR even means.
...which may actually be so.
Uh gotta go bagel in the oven *Runs away*
EDIT: Man, I burned my bagel, and it's all Paizo's fault.
|
|
.. 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...
Well put. This is why I keep referring to different tables and different playstyles. Some folks play games where the party is regularly going to social situations and essentially leaving their magic behind. Some folks are playing in extremely low magic games. If you're playing certain level 1-6 campaigns, the rogue is not half bad and actually is quite good.
I picked up Rogue Glory months ago. It's a great 3rd party supplement and I'd recommend any players or GMs with issues with Paizo's current implementation of the rogue to simply use it. The author also does a great job weighing in on the very point on this thread in the introduction.
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.
Yarr, doesn't really explain much about the weak chassis or rogue talents. Being a non-magical trap guy I can understand, but that doesn't excuse him being pitifully weak and the lack of synergy to help get his attacks off or be great at skills. He's actually outdone at skills by another class before magic is even set in.
I do think the rogue, in isolation, is best understood with Ivory Tower design in mind even though that is often handwaved as Not a Real Thing (TM) or a Misunderstood Thing (TM). Based on build, you can have a terrifying martial rogue but you sacrifice A LOT to get there up to, and including, tanking ability scores at character creation. You need to go into it knowing what kind of rogue you want to play because the class description itself is very bland.
Each other class comes with a distinct feel and an impression of what they do in combat and out. The proficiencies and abilities describe how they do it as well. The rogue is just "sneaky" and has such a wide variety of talents that it's hard to get a bead on any single thing at which the class itself might excel. Due to this, I would argue that playing a rogue from level 1 is, perhaps, the hardest way to play a rogue.
I don't know about others, but I keep a mental idea of what I want a character to be. I don't exactly document these thoughts so they can get lost over the course of play between levels. I've had retrospective moments where my concept for a level 1 character has morphed into something else entirely by level 8 or so.
I do think the class is fun and capable. You just can't do multiple things at the same time as you can with other martial classes not to mention full casters. Even though the other archetypes have similar names, given my first paragraph, if you look at the rogue archetypes, then you will see what I mean. A rogue is a cut purse. A rogue is an investigator. A rogue is a knife master. A rogue is never all of those things at once. You'll be hard pressed to pick two to do well.
It's hard for me to really optimize them because of this. My build style is very much not Ivory Tower. I don't really optimize, period. I build toward an idea rather than trying to really corner an aspect of a class' mechanical ability.
|
|
I do think the rogue, in isolation, is best understood with Ivory Tower design in mind even though that is often handwaved as Not a Real Thing (TM) or a Misunderstood Thing (TM). Based on build, you can have a terrifying martial rogue but you sacrifice A LOT to get there up to, and including, tanking ability scores at character creation. You need to go into it knowing what kind of rogue you want to play because the class description itself is very bland.
Each other class comes with a distinct feel and an impression of what they do in combat and out. The proficiencies and abilities describe how they do it as well. The rogue is just "sneaky" and has such a wide variety of talents that it's hard to get a bead on any single thing at which the class itself might excel. Due to this, I would argue that playing a rogue from level 1 is, perhaps, the hardest way to play a rogue.
I don't know about others, but I keep a mental idea of what I want a character to be. I don't exactly document these thoughts so they can get lost over the course of play between levels. I've had retrospective moments where my concept for a level 1 character has morphed into something else entirely by level 8 or so.
I do think the class is fun and capable. You just can't do multiple things at the same time as you can with other martial classes not to mention full casters. Even though the other archetypes have similar names, given my first paragraph, if you look at the rogue archetypes, then you will see what I mean. A rogue is a cut purse. A rogue is an investigator. A rogue is a knife master. A rogue is never all of those things at once. You'll be hard pressed to pick two to do well.
It's hard for me to really optimize them because of this. My build style is very much not Ivory Tower. I don't really optimize, period. I build toward an idea rather than trying to really corner an aspect of a class' mechanical ability.
I don't know this ivory tower thing you're talking about, but I always try to have a concept of the character in mind before I build. And I always stay true to the concept. Even to the detriment of the character. So I applaud you sir.
Ivory Tower design is basically a philosophy that the designers of D&D intentionally filled the game with, essentially, crap or not as good options and that part of playing the game included you, the player, yourself, figuring out which options were "bad" and to take "good" ones. Pick the bad ones and get a bad character. Pick the good ones and, hey, good job, you don't suck.
As it relates to the rogue is that there are so many choices and the class gives no hint as to which ones work well with the class itself. The result is most people not being able to build "good" rogues and the class itself having a murky reputation all the while there are those players who can build "good" rogues and they get to secretly enjoy their awesomeness.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rogue overall is kind of a bad choice.
I can make functional rogues, but choosing to play one at all is intentionally playing an under-powered character.
Build off then? You want a martially min/maxed rogue?
Can't you guys just use any of the builds posted during the myriad other versions of this thread?
What's the fun in that? Besides... you have the search fu on these boards and it's not like those builds get indexed anywhere. (I hope I'm wrong!)
Ivory Tower design is basically a philosophy that the designers of D&D intentionally filled the game with, essentially, crap or not as good options and that part of playing the game included you, the player, yourself, figuring out which options were "bad" and to take "good" ones. Pick the bad ones and get a bad character. Pick the good ones and, hey, good job, you don't suck.
I know a good chunk of third was, but was pathfinder built on ivory tower design?
It's the literal successor of the system, no? Some of it is bound to exist.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 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.
Having been playing bards recently, I wonder if a rogue talent like Bardic knowlege would help the "non-magic skill guy" Something like "Pick two (or more) skills. You add half your rogue level to those skills."
Build off then? You want a martially min/maxed rogue?
1 |Combat Expertise, Skill Focus(Bluff)
2 |Finesse Rogue
3 |Deceitful
4 |Combat Trick(Improved Feint)
5 |Skill Focus(UMD)
6 |Minor Magic(Prestidigitation)
7 |Arcane Strike
8 |Major Magic(Silent Image)
9 |Greater Feint
10|Skill Mastery(Bluff, UMD, Stealth, Disable Device, Acrobatics)
11|Iron Will
12|Opportunist
13|Combat Reflexes
14|Crippling Strike
15|Great Fortitude
16|Dispelling Attack
17|Quick Draw
18|Slippery Mind
19|Improved Great Fortitude
20|Defensive Roll
Mythic Feats: Weapon Finesse, Arcane Strike, Combat Expertise, Quickdraw, Deceitful
Mythic Path: Longevity, Impossible Speed, Fleet Warrior, Precision, Precision, Incredible Parry, Lesson Learned, Ever Ready, Limitless Range, Farwalker
That is the rogue build I would play with. I could have fun playing that rogue. That doesn't make it good.
It's the literal successor of the system, no? Some of it is bound to exist.
Likely. Which is sad and likely something that you get to see "He did it!" instead "Oh yeah, my bad we didn't do anything about that".
Having been playing bards recently, I wonder if a rogue talent like Bardic knowlege would help the "non-magic skill guy" Something like "Pick two (or more) skills. You add half your rogue level to those skills."
The investigator had inspiration, which was great at giving him additional skill points. Giving half your level to something can end up going pretty far over the cap, but abilities like inspire competence, pageant of the peacock, and versatile performance go a long way to making the bard absolutely amazing at skills without going too far over the normal cap. Lots of ways to make someone amazing at skills through class features.
You have 10s for ability scores. You can do better. Yes, I'm serious.
|
|
Rogue overall is kind of a bad choice.
I can make functional rogues, but choosing to play one at all is intentionally playing an under-powered character.
At least in your opinion rogue is a bad choice.
There are many builds out there that are what some people would call OP and are rogue at base or completely. I'm sorry you find it difficult or are displeased with it.
|
|
Again I think people ignore that a Rogue in melee unless agaisst a helpless opponent does not have the AC or hp to survive for long. Two 3.5 and one Pf game I was in. Each time the Rogue went into melee he either got really hurt, unconcious or killed. Almost without fail. Dms must be going easy on Rogues that go into melee alot in games. Unless your fighting a unintelligent monster like a Gelationous Cube the enemy is going to strike at the guy stabbing him in the back constantly. Unless he is out of range. Rogue Talents while useful are too much of a mixed bag.
That gave me an idea: a HRled rogue talent that give to an ally that's flanking the same creature half rogue's Sneak Attack dice if the flanked enemy attacked only the rogue last turn. The idea is, the flanked creature had chosen to ignore the big fighter/barbarian/whatever to hit the rogue, giving it's back. The rogue make his big friend notice that, making him exploit the enemy's mistake.
Rogue overall is kind of a bad choice.
I can make functional rogues, but choosing to play one at all is intentionally playing an under-powered character.
At least in your opinion rogue is a bad choice.
There are many builds out there that are what some people would call OP and are rogue at base or completely. I'm sorry you find it difficult or are displeased with it.
Intentionally choosing an inferior class over a mechanically superior one is entirely within your purview. If you can make it work, good on ya! I can choose to play a Warrior. That doesn't stop the Warrior from being a worse class than the Fighter.
Mechanically there are classes that are just flat out better than a Rogue.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Remember Pathfinder is just a game. For some tables and groups, their Beginner's Box is on the shelf next to Talisman and Monopoly.
These folks will get a hundred hours or more of enjoyment from Pathfinder playing a 3-person party through an adventure where those three adventurer's look pretty much identical to level 1 Valeros, Ezren and Merisiel. In these adventures, Merisiel is often the shining star as she deftly tackles social situations, handles herself capably in combat, and is ready to continue adventuring while Ezren is asking if they can camp for the day.
If you told those folks that Merisiel is underpowered relative to Valeros and Ezren, they would look at you with utter shock.
The folks playing this game may (surprisingly?) all be extremely seasoned RPG gamers too. They may have thousands of hours under their belts playing Cthulhu, Grimm, Dresden, etc. In the hands of these folks in a story-heavy game with vanilla mechanics, Merisiel is an impressive tool.
Now, we've got another batch of folks. I hate to use the term metagamer, but that's the right term (and for the record, I'm a total metagamer as well). I'm not using the term to talk about using outside knowledge that your character wouldn't have, I'm using it in the context that's typically applied to Magic The Gathering. Playing the metagame in this context is doing number crunching on character builds and trying to find optimized feats or alternatives that provide advantages over others (like having a concept for a shadowy assassin and trying it out on the bones of an alchemist or rogue at various levels to see which feels more powerful).
Now, I'm in full agreement that the rogue's combat prowess is underpowered in the metagame. However, it's quite good in the other manner the game could be played. You might feel that nobody should play Pathfinder in that way, but Paizo collects income from thousands of folks who do, and how they write rules factors those folks into the equation as well.
So, the ultimate problem is "the rogue is underpowered in the metagame when held up against an alchemist or bard with similar mechanical goals." To the designers, that may not really be that much of a problem because the game still does an admirable job of giving all styles of play plenty of toys to play with.
Essentially, the archaeologist bard and the vivisectionist are the rewards for the metagamer. The rogue isn't, it's for those other folks, who quite like them and actually think they are quite powerful relative to other classes in the style of games they play.
I fully recommend everyone (at least once) tries playing 8-10 hours of Pathfinder in a story-driven manner, where you maybe roll dice one time per hour, with quirky pre-gens handed out in advance. It's an amazing experience, and you don't even realize you're playing Pathfinder under the hood.
You have 10s for ability scores. You can do better. Yes, I'm serious.
Are you meaning I can buff them via magic items? Because those are starting stats.
Are you meaning I can dump stats? Because no, you really can't on a rogue.
|
|
Show em the differences between 3.5 Search and PF Perception. This is pretty hard to refute unless traps aren't an observable stimulus. But Perception governs what you can see so if it isn't you can't see it period, searching or not.While I agree with you, I don't know of any GM who actually runs it that way. :(So Trap Spotter doesn't actually do anything. Since coming within potential sight of an observable stimulus gives us a Perception check reactively to spot it anyways.
Its just as bad as Rumormonger in that it doesn't actually grant you anything.
Interesting, but Perception governs all your senses, not just what you can see. So it doesn't matter if it's possible to see the trap or not, a perception check is still eligible.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As I pointed out earlier Wakedown pathfinder isn't a game that really holds up for a pure story driven experience...
In the cases I've seen it used, it has held up fairly well for a "mostly story driven experience". It's not quite exactly what I mean (it's a step in between) - but I've heard a lot of stories from Library of the Lion sessions this past week where folks were amazed that you could sit down and play Pathfinder without combat. I have yet to see that adventure firsthand, but my intuition tells me a stereotypical rogue would do quite well in it?
.. there are just plain old better systems to do that in.
Absolute, total agreement. I fear it may never catch fire, but 13th Age takes a nice step towards story and away from rules while maintaining a balance for both camps of gamers.
You have 10s for ability scores. You can do better. Yes, I'm serious.Are you meaning I can buff them via magic items? Because those are starting stats.
Are you meaning I can dump stats? Because no, you really can't on a rogue.
What do you need that charisma for in a martial build? Intelligence? I can see leaving intelligence at 10 but you don't really need it with a guaranteed 9 ranks/level as a human. Most non-int classes get 5-8/level with a human.
Really? You think that not a single martial character who can cast spells enhances their martial capabilities with the spells?You'd think the Psychic Warrior doesn't exist or something.
If only PsyWar were PFS legal...
Now that's a well designed class.|
|
Rogue overall is kind of a bad choice.
I can make functional rogues, but choosing to play one at all is intentionally playing an under-powered character.
At least in your opinion rogue is a bad choice.
There are many builds out there that are what some people would call OP and are rogue at base or completely. I'm sorry you find it difficult or are displeased with it.
Intentionally choosing an inferior class over a mechanically superior one is entirely within your purview. If you can make it work, good on ya! I can choose to play a Warrior. That doesn't stop the Warrior from being a worse class than the Fighter.
Mechanically there are classes that are just flat out better than a Rogue.
So how, mechanically, is a rogue inferior to class X? Are we talking just flat DPR? Even then, what conditions are we talking? Is it a resource driven class? If we're talking flat DPR, are conditionals allowed to apply? This argument that rogue is mechanically inferior seems a little odd to me.
What do you need that charisma for in a martial build? Intelligence? I can see leaving intelligence at 10 but you don't really need it with a guaranteed 9 ranks/level as a human. Most non-int classes get 5-8/level with a human.You have 10s for ability scores. You can do better. Yes, I'm serious.Are you meaning I can buff them via magic items? Because those are starting stats.
Are you meaning I can dump stats? Because no, you really can't on a rogue.
A full martial rogue is a strength rogue, or as like to call them, worthless pieces of crap. Rogues are not martials.
You need cha to feint.
You need int to have comparable skill points with alchemist and bards.
You can't dump wis for both saves and perception
You can't dump strength for damage and being able to carry things.
Half-elf, not human is a more optimal rogue race.
The rogue depends on conditions. The fact he can't assure his own schtick in an open field in one on one combat is all that hurts his DPR olympics ratings.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rogue depends on conditions. The fact he can't assure his own schtick in an open field in one on one combat is all that hurts his DPR olympics ratings.
1. You can't always flank
2. Most of the time you can't flank
3. A feint rogue can assure his own stick
4. Rogues are awful in DPR because of their to-hit. You could house rule that all rogue attacks were sneak attacks and even a monk does higher DPR.
I can totally write Rogue on the top of my Alchemist's Sheet, I've done similar things before. My Cleric/Crusader/Ruby Knight Vindicator went as Hero 1-17 in a campaign before.
I used to get really excited about rogues, especially when PF came out and they had given them all these new tricks to pick from. Many a time I've sat down with an idea and tried to build a rogue around it.
Once I tried building a good melee rogue, a half-orc with toothy and a falchion, Thug archetype, Cornugon Smash for debuffing opponents, etc. But then, because I wasn't dex based and I lost Trapfinding I wasn't able to be a trap disabler, which is what my party expected of me. And I looked at my character and was like "I could do more damage as a fighter or barbarian..." and I gave up.
Then I wanted to make a jack of all trades rogue, with lots of UMD and scouting capability, and skill focus to crank those skills I needed, and a high int. I was useless in combat, and I realized all my abilities were obviated by, at best, level 2 spells. So I rolled a caster and played her roguishly.
My friend learned the hard way recently that "scout" is just a euphamism for "corpse".
|
|
You need cha to feint.
You need int to have comparable skill points with alchemist and bards.
You can't dump wis for both saves and perception
You can't dump strength for damage and being able to carry things.
Half-elf, not human is a more optimal rogue race.
Why feint? At least in my experience, it's a trap that never works out correctly.
I don't generally dump Wisdom, that said, you can make a build that can fix it even if you do.
I've dumped Strength before, Dervish Dance can make it up. Or use Dazzling Display and Shatter Defenses on a scout.
Half-elf has a lot going for it, but all the various races bring something awesome and unique to the table. I never frown at 1 skill point a level and a free feat. Then again, Skill Focus perception with a racial bonus to boot is nice.
If you go human and take the alternate race trait that give you three skill focus feats for free that puts you above a half elf, imo, for anything skill related. Which, I plan to do this tonight in my build. I'll probably go perception, stealth, and acrobatics with them.