RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Heck, why not make HM downright hardcore? Go back to d6 HD and old school backstab rules instead of sneak attack!
Actually you could probably make a rogue that's quite the combat beast with old-school backstab put into a modern system - all those static bonuses would really shine with a x2-x5 damage multiplier.
I am also in the camp of people that sort of like imbalance. Although what I really want is a dynamic balance - whereas I felt that the 4e classes were too "samey," that is only one way to achieve balance. Not everyone should be equally effective in all situations, but all players should have a chance to shine at some point.
So what I like is a carefully crafted imbalance that allows different PCs to excel at different things, and all players to feel their choices make them good at the things they want to be good at. To steal a term from physics I think of this as a dynamic equilibrium instead of a static one.
I have a friend that plays rogues often. He is excellent at it. I ran this group through Serpent's Skull and his 17th level rogue was definitely the MVP in the final battle - in a party that also included an oracle, a sorcerer, a ranger with an animal compaion, and two cohorts. He's very good at outside the box thinking, improvisation, and leveraging his skills into party advantages. He also complains that 11-13 skill points per level isn't enough :) What he doesn't do is pile up big damage numbers. That's okay, it's not his job to do that.
As far as adding magical abilities to martial types, I'm not against it but I think they should be options not requirements. The option to play a purely nonmagical character should be there and still be viable even at high levels. I'm okay with fighters learning secret sword techniques that let their blade move so quickly it vanishes from sight, for example.
Han Solo is a rogue, and he's one in a setting where magic use just makes you better than normal people (jedi/sith). Yet who doesn't want to be Han Solo? The real questions is how do we make thatarchetype function well?
This got a little rambly so I think I'll leave it here.
|
I disagree that the rogue is a weak class. I think if you play it like a paladin/fighter/barbarian it appears to be a weak class. I also feel that if you believe DPR/DPS is the defining aspect of a character being good then you are missing the mark but then that is my opinion and I am happy to play in a game where initiative isn't rolled once so that is a personal opinion.
I understand that several people like combat heavy games and rogues may not stack up as well in those games. I also feel that in a typical game that is fairly balanced between combat and role playing, the rogue is still a decent class if played correctly.
Anyone can take "if played correctly" as a personal attack all they want, that fine by me but I've seen several people play a rogue within the rules of the game (only Paizo published material with most current errata at the time) to great effect.
I think it is pointless to have a "game balance" conversation as well....
1) People's definition and expectations of a "balanced" game are different. Some people think balance means that some classes should be more powerful while other people feel that it means they all should be capable of doing the same DPS/DPR at the same progression.
2) People complain about balance issues with pathfinder (as they did with 3.5) but then complain about D&D 4e being too bland because everything was hyper balanced and didn't have a unique enough feel. This proves that when it comes to game design you can't have your cake and eat it too if the form of measurement you are using to consider a character balanced is DPR/DPS.
3) People have different expectations of what makes a good game or good adventure. Some people want a lot of combat while other wants a lot of role playing. Even then there is a group of people that want an even mix between the two. Consider that different people are going to believe that what makes a "good role play" or "good combat" to be different things. When I enter combat I want to feel like I could die and have to use tactics, others want a “wall that hits back” they can smash themselves against. When I role play I have deep conversations with NPCs and only roll to back it up. Other's "role play" but saying "I'm gonna try to convince them to (insert what here) *rolls d20* I get a 24 diplomacy, do I convince them?" Neither is wrong if the group has no expectation beyond how the party is playing but you will find it hard to balance a game for all of the expectations that different kinds of people will have.
4) Online arguments do no good. There are a billion topics that are literally the same conversation over and over again. The reason why there are so many is because someone thinks they have the holy grail of information or perspective that will somehow change the minds of all others. However, in general the Paizo forums are plagued with a group think mentality and the same ideas are regurgitated over and over in all threads that relate to a particular subject. Also people are discouraged in general from sharing original ideas because the group think tank will shame them or make them feel irrelevant because it goes against the "established truth" that has been hashed out in the zillion threads before whatever you are posting in. There is also a heavily pushed idea that unless you are optimizing for DPS/DPR and are only ever aiming to do the most damge each and every round of combat that you are somehow playing incorrectly.
Basically, I'm saying that there is nothing wrong with the rogue if it meets your expectation but at the same time it is the worst class ever if it doesn't meet your expectations. You can't "balance" or "fix" something that a large number of people don't consider nonfunctional or broken when all the other people who consider it broken/nonfunctional can't agree on what doesn't work outside of DPS/DPR (even then, rogue haters can't even all agree on that).
Evidence can be used for any argument and throwing around terms like “circumstantial” or “situational” does not prove something “bad” as these things are not synonyms. The Rogue is capable of decent damage on a regular basis, just not every single round of combat. That makes it unique/challenging/flavorful/crappy/worst class ever/ underpowered/ insert another completely subjective and meaningess word here that only applies to you and your expectations of the game/class.
Genuinely curious here, what makes an unbalanced RPG more fun then a balanced one? I would prefer if your answer was something other then "Because then people who know better can pick the best classes." but if that's your answer I'll accept it as a difference in opinion.No it's just my fundamental assumptions. I enjoy worlds where magic is fundamentally better than non-magic - part of being a magic-user is being feared by all and sundry but that isnt part of being even a high level fighter (in my preferred world).
You know, in a game where rogues (or fighters) had a better array of choices, there would still be nothing to stop you from picking badly, if that's what you want.
You can give your wizards Persistent Spell and your rogues Skill Focus: Knowledge (local) and - it seems to me - you'd end up in roughly the same place, none the worse off for the printing of options that you didn't choose to take.
Other than that, I feel like I ought to link to Kirth's post again, skip to 2 (and cf. 5 on the topic of "we could both win")
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think this is a good point. Although my preference is rules-light, I think it's pretty clear that most of Paizo's fans are at the rules-heavy (or at least rules-comprehensive) end of the spectrum. FWIW, I think that should tip their inclination towards balanced classes. Although possibly a more broad concept of 'balance' than seems to be usually requested.
Oh I don't know about that. Perhaps the really vocal people in the rules/advice/etc forum, but I don't think you can take a sampling of people here on the forum as indicative of attitudes/beliefs in the entire community. Forum participation is going to self-select towards those people really into the game, which often includes those people with a really high knowledge of the rules and how they interact. A very large chunk of people who are more casual in their playing don't care, and probably have never noticed that Rogue is inferior to X.
rogues are an archaic class that was never truly needed. they gave existed as limiters since 0E, like monks. relics that were always vestigial.
in fact, it is the existence of the rogue, that denies martial characters access to more skill points and better gang up abilities, rogue shouldn't be a class, it should be a skill selection made by a variety of larcenous characters
the existence of the monk denies decent unarmed combat options because the monk must be accounted for, make unarmed and unarmored an optional style useable by any class to fix this
the fighter exists to limit the feats of others because it has no real features, how about we give them real features instead and give everyone more feats?
instead of the cavalier? how about a feat for a scaling mount and better animal training rules?
how about we drop the gunslinger and simply fix guns, slings, and crossbows?
how about we rebalance spells to a more spammable paradigm to drop the 15 minute adventure day and tweak how healing works so divine casters are less of a character tax?
how about we make disabling magic traps a part of disable device?
how about we merge some of the redundant skills like climb and swim, and fix the DCs for Acrobatics and the like
how about we fix CMD? manuevers are impossible to land past level 7. unless you are a minmaxed lore warden built for one highly specific manuever.
Isn't this kind of what 4e did very successfully? And it failed as a game... Although... they didn't remove vestigial classes I suppose. Instead they created a massive list of classes, so you might be onto something here.
So....everytime I think about playing a rogue I just look at a bard and think man...he does everything I want to do so much better.
I think the biggest weakness of the rogue is it's core ability Sneak Attack. People focus on it, and why not its probably the most notable ability you get. Especially when looking at the class table and see it scaling all the way up to 10d6. But the difficulty involved it setting up consistent sneak attacks is not insubstantial. The only way to succeed often and reliably is with flanking. And even then, your lower BAB and lack of things to improve your attack roll while TWF mean you miss more often then you hit.
I dunno...I want the rogue to be good and unique but everytime I think of what I want a rogue to do there are other classes that do it better and also contribute either more to damage or contribute more to the party in other ways.
I think ditching sneak attack for something that is easier to use but deals less damage on average per hit would work. Of course then I thought about favored enemy, and realized I was thinking of a Ranger...so I dunno.
I disagree that the rogue is a weak class.
You would be wrong. It doesn't matter how you play a rogue it is still weak and can have EVERYTHING it does done by a single other class that will be able to do additional thing on top of doing everything the rogue can do.
Even without the comparison to other classes, the rogue falls short in actual play.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A rogue talent or class feature that allows the use of intelligence instead charisma on social skills and/or perception. Other rogue talents in a similar vein that allows the substitution of one ability score for another on skill checks. It can't just be one skill though.
A rogue talent or class feature that can be taken multiple times, it allows the rogue to forgo one rogue talent for plus one BAB.
A rogue talent or class feature that allows all damage to be avoided from fortitude and will saves spells that deal damage on successful save as long as the rogue has evasion.
A rogue talent or feature that allows a rogue to use his bluff skill for his will save vs. Charm and compulsion. The caster is then unaware if the save is made and is forced to assume they have control.
A rogue talent or class feature that allows for steal or feint combat maneuvers to be used as part of a full round action. As improved please.
A rogue talent that allows Piranha strike to be usable on Rapiers or Dervish Dance. Or inversely, allows power attack to be gained without the Strength prerequisite.
A rogue talent, rogue talent chain, or class feature that allows a rogue to add Charisma, Intelligence or Wisdom to dodge. Maybe restrict it to a maximum bonus of Rogue level or 1/2 rogue level.
A rogue talent or class feature that allows the rogue to use their bluff to suppress auras vs. spells such as detect x.
I'm gonna have to think on this more. I also like non combat stuff, but this is all more crunch.
In all these instances a rogue talent would obviously be better than a class feature. I very rarely like Archetypes, and this would allow rogues and ninjas to way more awesome. Obviously, testing and balancing would be needed.
No more X times a day or per combat abilities. Once a round is fine. Or once +stat a round.
No it's just my fundamental assumptions. I enjoy worlds where magic is fundamentally better than non-magic - part of being a magic-user is being feared by all and sundry but that isnt part of being even a high level fighter (in my preferred world).You know, in a game where rogues (or fighters) had a better array of choices, there would still be nothing to stop you from picking badly, if that's what you want.
You can give your wizards Persistent Spell and your rogues Skill Focus: Knowledge (local) and - it seems to me - you'd end up in roughly the same place, none the worse off for the printing of options that you didn't choose to take.
Other than that, I feel like I ought to link to Kirth's post again, skip to 2 (and cf. 5 on the topic of "we could both win")
Yeah, I've heard that argument and I'm sympathetic, although it doesn't address the issue of aesthetic preference (which is all I am speaking of). In the situation you outline I'd be fighting the system to make my martial characters normal people and the underlying assumptions of the world still wouldn't suit my preferred conception.
Although i do generally prefer sucky characters and i tend to follow your advice in systems where balance is highly valued, my preference is about what's expected in the fantasy world, rather than about just my guy. If we meet a BBEG martial character they shouldn't* be as frightening as if they were a magic user.
* Where '"shouldn't be" means "I'd prefer it if".
Oh I don't know about that. Perhaps the really vocal people in the rules/advice/etc forum, but I don't think you can take a sampling of people here on the forum as indicative of attitudes/beliefs in the entire community. Forum participation is going to self-select towards those people really into the game, which often includes those people with a really high knowledge of the rules and how they interact. A very large chunk of people who are more casual in their playing don't care, and probably have never noticed that Rogue is inferior to X.
I think this is a good point. Although my preference is rules-light, I think it's pretty clear that most of Paizo's fans are at the rules-heavy (or at least rules-comprehensive) end of the spectrum. FWIW, I think that should tip their inclination towards balanced classes. Although possibly a more broad concept of 'balance' than seems to be usually requested.
Yeah I shouldn't have said its pretty clear
I think it's true that pathfinder players are more likely to like rules options though - that's not just because of message board posts, but because the game is at the complicated end of the spectrum and PF players keep buying books with more crunchy options.
Seconded. I stop reading when it starts out with that.
That's unfortunate. Hunter's surprise is really quite good.
|
Seconded. I stop reading when it starts out with that.That's unfortunate. Hunter's surprise is really quite good.
You inspired me to read it. I try not to be adjacent to bad guys. I try to be as far away as possible (a la Brave Sir Robin). I didn't have too much success playing a ranged rogue, so I switched to sorcerer/wizard.
Stealth or invis beside an enemy, activate hunter's surprise, 5-foot or move away, ranged attack for this round plus full attack for next round. All are sneak attacks. It doesn't say you have to stay adjacent to your mark.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think most of the brujaja is really emphasises an issue that really only exists in a technical sense but honestly i have never seen in actual game play.
First, how much balance matters really depends on your players. If everone designs their characters to be on the same paradigm balance is meaningless.
Secondtly the boards themselves, appear to push a prevalence or even demand for optimization as if any non optimized PC playing a pre-made module is DOOOOOOOMed. This view is utterly incorrect. I can make a fighter spend all my feats but 1 for PA and i can make it to the end of any PAIZO adventure without any problems.
Basically, somewhere along the line the boards seeemd to push this idea that the game had to be played as if everyone was an olympic athlete. where the 'OMFG X CLASS IZ HORRID' statements come from is which grade of olympic athlete are we refering to? the gold medalist or the guy who came in last in the triatholon but is still in fact better than 99% of the humans on earth?
Really, what my example is trying to demonstrade is you can have a wide range of 'best' and the game was designed with 15 pt buy in mind and an understanding of rules and tactics should allow you to survive any pre-made adventure no matter that you are playing.
I'll use an example here, I play with 5 people, 4 players and 1 GM. Of the players, 1 likely has a learning disability and the other is playing for fun to be with his frends. The first, often makes mechanicaly poor choices unable to see the big picture over his theme and the second doesnt really Synchronise his choices.
Both of these players, have made it to the end of two AP's without any problem.
Currently, i am DMing them through some modules, we have an experienced player playing a rogue and an inexperienced player on the wizard. The fact that the wizard is "all powerfull" wont ever actually matter in the game.
Basically, for the most part while there is legitimate issues in that i do think the rogue could use some improvement (i would love to see rogue talents on par with rage powers) I think most of the statements like 'I have to hold back every encounter as a DM or the rogue could die' Or implications that being a rogue is a giant ball and chain holding you back are not constructive and actually over look the fact that the issue could be just the player of the rogue doesnt know how to play his character properly or he designed a playstyle that doesnt work with the party.
An example of this might be designing your rogue as a TWF flanker only to have no one else in the party make anyone to flank with.
On a final note from my experience in rise of the runelords i think Snap shot a +1 returning throwing sap (hence forth refered to as a rubber bouncy ball) and the sap adept and mastery feats were some diety's gift to gnome rogues. though the mileage may very for other players.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Genuinely curious here, what makes an unbalanced RPG more fun then a balanced one? I would prefer if your answer was something other then "Because then people who know better can pick the best classes." but if that's your answer I'll accept it as a difference in opinion.No it's just my fundamental assumptions. I enjoy worlds where magic is fundamentally better than non-magic - part of being a magic-user is being feared by all and sundry but that isnt part of being even a high level fighter (in my preferred world).
And I think that's cool, for a system where everyone (players) was a magic-user, or for a system where everyone was a non-magic-user. It becomes a problem for a system where you have both.
And while I don't think the disparity is nearly as wide as some people make it out to be, I also think it doesn't help matters that the Paizo devs seem to have that same attitude as you. Despite the fact that they are well aware that their customer bases considers the matter a problem since the Core Rules were first published, subsequent releases and errata to the system have actually tended to strengthen spellcasters and nerf non-spellcasters.
It's as I've said many times...Paizo are much MUCH better at creating adventures then they are at mechanics.
It also doesn't help that they things in the system that do limit spellcasters tend to be a pain in the ass to keep track of, and as such frequently get handwaved away. If the monk got as much handwaving as the wizard, people would consider it overpowered too.
Heck, why not make HM downright hardcore? Go back to d6 HD and old school backstab rules instead of sneak attack!Actually you could probably make a rogue that's quite the combat beast with old-school backstab put into a modern system - all those static bonuses would really shine with a x2-x5 damage multiplier.
But getting that multiplier...hooboy! No flanking, no feinting...only honest-to-goodness stealthing does the trick. I think overall, backstab would make for a more hardcore I-don't-need-no-stinkin'-balance rogue experience.
But if I'm wrong, Hard Mode Rogue could always take the worst of both worlds: SA damage dice combined with BS requirements!
Some Random Dude, I started this topic because the other major one right now asks a question I don't feel I can reasonably address while staying on topic. What possible method would I have of knowing whether Paizo has "given up" on the rogue?
I am though very interested to see what people think can be/want to be done to fix the issue without losing identity.
Ask that question of James Jacobs, the Creative Director and player of Merisel, the iconic Rogue in his Ask James Jacobs thread.
The "community" has not decided that there is such a thing as a "rogue issue". Just the usual crop of posters on any topic. I will say that the rogue has always been a more advanced class to play, it's not a "stupid damage" class the way most martials and arcane types are. If there is an issue, it's mainly the dual one of inferior play style and unreasonable expectations due to the fact that martial damage has gone through the roof compared to D20.
Exactly. There's also the issue of some people just wanna complain about Paizo. There's also the issue that some people who like rogues think if they complain enough, PF will boost rogues a lot.
Now, I was told by one Dev that's there's a "lot of cool new rogue talents on the way". And, I certainly agree those will be very welcome.
One issue for me, is that too many of the cool rogue talents can be used ONCE a day, while a cool Spellcaster ability can almost always be used 3+ casting stat bonus a day.
I don't think it would be crazy broken for the Once a day talents to be once per encounter.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Steve Geddes: I like magic being stronger than mundane as well, but if that is going to be the case, there needs to be certain restraints in place. And of course, Pathfinder has none of those.
With overpowering magic, some of the following should apply:
-Magic should be rare (in PF magic is everywhere, even high level magic. 13 of 19 base classes are magic users).
-Magic should be dangerous to use (in PF there is no punishment for failing a spell or using lots of spells as once)
-Magic, especially higher level magic, should take some setup time (in PF 95% of spells take a few seconds to cast)
-Magic should require specialization or progression (in PF you can cherry pick spells as you desire. Even "specialists" wizards can cherry pick from 80% of the arcane list)
-Magic should be difficult to learn (in PF spell casters gain levels just as easily as martials, and the only time they are weak are like level 1 and 2- but everyone is rather fragile at those levels)
So yeah, I have no problems with individual magical spells outclassing mundane methods but, its stupid how easy it is to become a spellcaster and for them to diversify their abilities and use them without a care.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some Random Dude, I started this topic because the other major one right now asks a question I don't feel I can reasonably address while staying on topic. What possible method would I have of knowing whether Paizo has "given up" on the rogue?
I am though very interested to see what people think can be/want to be done to fix the issue without losing identity.
Ask that question of James Jacobs, the Creative Director and player of Merisel, the iconic Rogue in his Ask James Jacobs thread.
The "community" has not decided that there is such a thing as a "rogue issue". Just the usual crop of posters on any topic. I will say that the rogue has always been a more advanced class to play, it's not a "stupid damage" class the way most martials and arcane types are. If there is an issue, it's mainly the dual one of inferior play style and unreasonable expectations due to the fact that martial damage has gone through the roof compared to D20.
Exactly. There's also the issue of some people just wanna complain about Paizo. There's also the issue that some people who like rogues think if they complain enough, PF will boost rogues a lot.
Now, I was told by one Dev that's there's a "lot of cool new rogue talents on the way". And, I certainly agree those will be very welcome.
One issue for me, is that too many of the cool rogue talents can be used ONCE a day, while a cool Spellcaster ability can almost always be used 3+ casting stat bonus a day.
I don't think it would be crazy broken for the Once a day talents to be once per encounter.
Yes, how dare people make valid criticism about a system so that they can be addressed. How dare they try to improve a system they clearly like enough to identify these issues and seek input on getting them fixed. HOW. DARE. THEY.
Ya, sorry but I don't see many complainers, just people with a legitimate balance concern they'd like addressed.
I don't see an problem with rogue when it comes to other classes that can replace the rogue. I think it's a good thing. You can play a different class just makes for more party options.
The rogue as I see it has some issue as a class though. Every other martial class be they a Full BAB or 3/4 BAB class have class feature(s) of increasing their attack bonus. Rogues have none. This a is a problem in my opinion. Not huge problem though but I think the rogue should be able to be bit more precise with their sneak attack at high levels.
Some better rogue talents would be nice too. One might adding a version of solo tactics for the Rogue as a talent, probably advanced talent. Have rogues talent give a teamwork work feat.
I don't think it would be crazy broken for the Once a day talents to be once per encounter.
I could get behind this. Positioning Attack for instance would be a godsend if it were once a fight.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, how dare people make valid criticism about a system so that they can be addressed. How dare they try to improve a system they clearly like enough to identify these issues and seek input on getting them fixed. HOW. DARE. THEY.Ya, sorry but I don't see many complainers, just people with a legitimate balance concern they'd like addressed.
Agreed and seconded. As log as it's constructive why not. Paizo and Pathfinder can't be given a free pass on criticism because some people are emotional invested in it.
I enjoy worlds where magic is fundamentally better than non-magic - part of being a magic-user is being feared by all and sundry but that isnt part of being even a high level fighter (in my preferred world).And I tink that's cool, for a system where everyone (players) was a magic-user, or for a system where everyone was a non-magic-user. It becomes a problem for a system where you have both.
I'm definitely sympathetic to that view - although I dont care about balance (and even like imbalance) I can totally understand why other people do care about it.
FWIW though, the fact that some players are more powerful than others isnt a problem in our group, it's just how things are. If you play the magic-user, you start out needing protection and end up being the super-powerful one.
And while I don't think the disparity is nearly as wide as some people make it out to be, I also think it doesn't help matters that the Paizo devs seem to have that same attitude as you. Despite the fact that they are well aware that their customer bases considers the matter a problem since the Core Rules were first published, subsequent releases and errata to the system have actually tended to strengthen spellcasters and nerf non-spellcasters.
It's as I've said many times...Paizo are much MUCH better at creating adventures then they are at mechanics.
I think it's more complicated than that - I think there are some (admittedly self-imposed) restrictions, based on building Pathfinder on top of 3.5. As I understand it, the "core" of 3.5 was renowned for casters dominating martial classes. Being backwards compatible necessitated some level of imbalance, it seems to me.
Steve Geddes: I like magic being stronger than mundane as well, but if that is going to be the case, there needs to be certain restraints in place. And of course, Pathfinder has none of those.
With overpowering magic, some of the following should apply:
-Magic should be rare (in PF magic is everywhere, even high level magic. 13 of 19 base classes are magic users).-Magic should be dangerous to use (in PF there is no punishment for failing a spell or using lots of spells as once)
-Magic, especially higher level magic, should take some setup time (in PF 95% of spells take a few seconds to cast)
-Magic should require specialization or progression (in PF you can cherry pick spells as you desire. Even "specialists" wizards can cherry pick from 80% of the arcane list)
-Magic should be difficult to learn (in PF spell casters gain levels just as easily as martials, and the only time they are weak are like level 1 and 2- but everyone is rather fragile at those levels)
So yeah, I have no problems with individual magical spells outclassing mundane methods but, its stupid how easy it is to become a spellcaster and for them to diversify their abilities and use them without a care.
That's a good point. It's probably not unrelated that I also prefer to play where magic is much rarer than in the 'default assumptions'.
Agreed and seconded. As log as it's constructive why not. Paizo and Pathfinder can't be given a free pass on criticism because some people are emotional invested in it.
Yes, how dare people make valid criticism about a system so that they can be addressed. How dare they try to improve a system they clearly like enough to identify these issues and seek input on getting them fixed. HOW. DARE. THEY.Ya, sorry but I don't see many complainers, just people with a legitimate balance concern they'd like addressed.
Me too. I think the informed critics do a great job of helping to make the game better, even if they're not always pushing in the direction I want them to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People claiming that rogues are fun to play have a point...up to a point. They might be fun for that player, but they're often less fun for the other players (especially in PFS) because they aren't pulling their weight.
Low-level rogues are, IME, OK. Skills are still meaningful, the differences in BAB and saves are small and magic doesn't trump everything. It may well be that some given class (eg archaeologist, vivisectionist, urban ranger, etc) does the job as well as a rogue, but the rogue is still adequate at low levels. It just gets worse all round as you get to higher levels.
|
|
That's a good point. It's probably not unrelated that I also prefer to play where magic is much rarer than in the 'default assumptions'.
Yep! I know I'm getting repetitive on various threads - but every group, table and campaign is different.
We're using Pathfinder rules with a pre-CY579 "gritty Greyhawk" group that at level 5 is thankful to have a handful of potions among them. No wands and maybe two magic weapons at best. While it sounds horrible, it's been a ton of fun since it provides a fresh, new way to play the game.
|
|
People claiming that rogues are fun to play have a point...up to a point. They might be fun for that player, but they're often less fun for the other players (especially in PFS) because they aren't pulling their weight.
Low-level rogues are, IME, OK. Skills are still meaningful, the differences in BAB and saves are small and magic doesn't trump everything. It may well be that some given class (eg archaeologist, vivisectionist, urban ranger, etc) does the job as well as a rogue, but the rogue is still adequate at low levels. It just gets worse all round as you get to higher levels.
I hope Wakedown is reading this.
Wakedown, how many characters of mine are rogues? How many bring the table down? Are my concepts and personalities fun? Do they pull their own weight? Do they still perform at higher levels?
Althought Mr Jacobs is a really cool guy with really cool ideas about gaming (he rally know how to have the "cool" factor in the game") I think he is not that interested in game balance and have a lack of vision toward the weak points of pathfinder
Everyone thinks that their baby is the cutest. :)
|
|
A rogue talent or class feature that allows the use of intelligence instead charisma on social skills and/or perception. Other rogue talents in a similar vein that allows the substitution of one ability score for another on skill checks. It can't just be one skill though.
A rogue talent or class feature that can be taken multiple times, it allows the rogue to forgo one rogue talent for plus one BAB.
A rogue talent or class feature that allows all damage to be avoided from fortitude and will saves spells that deal damage on successful save as long as the rogue has evasion.
A rogue talent or feature that allows a rogue to use his bluff skill for his will save vs. Charm and compulsion. The caster is then unaware if the save is made and is forced to assume they have control.
A rogue talent or class feature that allows for steal or feint combat maneuvers to be used as part of a full round action. As improved please.
A rogue talent that allows Piranha strike to be usable on Rapiers or Dervish Dance. Or inversely, allows power attack to be gained without the Strength prerequisite.
A rogue talent, rogue talent chain, or class feature that allows a rogue to add Charisma, Intelligence or Wisdom to dodge. Maybe restrict it to a maximum bonus of Rogue level or 1/2 rogue level.
A rogue talent or class feature that allows the rogue to use their bluff to suppress auras vs. spells such as detect x.
I'm gonna have to think on this more. I also like non combat stuff, but this is all more crunch.
In all these instances a rogue talent would obviously be better than a class feature. I very rarely like Archetypes, and this would allow rogues and ninjas to way more awesome. Obviously, testing and balancing would be needed.
No more X times a day or per combat abilities. Once a round is fine. Or once +stat a round.
This was specifically to the question of how can we balance things. It is rogue specific, but I thought that was the question. How do we balance rogue.
Definitely needs some way of upping their attack bonus.
Ranged sneak attack options would be great.
Abilities that really scream Rogue without being incredibly lame in practice. Like adding your Rogue level to CMB checks made to Disarm, Steal, or Dirty Trick. Another talent that treats you as having full Base Attack Bonus for these maneuvers would be great.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Assuming that the goal is to pull the rogue up to the level of the lowish-middle point of the system where lots of classes live, I feel like the obvious low-hanging fruit in terms of "what should the rogue do that makes it better without hurting its flavor" is "the stuff it's already doing, but better, earlier, and more reliably."
The one thing that the rouge could do that it doesn't already do is be good at skills. Right now, as written, the rogue isn't really good at skills. The rogue gets a lot of skill points, but a skill point on a rogue isn't any more valuable than a skill point on anybody else. At best, the rogue can manage skill diversity, and even there it loses to the Bard and eventually to the Wizard and Witch, and that's ignoring the vast quantities of options that many classes have that circumvent the skill system entirely, or give bonuses to skill use that the rogue can't match.
The rogue is actually advantaged at only one two skills, and only subsets of them - Perception and Disable Device, and one of those is just a flat bonus. The rogue DOES have lots of options to be actually advantaged at skills through various rogue tricks, but the majority of the options presented are sufficiently niche, narrow, or minor enough that they're not widely considered good options.
One option for giving rogues a little bit of a boost and making them actually skill badasses would be to simply cram together packages of related rogue tricks, and maybe beef them up even further from there if they're still borderline. Make a giant awesome "Smooth Talker" trick that gives the rogue tons of quantitative and qualitative benefits, enough so that any rogue that takes it is clearly the party's talk guy, not the Sorcerer. You don't have to make everything or anything pseudo-magic or even legendary-epic; solid, reliable, and flexible go a long way on their own.
Like, let's punch up a weaksauce rogue talent:
Guileful Polyglot (Ex)
Benefit: A rogue with this talent who has at least one rank in Linguistics gains four additional languages. A rogue with this talent who does not have any ranks in Linguistics gains two additional languages. If the rogue later gains ranks in Linguistics, she gains two additional languages, to a total of four additional languages above those granted by the Linguistics skill itself.
That's what it says now. That's pretty weak. It's worth substantially less than four skill points, since it gives you just part of the benefit of having four ranks in linguistics. Let's punch that up.
Badass Guileful Polyglot Archlinguist Cryptophilology(Ex)
Benefit: You know all of the normal languages. All of 'em. You may reroll linguistics checks to decipher messages and writing in unfamiliar, secret, or coded languages and knowledge checks about language or writing, and never draw false conclusions. You speak all languages unaccented, and you do not suffer the normal -2 penalty to disguise yourself as a member of a different race as long as you're speaking a language associated with that race. You get a +10 insight bonus to deciphering scrolls or other magical writing. Your ability to effortlessly code-switch gives you a +2 insight bonus to saves against language-dependent effects.
Okay, so maybe the last ability is a little silly, but whatever. The point is, that ability, even with all of the stuff I threw in there, isn't terribly strong - it's mostly duplicated by a few low-level spells - but it's something that actually makes the character legitimately good-ish at things. I wanted to throw a permanent free Read Magic effect in there, but I wanted to avoid anything that seemed at all magical. If you give rogues a bunch of options like that, then they start to be the actual go-to guys for getting stuff done, instead of always magic or someone else who has the skill and a higher stat to boot.
Joyd that sort of thing is exactly what should happen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rogues are like playing the game on Hard mode. You are forced to be creative or useless.
instead of the cavalier? how about a feat for a scaling mount and better animal training rules?
Legend RPG (freely available on their site) does you one better, the Ride skill comes with your mount if you are trained. And you can achieve supernatural results with skill checks. That's the sorta thing I'd like in Pathfinder for skills.
Plus freely available flight as a feat with prereq lvl9 or something. At a certain point in the game, everyone is expected to be airborne-capable but only casters can provide it for themselves.
|
|
Go get some shut eye and go to work, and everything gets away from you…
I'll try to address what I think is pertinent.
For those saying that there are already threads about rogues, I think you are missing the point. I know very well that there are threads about rogues. I also know that they are asking different questions than what I asked in my OP. The moderation here is excellent (IMHO), but it is pretty clear that going off topic or derailing threads is one of the main reasons threads get shut down. I'm not going to try to hijack another thread and change its topic, only to have it (rightfully) closed. I'd rather ask my own question.
Several people mentioned that the rogue is fun, or that the community doesn't have a problem with it. Like I said earlier in the three, I absolutely think the rogue is fun to play. I also am actually on the side of those who say that the rogue doesn't have problems. But obviously lots of people disagree with me on one or both of those issues. And I really want to get understand where they'd like to go with the rogue, given their druthers. It seems to me that too many of the rogue threads essentially just say "rogues suxxorz". This thread hasn't tended that way, so its existence would be worth it to me, if only for that.
My favorite response to the thread so far has been Scavion's, as I feel it most clearly answers the dilemma of "fixing the rogue" without "losing identity" (wraithstrike later suggested much the same thing, so I'll give him virtual points too, as do Wraithkin and Joyd for further defining what "better talents" would mean). I've appreciated a lot of the comments, whether or not I agreed with them, but I think that his most cleanly stayed within those limits. For instance, while I think Umbiere and Rynjin's posts were excellent, Umbriere seems (to me) to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater and Rynjin seemed to simply be eloquently arguing for the desire for a fix, without a clear statement of how.
Nicos' clarification that to "fix" the rogue, they should reclaim their birthright as the kings of skills was also awesome. I thought Ryric's use of dynamic equilibrium is a great way of thinking about what I was trying to get across by even bringing up the edition wars - it seems that those who love pathfinder don't want absolute balance, if that means "samey"-ness, they actually want Ryric's dynamic equilibrium. Obviously, this is just my take from watching the community. I do not intend to put words in the community's mouth or to say that those who have a different interpretation are wrong.
MSWbear said that online discussions do no good. I disagree. I do think there is a lot of rehashing of ideas, but sometimes an argument that has been phrased poorly a thousand times in the past can finely be argued well, and change the minds of others. I know that I have had my opinion on various subjects changed by people on the boards. Clinging to the idea that people can and do change is part of my belief that people are basically good. I hope I am not just naive.
Anyhow, thanks everyone for the comments. They are, to me at least, very illuminating. :-)
Edit: Cool someone posted between my posts.
Gear. Magic gear.
You what a high level rogue would easily pay 200,000 gold for? A ring of greater invisibility and a head slot of mind blank.
Goz mask, sniper goggles, and smoke sticks make a rogue a dangerous range combatant. If only Goz mask was from a PRD source (sees through smoke and mist).
EDIT: Also a way to counter blur would be nice.
Unfortunately being a smoke ninja is not a party friendly way of fighting. Seems the rogue swings from either being overly dependent on allies, or hampering them if an individualist.
Edit: Cool someone posted between my posts.
Unfortunately being a smoke ninja is not a party friendly way of fighting. Seems the rogue swings from either being overly dependent on allies, or hampering them if an individualist.Gear. Magic gear.
You what a high level rogue would easily pay 200,000 gold for? A ring of greater invisibility and a head slot of mind blank.
Goz mask, sniper goggles, and smoke sticks make a rogue a dangerous range combatant. If only Goz mask was from a PRD source (sees through smoke and mist).
EDIT: Also a way to counter blur would be nice.
Don't be anywhere near party?
|
|
I hope Wakedown is reading this... how many characters of mine are rogues? How many bring the table down? Are my concepts and personalities fun? Do they pull their own weight? Do they still perform at higher levels?
Only Cayden knows exactly how many rogues you have tucked away in assorted binders and HeroLab files, but I can confirm they are numerous.
I can also confirm they unequivocally elevate every single party's combat prowess, ability to navigate skill challenges, and add ridiculous amounts of roleplay and comedy to every social encounter. Often times they carry other characters through the scenario when otherwise defeat was imminent. And it didn't matter if it was at level 3 or level 10.
I feel pretty confident if any of the "rogues are useless" folks got to sit down and play two scenarios with you while you played a rogue, they would have a very different perspective on rogues.
I don't think any of the "haters' would ever concede anything, Wakedown.