|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
lol@DrDeth.
No concessions are necessary.
Edmond Dantes wouldn't have been Edmond Dantes if he had to stop and quaff a potion/extract/mutagen every couple minutes, or stop and pray to a higher power. At least, he wouldn't have been the same, to me. That's all that matters, to me. :)
I have no objections if other folks fulfill their fantasy rogue stereotypes if they play a character that stops and does those things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
lol@DrDeth.
No concessions are necessary.
Edmond Dantes wouldn't have been Edmond Dantes if he had to stop and quaff a potion/extract/mutagen every couple minutes, or stop and pray to a higher power. At least, he wouldn't have been the same, to me. That's all that matters, to me. :)
I have no objections if other folks fulfill their fantasy rogue stereotypes if they play a character that stops and does those things.
Ah see that is where everyone is really upset. Ninjas, alchemist, bards, inquisitors don't fit the thematic component of rogue, they are just better mechanically by doing all the rogue does plus more.
It's similar to why people are upset about fighters. Barbars and Paladins don't fit every thematic concept.
This is a roleplaying game. It's just as much roleplaying as it is a game, so the vast mechanical difference is very important when it comes to playing this game with friends. You do more than forge stories.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Look. The Rogue is "functional." Yes I get that. I'm not a Rogue hater. I want the Rogue to be better. I want the Rogue to be more than "functional." The first step to making things better is admitting that things are kinda crappy to begin with.
Things that are incredibly important to consider.
-The Rogue is not special in any way in it's role or function.
-The Rogue's skills are duplicate-able by other classes and sometimes better.
-The Rogue hits it's peak at about 4th or 6th level when it's gained all the feats that it can gain from Rogue Talents, when Spell Casting hasn't gotten real powerful yet and other classes can't quite trump you using magic items.
-The Rogue brings no party resources outside of it's person and skills. It is also true that the Rogue is a greater drain on party resources due to it's poor saves, hp, AC, and due to the conditionals of Sneak Attack, suicidal tactics.
-The Rogue's talents do not offer much in power, versatility, or skill use. It is almost universally better to take the talents that give you feats.
I have no way to fix the rogue outside of just throwing more loot their way and hope it sticks.
Same goes for the fighter.
Seriously, I'm not sure how "Look the Rogue is pretty weak mechanically and many other classes can do everything it does but better." makes you a Rogue hater. It's a factual statement that a decent number of people consider to be a issue. If I said "A Mercedes Benz can do everything the Model T can do but better." does that make me a Model T hater?
Seriously... if you are going to contribute to the discussion, please... well contribute.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Basically, how I feel about options that give you a specialization in something relatively narrow is that if a player is selecting one of those, the game might as well go all the way and really make them an all-star at that thing. The game doesn't fall apart if somebody is so awesome at climbing that they all but auto-succeed at all but the craziest climbing tasks, and I don't think that that ability has to be pushed off until the contending-with-gods tier of play, a point at which mundane climbing is basically a nonfactor anyway in all but the most exceptional circumstances. Right now, a rogue who wants to can take a skill and spend three talents to be... kinda good at climbing. That's not awesome. Climbing is not such a gamebreaker that we can't let somebody who wants to be a total climbing badass just be a total climbing badass. What's the worst thing that can happen? They use their awesome climbing ability to do something totally awesome and effective? Great! They should be able to do that! If somebody wants to specialize in climbing for whatever reason, then any problem that even might be something that climbing is a good solution for should be something that the party looks to the guy who took a climbing-related character option for.
Seriously, I'm not sure how "Look the Rogue is pretty weak mechanically and many other classes can do everything it does but better." makes you a Rogue hater. It's a factual statement that a decent number of people consider to be a issue.
Because it's not a factual statement. It's an opinion.
Not to mention the haters won't stop with stuff like "Yeah, I can see the rogue could use a little boost, here's my idea", they have to do stuff like come into threads where someone asks how to build a rogue and they suggest another class, they are are unfair and unreasonable in their comparos, etc.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously, I'm not sure how "Look the Rogue is pretty weak mechanically and many other classes can do everything it does but better." makes you a Rogue hater. It's a factual statement that a decent number of people consider to be a issue.Because it's not a factual statement. It's an opinion.
Not to mention the haters won't stop with stuff like "Yeah, I can see the rogue could use a little boost, here's my idea", they have to do stuff like come into threads where someone asks how to build a rogue and they suggest another class, they are are unfair and unreasonable in their comparos, etc.
It really is a factual statement. Telling someone another class fills their concept better than a rogue IS being HELPFUL. People who need help with builds should not be playing monk/fighter/rogue. Those classes are for people who enjoy playing the game on hard-mode.
*Also will you ever drop the ninja != rogue thing? I noticed the dig at "unreasonable in their comparos". Would be really nice if you could stop being such a twit about that.*
Rogues are like playing the game on Hard mode. You are forced to be creative or useless.
at the same time having your options to do anything creative limited to the mundane world, the DMs whim, the skill system, and the likely hood that your party doesn't want to twiddle its thumbs for half an hour while you set up some rube goldberg contraption to kill 4 kobolds with a shoelace.
Rogues are like playing the game on Hard mode. You are forced to be creative or useless.at the same time having your options to do anything creative limited to the mundane world, the DMs whim, the skill system, and the likely hood that your party doesn't want to twiddle its thumbs for half an hour while you set up some rube goldberg contraption to kill 4 kobolds with a shoelace.
Rogues can take 10 on UMD. Their only actual limit is money. A rogue with a disproportionate amount of loot can be quite dangerous.
EXAMPLES:
Range rogue: Goz mask + sniper goggles + smoke sticks + boots of speed
Melee: Wand of greater invisibility + scroll of mind blank + boots of speed
Spells: Staff of X or Scroll of X or Wand of X for low lvl low DC needed spells
I don't get all this talk about "balance".
The point is every class has its strengths and weaknesses. That is why wizards have low hit points, can barely use any weapons, cannot wear armor without penalties and have slow attack progression.
All this claims about how wizards steal the show at higher levels...well, they are supposed to. In fantasy literature, the wizard is a feared and powerful character. And yet from experience, even in higher levels, I see they still hang back and let the fighter be the meatshields while so they can cast their spells.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards don't have low hit point though (or shouldn't), most of your hit points actually come from your CON modifier, not your hit die. The Wizard has a d6 hit die compared to a Fighter with a d10 the fighter will only have 2 more hp on average then the Wizard per level. That's only 40 hp at level 20. Furthermore, Casters only really care about their casting stat, which leaves them more point to pump into CON. Which can result in casters having just as much if not more HP then the fighter.
Finally, this "Wizards are supposed to be better at high levels" is flawed when talking about a level based system. For starters, Wizards are still better then Fighters at low level, however the time which the are better (ie. while they have spells) is shorter. But past level 5, running out of spells should not be an issue. Furthermore, the system assumes that a Level 20 Fighter and a Level 20 Wizard are the same level of threat and awards an equal amount of xp for defeating either. If your "Casters should be better at high levels" were true, evidently people go out and fight Level 20 fighters for easy xp. See in a level system Level 5 X should be equivalent to a level 5 Y and in PF that's just not the case.
Seriously, I'm not sure how "Look the Rogue is pretty weak mechanically and many other classes can do everything it does but better." makes you a Rogue hater. It's a factual statement that a decent number of people consider to be a issue.Because it's not a factual statement. It's an opinion.
Not to mention the haters won't stop with stuff like "Yeah, I can see the rogue could use a little boost, here's my idea", they have to do stuff like come into threads where someone asks how to build a rogue and they suggest another class, they are are unfair and unreasonable in their comparos, etc.
Except... it is not.
He is speaking from a very easily measurable and calculable position.
QUOTE="Anzyr"] Seriously, I'm not sure how "Look the Rogue is pretty weak mechanically and many other classes can do everything it does but better." makes you a Rogue hater. It's a factual statement that a decent number of people consider to be a issue.
Do note how he said MECHANICALLY.
It has been shows time, and time, and time, and time again that other classes can fill the rogues role in a party with ease and can actually do it better FROM A MECHANICAL STANDPOINT. This is were we go into number crunching, and when you crunch the numbers, Rogues just end up subpar compared to Alchemists, Bards, Inquisitors, and Ninja's.
On that tangent, while YES a Ninja is an "archetype" or rogue, they are also very different from your average Archetype. For one, alternate classes actually have THEIR OWN ARCHETYPES. The ninja has yet to recieve one but the Samurai and the Anti-Paladin have. Therefore, the Ninja/Samurai/Anti-Paladin are actually more like a Seperate class that happens to share alot of similarities to already existant classes.
Why does Paizo need to fix something that is not broken?
If you disagree and truly feel a class is broken then you are well within your rights to house rule it and make whatever change you feel appropriate.
I do not see the rogue as broken at all. In games past the value of the rogue was not in combat but in the fact that he did the dirty work that no other class in the game would or could do. He would sneak, disable traps and take foes out with a well placed backstab. All these things are intact.
This is not world of warcraft. Not everything needs to be measured in DPS and not being as good at combat does not make a character less than a character that is.
House rule it and move on if you feel otherwise.
-MD
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why does Paizo need to fix something that is not broken?
If you disagree and truly feel a class is broken then you are well within your rights to house rule it and make whatever change you feel appropriate.
Hah... Then why don't Paizo buff Rogues and then you houserule-nerf them? Why is it always everyone else who has to houserule?
I do not see the rogue as broken at all. In games past the value of the rogue was not in combat but in the fact that he did the dirty work that no other class in the game would or could do. He would sneak, disable traps and take foes out with a well placed backstab. All these things are intact.
And what exactly is this "dirty work that no other class in the game would or could do"? Because chances are that a Bard, Inquisitor, Ninja or Alchemist could do it better.
This is not world of warcraft. Not everything needs to be measured in DPS and not being as good at combat does not make a character less than a character that is.
Hah! The funny thing about statements like this is that they completely ignore the fact that the people complaining about Rogues (or Fighters, for that matter) rarely focus on DPR... It might be an issue, but it's certainly not the biggest one.
Do note how he said MECHANICALLY.
It has been shows time, and time, and time, and time again that other classes can fill the rogues role in a party with ease and can actually do it better FROM A MECHANICAL STANDPOINT. This is were we go into number crunching, and when you crunch the numbers, Rogues just end up subpar compared to Alchemists, Bards, Inquisitors, and Ninja's.
On that tangent, while YES a Ninja is an "archetype" or rogue, they are also very different from your average Archetype. For one, alternate classes actually have THEIR OWN ARCHETYPES. The ninja has yet to recieve one but the Samurai and the Anti-Paladin have. Therefore, the Ninja/Samurai/Anti-Paladin are actually more like a Seperate class that happens to share alot of similarities to already existant classes.
But then you have the problem where people then go from "mechanically inferior", and then argue that pure mechanics/optimization is the only thing important. Which is where you are getting the differences in opinion.
Why does Paizo need to fix something that is not broken?
If you disagree and truly feel a class is broken then you are well within your rights to house rule it and make whatever change you feel appropriate.
I do not see the rogue as broken at all. In games past the value of the rogue was not in combat but in the fact that he did the dirty work that no other class in the game would or could do. He would sneak, disable traps and take foes out with a well placed backstab. All these things are intact.
This is not world of warcraft. Not everything needs to be measured in DPS and not being as good at combat does not make a character less than a character that is.
House rule it and move on if you feel otherwise.
-MD
Except that is has been shown time and time and time again that the rogue is not even the best at that... Additionally, the only foe he is going to be killing with a sneak attack is a low level mook that the party probably does not care about anyway. Other than that, most creatures could easily survive a sneak attack then proceed to tear the rogue to shreds with his poor HP and AC.
Personally I think one thing that would help the rogue is to power up Poisons, give the rogue most ways to use poisons that other classes don't get, and to allow the rogue to make a single attack as a full round action from stealth that allows him attack from stealth at range while maintaining stealth. This would allow a rogue to move up to an enemy while hiding, shoot him with a blowdart coated poison (which as mentioned before would be up-powered to actually be a threat) and not be noticed.
The other thing I think that would help is to give rogues a new capstone and break their capstone into parts and make them rogue talents. I am pretty certain that is a very common trope for the sneaking rogue to move up and knock an enemy out or to choke them unconscious.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whence the assumption that people who criticize the rogue don't have houserules to fix the class? I do have a heavily house-ruled variant of the rogue, but I'd rather not be forced into this sort of effort.
Whence the assumption that people who criticize the rogue don't have houserules to fix the class? I do have a heavily house-ruled variant of the rogue, but I'd rather not be forced into this sort of effort.
My house rule is just giving the PCs tons of gear.
From what I am seeing, balancing the game is getting to be an arms race, the fighter and rogue, etc have better get more powers so they can be like the wizard at 20th level.
But then you have the problem where people then go from "mechanically inferior", and then argue that pure mechanics/optimization is the only thing important. Which is where you are getting the differences in opinion.
Do note how he said MECHANICALLY.
It has been shows time, and time, and time, and time again that other classes can fill the rogues role in a party with ease and can actually do it better FROM A MECHANICAL STANDPOINT. This is were we go into number crunching, and when you crunch the numbers, Rogues just end up subpar compared to Alchemists, Bards, Inquisitors, and Ninja's.
On that tangent, while YES a Ninja is an "archetype" or rogue, they are also very different from your average Archetype. For one, alternate classes actually have THEIR OWN ARCHETYPES. The ninja has yet to recieve one but the Samurai and the Anti-Paladin have. Therefore, the Ninja/Samurai/Anti-Paladin are actually more like a Seperate class that happens to share alot of similarities to already existant classes.
Mechanics ARE pretty damn important mate. Fluff can be restyled at whim everywhere.
Ultimately you want to play something that fulfills your concepts best. The archetypal thief/Daring charmer/treasure hunter is pointedly not best filled by the Rogue mechanically.
Consider the concept "Holy Warrior'.
I can play a Fighter, Ranger, Cleric, Barbarian, or I can play a Paladin to represent this character. Mechanically who fills this concept best? The Paladin of course. Or the Warpriest when it comes out.
If the mechanics of the class and therefore it's strength/power don't matter then we might as well play adepts and aristocrats.
I'll go ahead and say the mechanics are more important than the flavor. I'm frustrated since the Rogue is simply not the best suited to the concept of thief. I want this to change.
Hah... Then why don't Paizo buff Rogues and then you houserule-nerf them? Why is it always everyone else who has to houserule?Why does Paizo need to fix something that is not broken?
If you disagree and truly feel a class is broken then you are well within your rights to house rule it and make whatever change you feel appropriate.
<insert sarcastic laugh> God forbid you have to houserule some something. Houseruling used to be as much a part of the game as rolling dice. Dragon magazine pretty much existed on the idea that house ruling can be fun.
I do not see the rogue as broken at all. In games past the value of the rogue was not in combat but in the fact that he did the dirty work that no other class in the game would or could do. He would sneak, disable traps and take foes out with a well placed backstab. All these things are intact.And what exactly is this "dirty work that no other class in the game would or could do"? Because chances are that a Bard, Inquisitor, Ninja or Alchemist could do it better.
First off I was not aware that anyone played the Ninja class since it is so theme centric. I'm hard pressed to believe that an Inquisitor, Bard or Alchemist can sneak better, disable traps better, and backstab better. Maybe Raving Dork has worked up some builds that could prove me wrong.
This is not world of warcraft. Not everything needs to be measured in DPS and not being as good at combat does not make a character less than a character that is.Hah! The funny thing about statements like this is that they completely ignore the fact that the people complaining about Rogues (or Fighters, for that matter) rarely focus on DPR... It might be an issue, but it's certainly not the biggest one.
<insert sarcastic laugh> Sorry if my words marginalize your plight. But I would bet for every passionate post about a broken class there are a dozen people who don't care or think the class is working fine and do not bother to post or comment.
-MD
|
|
Except that is has been shown time and time and time again that the rogue is not even the best at that... Additionally, the only foe he is going to be killing with a sneak attack is a low level mook that the party probably does not care about anyway.
I haven't seen this in local tables/campaigns.
Party is level 11. Five players. 20-pt buy. This is a meat-grinder AP.
They have evidence that L.R. a 13th level fighter is behind evil-doings.
The party rogue (who to be fair is like rogue7/fighter4) decides to take it upon himself to resolve matters. He actually sneaks away from the rest of the party while they are preparing dinner and makes his way to L.R's villa.
He pushes past the servant who answers the door, and makes his way to a dinner party with about 6 various officials from Greyhawk who L.R. is hob-nobbing with. Making Bluff checks, he makes his way to stand next to L.R. before finally Quick-Drawing both his swords (particularily nasty ones found earlier in the AP) and getting a surprise round.
This is followed by the rogue winning initiative.
L.R. had over 100HP. I think the rogue ended up doing 170 by the time his sneak attacking was complete.
He completely murdered one of the AP's major villains before the villain could even act.
The party is at the Sootscale Lair and everyone except the rogue is making a big hoopla chatting with the chieftain.
While everyone is distraction, the party rogue excuses themselves to urinate behind a rock, pops invisibility and decides to solo deeper into the kobold lair for a look around.
This party, which is 4 players 3rd level 20-pt buy (the adventure is 15-pt buy) is doing pretty well, so I've actually added a full level to the evil sorcerer in the last room.
Not only that, I've given this sorcerer Deep Slumber and have been looking forward all week to giving the party a very difficult challenge as I'd expect 2 maybe 3 of them will fall asleep.
Anyway, said halfling with ungodly stealth sneaks into the back room while T (the big bad) waits for a report on what's going on in the front room. The halfling decides to gamble, applies drow poison to his blade, moves up next to the sorcerer and attacks.
Yes, the sorcerer fails his save and goes unconscious. The halfling then proceeds to decide that instead of questioning the sorcerer, it's better just to murder him outright and lays into him with a coup-de-gras. Coup-de-gras or not, a full round of sneak attack would've probably done the trick. The sorcerer only had 27hp, and at this stage hadn't applied any meaningful round or minute-based buffs to prevent said murdering.
The above are just two examples, but regularly we have rogues who take it upon themselves to solo up to a major boss and murder them.
Different groups/tables/campaigns will have a wildly different experience. Some GMs will work to actively thwart such tactics and the evil boss at the end of the "dungeon" will be buffed up and ready to murder the rogue who's so bold to go ahead alone. Obviously, these groups have an entirely different perspective of what a daring rogue is capable of. In our case, myself or the other GMs acknowledge this is what "rogues do" to set them apart, and I'd say the rogue solo-murders every fourth humanoid BBEG without fail.
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.
This might just be me, but things like this need to be class features, not equipment. I don't like the idea of characters being so reliant on magic items - That means it's not the character's talent, just a gadget that he happens to possess. Is he still that good if his item gets taken away?
This might just be me, but things like this need to be class features, not equipment. I don't like the idea of characters being so reliant on magic items - That means it's not the character's talent, just a gadget that he happens to possess. Is he still that good if his item gets taken away?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.
Is a wizard good without their spell book?
I'm content with the idea that martials have class features better enhanced by gear than casters.
With enough money and gear Fighters and Rogues actually pull ahead of their equivalents.
[for both]What's the point of 4th lvl casting if you have a wand for every 4th lvl spell or a potion for most 1-3rd lvl spells? [for rogues]What's the point of full casting if you are casting the same spells from scrolls and staves at almost equal effect? [for both]Who cares about aura's and saves when you have enough items to give you outright immunity?
All casters ever get with gear is essentially more spell slots. Either with gear that saves them from casting buffs or gear that actually gives more spell slots. Oh and wishes, but a rogue could use a scroll of wish too with a bit more money.
EDIT: This game is more about gear optimization than build optimization anyways.
Mechanics ARE pretty damn important mate. Fluff can be restyled at whim everywhere.
Ultimately you want to play something that fulfills your concepts best. The archetypal thief/Daring charmer/treasure hunter is pointedly not best filled by the Rogue mechanically.
Consider the concept "Holy Warrior'.
I can play a Fighter, Ranger, Cleric, Barbarian, or I can play a Paladin to represent this character. Mechanically who fills this concept best? The Paladin of course. Or the Warpriest when it comes out.
If the mechanics of the class and therefore it's strength/power don't matter then we might as well play adepts and aristocrats.
I'll go ahead and say the mechanics are more important than the flavor. I'm frustrated since the Rogue is simply not the best suited to the concept of thief. I want this to change.
But here's the thing. Lots of people apparently still play rogues, and enjoy doing so. So obviously mechanical issues are not interfering with their enjoyment.
It would be interesting to see what the actual figures are at conventions and in pathfinder society. I feel if the "ROGUES SUXXOR" was the baseline view of pathfinder players, than rogues would have been directly addressed by now (since no one would play them), if only with gear or new talents.
I just tend to think that debates here become an echo chamber of certain views, which might not hold up in the real world.
That's a moot point, Marthkus...
What's the point of Weapon Training or Sneak Attack if you have a sword so good it hits 100% of the time and always deal 100% damage? What's the point of Armor training if you have an item that gives you a force fild just as good as the world's greatest full plate? What's the point of Trap Finding if you have an item that puts you under constant effect of Detect traps, gives you +50 bonus to Perception and lets you cast Dimension Door and Dispel Magic at will? What's the point of Evasion when you're downright immune to whatever effect was used on you? What's the point of an umbrella if it never rains?
Everything is awesome at everything with infinite resources. Now, since those resources are not infinite... Class features matter.
Lots of people apparently still play rogues, and enjoy doing so.
False. It is exceedingly rare for a player to enjoy playing a rogue past lvl 5. A lot of games die before then though.
It would be interesting to see what the actual figures are at conventions and in pathfinder society. I feel if the "ROGUES SUXXOR" was the baseline view of pathfinder players, than rogues would have been directly addressed by now (since no one would play them), if only with gear or new talents.
Why even mention "Rogues Suxxor"? That wasn't what I was saying. You are trying to direct attention from a problem with your statements and I find that disingenuous.
Mechanical issues may not be inflicting on their enjoyment. Does that mean Rogues shouldn't get a buff in some way, shape or form?
Mechanics show that the Rogue is not the best fulfilling of a thief, daring charmer, or treasure hunter concept. I consider this to be a failing of the class. When you get past 4th level, his contenders begin to blow the Rogue out of the water.
What's the point of Weapon Training or Sneak Attack if you have a sword to good it hits 100% of the time and always deal 100% damage? What's the point of Armor training if you have an item that gives you a force fild just as good as the world's greatest full plate? What's the point of Trap Finding if you have an item that puts you under constant effect of Detect traps, gives you +50 bonus to Perception and lets you cast Dimension Door and Dispel Magic at will? What's the point of Evasion when you're downright immune to whatever effect was used on you? What's the point of an umbrella if it never rains?
Everything is awesome at everything with infinite resources. Now, since those resources are not infinite... Class features matter.
I'm not advocating custom items just yet. So you need BAB and Weapon training to hit well.
Armor training comes into play because with enough money the fighter can pump her dex high enough to actually use that feature.
Rogues become full casters with enough money do to skill mastery (UMD).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wraithkin. The Rogue as a full class no level dips is lacking. The Strength Rogue fails to meet the classic concept of a Rogue. The other Rogue was heavily multiclassed.
Pathfinder puts a lot of emphasis on single classed 1-20 being viable. As a Rogue this is generally a bad idea. I consider that a failure of design when a level 10 Rogue is clearly inferior to say, a Bard, Inquisitor or Alchemist.
I'm not advocating custom items just yet. So you need BAB and Weapon training to hit well.
Armor training comes into play because with enough money the fighter can pump her dex high enough to actually use that feature.
Rogues become full casters with enough money do to skill mastery (UMD).
Doesn't make any difference. Characters do not have infinite money. Custom items or not.
And no, Rogues don't become full casters. You can't make wands of spells of level 5 or higher. Even if it was possible, with the gold Rogues spent to buy wands, a full caster could craft a golem army.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
<insert sarcastic laugh> God forbid you have to houserule some something. Houseruling used to be as much a part of the game as rolling dice. Dragon magazine pretty much existed on the idea that house ruling can be fun.Hah... Then why don't Paizo buff Rogues and then you houserule-nerf them? Why is it always everyone else who has to houserule?Why does Paizo need to fix something that is not broken?
If you disagree and truly feel a class is broken then you are well within your rights to house rule it and make whatever change you feel appropriate.
Nice dodge of the question. You must be a rogue. So if houseruling is so fun, why does Lemmy have to houserule and you don't? We're doing it with the new Crane Wing, why can't you do it with the Rogue?
I'm not advocating custom items just yet. So you need BAB and Weapon training to hit well.
Armor training comes into play because with enough money the fighter can pump her dex high enough to actually use that feature.
Rogues become full casters with enough money do to skill mastery (UMD).
Doesn't make any difference. Characters do not have infinite money. Custom items or not.
And no, Rogues don't become full casters. You can't make wands of spells of level 5 or higher. Even if it was possible, with the gold Rogues spent to buy wands, a full caster could craft a golem army.
Um no, rogues can use staves and scrolls well do to skill mastery. With enough money they are full casters.
And my only actual claim was that with enough money fighters and rogues pull ahead.
Golem armies require lots of time in addition to lots of money.
Um no, rogues can use staves and scrolls well do to skill mastery. With enough money they are full casters.
And my only actual claim was that with enough money fighters and rogues pull ahead.
And my claim is that with enough money... Or better yet... With enough spell slots, Wizards are amazing martial characters.
Well, not really... My actual claim is that it doesn't really matter. Characters don't have infinite resources. And, at least from levels 1 through 20, Rogues and Fighters never get enough money to become full-casters.
Golem armies require lots of time in addition to lots of money.
Crafting infinite wands doesn't? Also... Create your own Timeless Demiplane!
(The "Timeless" property really shouldn't exist before epic levels, IMO)
|
|
I was musing for a moment. There's certainly two camps of folks - one who thinks rogues are underpowered and not worth playing. Another which thinks rogues are actually pretty darn good.
I've said it several times that your group/table/campaign affects this wildly.
For folks who are saying they are underpowered, please provide some details on your group/table/campaign so we can better understand your POV.
My "Rogues Suck" Campaign Style Survey:
When you've been playing a rogue and found it lacking, what's the campaign been like?
1. What point buy did you all use? (15pt? 20pt? 25pt?)
2. What was the level range of the campaign? (1-6? 15-20?)
3. How many people are in your party? (3? 4? 6?)
4. Were there other "rogue competitors" in your party? What were they like?
5. Was it a "low magic" campaign?
6. What was the availability of custom ordered magic items like? Were you outside of settlements and improvising with what you found in the wild? Did the GM roll for magic item availability? For spell availability?
7. What were your loot rules? (i.e. did folks pick up items they wanted as they were found, and just split the gold of everything else? Did the martials/rogues end up with the same, higher or lower overall wealth than the "clerics"/"wizards"?)
8. How many days/weeks/months/years of "game time" passed? How many encounters do you see in a day?
9. What does your average session look like (i.e. # of encounters, # of social situations, # of skill challenges)?
10. Did you often run into entire sessions of "no magic" (i.e. no divine in Rahadoum, no items at the fancy dinner party, entire party was captured and imprisoned and no longer had their wealth, spell component pouches or divine implements for an entire adventure)
11. Are your rogues typically built to be one trick ponies? Or are they built to be jacks-of-all trade? If jack-of-all-trade, did they have a lot of ranks in UMD and copious consumables/wands by high level?
12. What's your GM's style when running an adventure when the rogue employs typically "solo ahead and murder the end-boss alone" tactics?
13. How much does your group "reskin" classes/archetypes? (i.e. can a vivisectionist be non-evil?)
14. How many Paizo lines do you subscribe to monthly? (you may not think this matters, but it links financial supporters, affects possession of "fluff" content, links how many pre-published adventures you're running, and assorted things that can drive adventuring style and interpretations)
1. What point buy did you all use? (15pt? 20pt? 25pt?)
Most of the time we use 15pt buy. If we know an adventure is a "meat-grinder" by reputation (Age of Worms) or we only have 3 players, we'll use 20pt buy to compensate.
15pt buy makes rogues look better. They are less MAD than an Inquisitor or Alchemist trying to do the same job. A rogue can literally just have ranks in Str/Con or Dex/Con. The other folks require Str/Con/Int, Str/Con/Wis or Dex/Con/Int, Dex/Con/Int.
2. What was the level range of the campaign? (1-6? 15-20?)
We repeatedly climb the treadmill and play 1-7, with maybe 20% of campaigns making it to 7-15. Only 2 of 20 campaigns make it beyond 15th.
3. How many people are in your party? (3? 4? 6?)
This varies wildly. The smaller groups may favor hybrids though. If you have 2 warriors and a cleric. As a fourth, you're better off bringing a bard or alchemist than a rogue.
4. Were there other "rogue competitors" in your party? What were they like?
We don't see a lot of bards built to be rogues. They are usually controllers, barchers or dervish dancers. We see alchemists and urban rangers most often built to emulate rogues. In those parties, its subbing in for the rogue. In those cases, it's never covered the social aspect that a rogue can.
5. Was it a "low magic" campaign?
We played a lot of early campaigns in Oerth, far away from the Free City. A handful of campaigns were lucky to have 5000gp in magic item wealth by level 5. Another campaign was the Scourge of Slavelords campaign where all the wealth of the party was confiscated around level 7 and the party was literally without any magic items for several sessions. When they finally did obtain magic again, it was odds and ends in a random evil city, there were no shops to custom order things.
6. What was the availability of custom ordered magic items like? Were you outside of settlements and improvising with what you found in the wild? Did the GM roll for magic item availability? For spell availability?
This varies wildly. As mentioned in above Slavers campaign, there was no opportunity to order things. In Savage Tide, once the group set sail, there was no purchasing items again. In Kingmaker, ordering an item often took months to fulfill, thus the party would go months (and levels) without having access to a particular item they wanted.
7. What were your loot rules? (i.e. did folks pick up items they wanted as they were found, and just split the gold of everything else? Did the martials/rogues end up with the same, higher or lower overall wealth than the "clerics"/"wizards"?)
Without fail, all groups have divided up magic items found to "the person who can use it best". The rogues often get magic wands and potions because the spell-caster says "I can cast that already if I want to". If I look at a typical loot spreadsheet, I almost always see front-liners and rogues with 30% more wealth (calculated in gold) than our clerics and wizards. The cleric and wizard players are very much okay with this at mid-levels and beyond (7+). After magic items are distributed, other things are sold (like weapons nobody wands), and they divide the gold equally. Folks make loans from this. Obviously, in our games the rogues have more wealth than a magus/inquisitor/alchemist would in this case, so that means their power level is inched upward.
8. How many days/weeks/months/years of "game time" passed? How many encounters do you see in a day?
This varies wildly. The entire party has spanned level 1-10 in a single month (Council of Thieves). Other times going from 1-8 has taken multiple years of game time (Kingmaker). This affects things like getting a ring of evasion you may want dramatically.
Encounters per day matters. In Kingmaker, we saw very few usually, and classes that can "nova" (i.e. a magus) seemed very powerful. In others, sometimes the party would take on 100 rounds of combat in a single day and resource-based classes were hamstrung (barbarian rage rounds, magus spells/arcane pool). The rogue was as effective in the 100th round as he was in the 1st round that day. Overall, it's a 50/50 split, but we regularly have days with 12 encounters and 80 rounds of combat.
9. What does your average session look like (i.e. # of encounters, # of social situations, # of skill challenges)?
In a 6 hour session, 4 hours is probably combat, and this is probably 8 combats. With the remaining 2 hours, we usually see 50-100 skill checks rolled. We end up with a lot of social and skill challenges as players tend to improvise and go off the rails in adventures quite often.
10. Did you often run into entire sessions of "no magic" (i.e. no divine in Rahadoum, no items at the fancy dinner party, entire party was captured and imprisoned and no longer had their wealth, spell component pouches or divine implements for an entire adventure)
This seems to be far more common lately. I don't know if this is just blind luck, or more recent adventures are employing this design to be different. Out of the last 10 adventures we've played, 4 have been highly prohibitive to use ANY magic. This is a deviation from prior years, where it was maybe 1-2 in 10.
11. Are your rogues typically built to be one trick ponies? Or are they built to be jacks-of-all trade? If jack-of-all-trade, did they have a lot of ranks in UMD and copious consumables/wands by high level?
9 out of 10 rogues build spread skills everywhere and also try to be competitive in combat. 3 in 10 make use of poison (I'm counting ninjas among rogues here). 7 in 10 crank their UMD and use wands and scrolls a considerable amount.
12. What's your GM's style when running an adventure when the rogue employs typically "solo ahead and murder the end-boss alone" tactics?
To date, both myself as a GM, or any other of the GMs, have allowed the rogue to gamble with their life and try to scout ahead and attempt one-shot an end-boss. It typically works 6 out of 10 attempts. In the 4 of 10 where it doesn't, 2 of the 10 the rogue managed to pop an "oh s&&%" consumable and withdraw. In the other 2 of 10 the rogue was murdered for their efforts (in both cases it was a caster that employed hold person).
13. How much does your group "reskin" classes/archetypes? (i.e. can a vivisectionist be non-evil?)
We generally stick to flavor text. Paladins have codes that must be followed. Vivisectionists delight in torture. Thus, vivisectionists only really apply to the Way of the Wicked AP.
14. How many Paizo lines do you subscribe to monthly?
Five. It used to be seven, but there's a couple things in two lines I felt I could skip. :)
For those of you who object to rogues and take the time to fill this out, you can then in the future link to your answer so that the other folks can read your answers and better understand your perspective.
And - the designers can look at the parameters with which you play - and hopefully address the shortcomings of the rogue within those parameters.
IMHO rogues are one of the most MAD classes ever.