| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
stuff
Does the Rogue sucks?
Short answer: Assuming the rogue is built is just right, a Rogue can be nice in the right Campaign, with the right GM, in the right party, at the right level, played by the right player.Now for the long version. Here are some quotes on the topic.
So, some people claim the rogue isn’t a weak class. Just exactly what are they good at? Or to put it in other words: What do they bring to the party or even to the game?
Trapfinding? Rogues are good with traps and it is the only class with trapfining (not counting archetypes). Trapfindning is handy, but is that the only reason we have rogues? Is trapfindning the sole justification of the rogue? Is it possibly why the rogue is the only class that gets trapfinding? It’s a bit like saying: “we can only have one full arcane caster, because only the wizard should be able to be a full arcane caster. Because if we have more than one full arcane caster class then the wizard isn’t the only full arcane caster.” It does sound silly, right?
Do we have traps in the game so the rogue can feel useful?Skills? The Bard is just as good or even better. And let’s face it: 2 skills per level vs 4 is a big deal, but 6 skills per level vs 8 isn’t, especially when we’re talking about rangers that have more hit points so they can put their favored class point into skills. Then we got classes such as the alchemist that gets 4 skills + int. Not to mention the ninja. Also, there is the problem that skills are almost always hardcapped at what's "realistic" or "humanly possible. Really, we have loads of classes that can be the skill monkey that can also enhance their skills with magic, or should I say: Classes that gets skills and magic. Rogue talents: Frankly most of them are weak and some of them are just a joke. Minor magic and its "3 times per day"? Seriously, why not at will? I think the Rogue talents suffers from being divided into talents and advance talents. If the talents had been designed a bit like rage powers (one set can be picked from level 2, one set from level 6 and the really good from level 10), they could have been a bit more powerful from level 6. Sneak attack? Why is anyone upset some other classes get this ability? SA suck. You can’t use it unless you flank so you can’t take on someone one-on-one. If the bad guy flees and the rogue sets after him and catches up with him, what can she do? Nothing. Sure she can feint, but that is a move action (that will cost her two feats and int 13) so no more than one attack per round. Ah, I forgot, move action means she can’t chase after the bad guy. And on top of that feint isn’t an auto success. The sad part is that even when she has a flanking partner there are a lot of monsters/enemies/conditions that render SA useless. Not to mention the fact that when the rogue does get to use her SA, she will discover that the damage output from SA being good is just a myth. Yes, a full attacking rogue that gets to use her SA is still one of the weakest damage dealers in the game. I’d say, she is possibly the weakest damage dealer in the game. Finally, we got the rogue that want to use archery as her niche. Sorry, you can’t flank with a bow.
The Rogue is bad at dealing damage; she is not the skill masters (and even if she was, skills aren’t very good at higher levels); her rogue talents are mostly weak (or even very weak); and the only thing she got going for her is trapfinding, but as others have pointed out, there are other ways to deal with traps.
Exactly what does the rogue bring to the table? Really?
And
Anyway. Rogues are in kind of a weird place in Pathfinder, even moreso than in 3.5. They're not supposed to be as good at martial combat as...uh... all the other classes, so they aren't. What they get in return for this is out-of-combat problem-solving utility. Thing is, almost all (and indeed all, using non-core material) of this out-of-combat utility is redundant with other non-magical classes. That isn't even taking into account spellcasters, who by and large get more out-of-combat schticks, while having comparable or better in-combat schticks.
The rogue's schtick is skills and skills aren't very good. They certainly aren't good enough to explain why a class whose only real combat schtick is "stab a dude" is weaker at stabbing than pretty much everyone else. Skills are not only often nonfunctional (Diplomacy, original-version Stealth), they're also almost always hardcapped at what's "realistic" or "humanly possible" (Stealth again, all of the movement skills).
In return for this schtick, the rogue is worse at fighting. It's not just that the rogue is less capable and more-situational than a fighter, barbarian, or paladin: she's also weaker when it comes to wrecking some jerk than the ranger and (non-core) monk, who also rely on skill-based schticks (albeit skill-based schticks supplemented with class abilities), not to mention the alchemist, cleric, druid, and oracle. All of these classes have class abilities or spellcasting to do more than what's "humanly possible", and can still fight in addition to solving problems that don't require murder.
So yeah. I do think the rogue is a weak class. She's worse at fighting to be good at something that often isn't useful, and will often be overshadowed in her own specialty by someone else in the party.
I wish I knew how to fix it.
The main problem with the rogue right now is that it unfortunately brings other classes down. The investigator is a good example of this. I’m dreading it will impact the slayer and Swashbuckler as well.
Here is a post picked from the thread: “One Thread To Rule Them All: The Rogue and the ACG Classes”Do I need to say the
My own thoughts:
When looking at it from an in-combat and powergaming perspective, I think with the introduction of the investigator, slayer, and swashbuckler, the rogue is undeniably dead. The only reason I can think of to be a rogue over say an investigator is if you’re in a very AoE heavy game, and evasion would save your petusch often. Otherwise, the sheer versatility that extracts offer, especially their 1 minute brew time, combined with the amazing Inspiration pool, means in combat and out, a character will 95 times out of 100 be better as an investigator. Especially when it comes to skills and versatility. The int focus means that they’ll have the same number skills per level as a rogue with 10 Int, but with the extra skill points the rogue will get over the investigator probably won’t balance out against Inspiration, which allows the investigator to boost his skills, or spread out his skills more and rely on boosts to get them up to level. This class takes away from the skill monkey aspect of the rogue.
When it comes to the agile light armor fighter type, rogue has been the go-to for a while, due to sneak attack allowing nice bonus damage to an otherwise low-damage output basis. But now that the swashbuckler exists, I’m not seeing the rogue being used for that except for the most niche of builds. This is a very popular archetypical character, so I think the swashbuckler is going to steal quite the number of ‘potential characters’ from the rogue class.
And finally, the slayer. TWF rogues can be scary business, despite what the forums tell you. It may not work all the time, but when it does work, it’s a thing of beauty. A beauty stained in red and gore, but beauty nonetheless. The slayer’s wonderful mechanic of Favored Foe, a mix of the Guide’s Ranger Focus ability and the Deadly Focus ability of the Shadow Assassin by Super Genius, is a really interesting ability that allows you to spike certain enemies, really letting you focus on the assassin aspect that’s so popular amongst rogues. And with their reduced progression Sneak Attack, coupled with Favored Foe and their full BAB, the meatgrinder aspect of the rogue can shine here as well.
Amongst these three classes, they really take the three most popular archetypical rogue characters, and give each a base class. And I’m fine with that, actually. When the Dungeoneer’s Handbook came out, I hoped beyond hope that the Trap Breaker alchemist wouldn’t stack with the Vivisectionist. But it does. Or seems to at least. And I felt sad. Even though I’ve argued against the rogue many times, even though I’ve spent many hours coming up with patches that make rogues more awesome while not stepping on the toes of other, I felt bad for the rogue, as I really didn’t see any reason to play him anymore, unless you were really into the social aspects of the rogue. In which case, you may be better off with the bard anyways. But when reading over these three classes, after getting over the initial shock of seeing them, in my eyes, gut the rogue thoroughly, I came to embrace the new classes. The rogue is a personality. The rogue class is a hodgepodge of mechanics thrown together for legacy’s sake. If you asked anyone to make a “rogue” class for you, and without them having the legacy idea of what a rogue is, I doubt it’d be anything like this class. So I like that it was split out. I like that there are now three solid and mostly balanced classes that replace the popular aspects of them.
And despite the past few paragraphs, I still see a place for the rogue. The rogue will be a better meatgrinder than the investigator (hopefully). They’ll be a better skill monkey than the swashbuckler and the slayer. They’ll be a smoother talker than the slayer can ever dream of, using razor wit where the slayer just uses razers.
Yes, I see the investigator as better in just about every case. But there are character concepts that the investigator can’t meet that the rogue can, and vice-versa. Maybe if there’s an extract-less Investigator archetype. But otherwise, sometimes people want, for whatever reason, a non-magical character. And the rogue is still there for them.
Not everyone wants to be a druggie, like the investigator.
The Rogue Is Dead; Long Live The Rogue!
I doubt Jason is reading this thread of that he even cares, but if he does I'd like to say: when will the Devs notice that the niche the rogue has tried to fill has failed again and again. This is quite obvious with the new classes.
You can’t build a whole concept on skills and findning traps. The rogue isn’t good enough to be the party’s jack of all trade character. So many other classes to it better and bring more to the table, being able to actually kill things being one of these things other classes do better.
As Cheapy pointed out: “When it comes to the agile light armor fighter type, rogue has been the go-to for a while”. The problem however is that the rogue has never been able to fill that role, not even when Paizo created the Swashbuckler archetype. Nor has the rogue ever been good at assassin aspect that’s so popular amongst players. So now we get the slayer.
If the Devs just tried to put their pride aside and just look at the facts. There are so many classes that are built in the rogue chassis, that it is obvious that the rogue doesn't fill the needs of the high dex, skilled fighter type. The fix has always been to force someone to play the rogue to deal with traps. Make the rogue unique by making her the trap expert and then make sure every adventure has a lot of traps. The problem however is that now any class can find traps and all classes can disable them. Only a few classes can disable magical traps, but those can be dealt with by other means.
To me the Swashbuckler is just as much a rogue as the investigator and Slayer. They are all based on a concept or an idea of what a lot of people wish the rogue could/should have been.
The Ninja, Swashbuckler, investigator and Slayer are all rogues or at least how we wish rogues were done in the first place. I would even go as far and say that unlike the first edition bard, the third edition bard - and Inquisitor and alchemist - have strong ties to the rogue.
I agree with A Man In Black: “I do think the rogue is a weak class. She's worse at fighting to be good at something that often isn't useful, and will often be overshadowed in her own specialty by someone else in the party.”
Unlike A Man In Black however, I think I know how to fix it. The first step is for the Devs to acknowledge the rogue is a problem. From that point on anything is possible.
It's one of the classes I boosted. They still don't get played very often at all. They could definitely use a makeover. Love to see them changed to an Inquisitor-type mechanic instead of sneak attack. A versatile combat system that still has rogue flavor.
They have too many caveats to their main shtick in combat. This shtick can be good. It's hard to do at higher levels with invisibility being easily defeated, concealment extremely common, and fort and will save effects that remove you from combat or kill you common attacks. It makes the rogue dead meat along with the fighter. The fighter can at least do good damage and hit things. Rogue has problems.
I would love to see Paizo rework the Fighter and Rogue to fit in with their new paradigm of two good saves and more versatile abilities for characters. They've done a great job with the Inquisitor, Magus, Ranger, Paladin, and Barbarian. Even the Cavalier can do some spectacular stuff in the right setting. Fighter and Rogue are seriously lacking as main characters (though rogue alternative Ninja is pretty awesome, but could use two good saves).
Simply my .02, which I have no doubt will get flamed by Rogue-haters, but so far I am perfectly happy with how my Rogue it working out.
For Curse of the Crimson Throne I took a Rogue Pirate Archetype and for my 5th level I dipped a level into the Gunslinger Pistolero Archetype to help out with ranged attacks.
Quite frankly I'm not the guy who min-maxes stuff for characters, but someone split down the middle in terms of performance and role-play, and so far my guy's been able to surprise my GM in terms of expectations.
With magic items that I've collected so far and with leveling up bonuses he's got a +10 attack bonus on his melee attacks and a +9 attack bonus on ranged attacks at level 5. His AC is at 21, which is higher than everyone in my group except the Cavalier and a dude who min-maxed a home-brew class thats got an AC above 30 already. His HP is 57 (big thank you to Toughness, a feat well worth investing in)which is higher than the casters and ranged players but lower than the tanks, and my damage has ranged between 7-16, and with a crit range of 17-20/x2, I can get damage rolls of 28-32 roughly 20% of the time, and all thats all without 2d6 Sneak Attack damage.
Sure its nothing compared to what a barbarian, fighter, or cavalier could do, but right now I'm doing more damage than a wizard, rogue/gunslinger/sorcerer, gunslinger/alchemist, and a cavalier/inquisitor, while only getting beat out by a home-brew PC thats meant to have ridiculously high AC and attack/damage rolls in exchange for lousy skill ranks and low HP.
Throw in the fact I normally let the two tanks walk in first before acting as a skirmisher, I've been able to contribute to the team quite effectively, and so far am the one guy who bothered with lots of high skill scores so I normally get shoved into doing all the skill roles anyway.
I'll admit he's not being used to maximum effectiveness, and in hindsight the Swashbuckler may have been a better choice, but he gets the job done. And at level 7 I can just piss off the GM by letting him take Leadership and solve half his problems with a pirate ship blasting opponents from a distance.
Like I said, thats my .02. Let the haters blast away once more!
Hate to break it to ya MartialPlayer603 but if you played in our game you would be right here on the boards upset.
See you would have the lowest hit points(actually untrue as yours is a few points above our wizard),AC and do considerably less damage than even the healing focused cleric in my group. You would die or have to be rescued often.
Can you not see that this isn't about rogue Haters but about people who love/like the rogue who can't make him work in a group?
I mean sure if I was playing in a game where the barbarian had a 17 cha and duel wielded daggers as a halfling for role playing effect and the cleric spent every round spamming channeling and the DM set encounters accordingly...Rogue would be fine as is! Nothing to see here!
The fact that I play in a Pathfinder game where all of the players try and push what can be done,try and take on really hard encounters where everyone is depended on to give 200% ruins that.
I wish people would realize this isn't about burning up on the rogue. We frigging love the rogue!
You can't design a role playing game based around killing things,make splatbooks ect that add more and more options and power to the class's so that the bar keeps getting pushed further and further up and then act like it doesn't matter how you do in regards to the bar.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've heard a lot of people who think the rogues are fine, that those who disagree are "rogue haters." I don't think this is an adequate assessment. Were we really "haters" we wouldn't bother with them. We'd recognize that they suck, and move on. But this is rarely the case. Most of the time, when people say "The rogue sucks and here's why" it rarely ends there. There's usually some level of analysis of why the rogue sucks and what could be done, even as a general concept. If the people who think the rogues suck hated them, there'd be no attempt to fix them.
Before anyone tries to say "well, what about the people who say 'just play a Slayer/Alchemist/Bard/ect'?" keep in mind, these responses are to different prompts: One is "Does the rogue suck?" to which the answer is "Yes, heres why, and here's how it could be fixed", the other is "No the rogue doesn't suck; you just need to roleplay better/you just need the right build/they're better at some specially-designed-for-the-rogue task thought up for this thread/it's never happened in my game, so it's not a problem" to which the response is "Here's a rogue-replacement that can be roleplayed just as well, doesn't need a precise build, and performs the specifically designed task just as well". The latter is not particularly productive, I'll grant you, since neither will really cede their position, but they're not being "haters"; they're simply pointing out how the rogue, as a class, under-performs even at the niche it's supposed to be strongest at.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the Devs just tried to put their pride aside and just look at the facts. There are so many classes that are built in the rogue chassis, that it is obvious that the rogue doesn't fill the needs of the high dex, skilled fighter type. The fix has always been to force someone to play the rogue to deal with traps. Make the rogue unique by making her the trap expert and then make sure every adventure has a lot of traps. The problem however is that now any class can find traps and all classes can disable them. Only a few classes can disable magical traps, but those can be dealt with by other means.
I would be more or less happy if the existence of the rogue do not make the investigaror and the slayer bad classes.
It was just a playtest but what happened to the investigator was not good.
If the Devs just tried to put their pride aside and just look at the facts. There are so many classes that are built in the rogue chassis, that it is obvious that the rogue doesn't fill the needs of the high dex, skilled fighter type. The fix has always been to force someone to play the rogue to deal with traps. Make the rogue unique by making her the trap expert and then make sure every adventure has a lot of traps. The problem however is that now any class can find traps and all classes can disable them. Only a few classes can disable magical traps, but those can be dealt with by other means.
I would be more or less happy if the existence of the rogue do not make the investigaror and the slayer bad classes.
It was just a playtest but what happened to the investigator was not good.
There is still time until ACG is released so we can always hope, but even if things turn as ugly as we fear then we will finally have something that the rogue is good at and that is humstringing other classes that dare to claim relation to the rogue.
I like rogues 'as is'.
I haven't read the past 10 pages of comments, but I can't find the problem with rogues.
I do however houserule some of the other 'very powerful' (YMMV) classes... magic users of all classes have some powers reduced. Fighter gets a small/medium boost. Barbarian is ok 'as is'.
A lot depends on the DM and I let all classes and players shine.
So no, they don't suck. Their DPS (or whatever that cr@p is called) is 'low', but I let them shine in other ways (skills, social, ...)
But that's just me!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like rogues 'as is'.
I haven't read the past 10 pages of comments, but I can't find the problem with rogues.
I do however houserule some of the other 'very powerful' (YMMV) classes... magic users of all classes have some powers reduced. Fighter gets a small/medium boost. Barbarian is ok 'as is'.
So, basically, you're saying "Rogues aren't too weak, every other class is too strong!"
That still argues that rogues are seriously underpowered and ineffective, if everything else needs to be nerfed to get the flavor you want.
I wonder is it's just the name Rogue that gets us into trouble?
What if it was the Wizard that was in Rogues exact same boat?
What if Wizard was a class that had its main abilities farmed out to other even non-casting class's?
What if one of the bards archetypes gave full arcane caster assess and spells? Then other archetypes started doing the same thing? A few books later and the wizard had subpar options and degraded some of the wizards spellpower while awarding those same spells to more and more class's.
If Wizards suddenly found themselves the lowest damage dealers and with no more arcane knowledge or might than other class's that offered other options as well as arcane spellcasting!
Would Wizards take to the boards crying foul and be meet with naysayers spouting "Wizard isn't a damage dealing class! Your a Wizard for Gods sake! Don't try and compete with other class's just sit back and enjoy being Supernatural and Magical!
So what if the Paladin can cast fireballs that are better than yours and the Barbarian can out knowledge you on arcane matters! You are a Wizard! This isn't a mmo! Everything isn't about damage!
The next time you are in a group and everyone else is defeating the evil badguys and you have nothing to do...simply look awesome and mysterious!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem was that some classes were designed with more love than others. Look at the bard, obviously the designer of the class just loved the concept and wanted to make the bard a great class.
The same for the ranger.
But what dev really liked the poor monk or rogue?
I like rogues 'as is'.
I haven't read the past 10 pages of comments, but I can't find the problem with rogues.
I do however houserule some of the other 'very powerful' (YMMV) classes... magic users of all classes have some powers reduced. Fighter gets a small/medium boost. Barbarian is ok 'as is'.
A lot depends on the DM and I let all classes and players shine.
So no, they don't suck. Their DPS (or whatever that cr@p is called) is 'low', but I let them shine in other ways (skills, social, ...)
But that's just me!
Good on you as a DM, then.
But what dev really liked the poor monk or rogue?
Well, looking at the development history, I think the monk at least has some secret support. Every once in a while someone tries to sneak something that's actually good for the monk into a book. (Brass knuckles, styles, etc.) It'll come out, everyone will celebrate, and the Dev team will go "Oh snap, the monk got a nice thing! What have we done? MUST NERF NAOWWW!"
Versus the Rogue, where an otherwise decent (not great, just decent) ability will come pre-nerfed with a 1/day rider. Then it gets special gifts like rumormonger.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like Commoners 'as is'.
I haven't read a single thing about build-craft, but I can't find the problem with Commoners.
I do however houserule some of the other 'very powerful' (YMMV) classes like Mystic Theurges and player Munchkins who insist on being Kobalds...
A lot depends on the DM and I let all classes and players shine.
So no, they don't suck. Their DPS (or whatever that cr@p is called) is 'low', everything they do some other class does better, but I let them shine in other ways (skills, social, ...) because shining is wonderfully insubstantial and thinking about what a character does is too concrete and difficult.
But that's just me!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like rogues 'as is'.Apparently you only like the rogue in your house-ruled enviroment.
I haven't read the past 10 pages of comments, but I can't find the problem with rogues.
Sometimes reading other people's opinions helps with finding problems.
Because it will probably get buried: Rogues do not suck.
They have the potential to do lots of damage if you are crafty and/or have a flanking buddy. They have a boatload of skill points to do whatever needs to be done. I've seen some rogues practically break the game on craftiness.
Ultimately, play what you feel is fun. I'm a "power gamer" but even I like to shoot for playing fun and unique characters that do their job well (trying to figure out how to make a throwing build.)
Ok, we've established they suck under all but the most special of snowflake conditions. So how do we fix them because the thief is an archetype (in the classic sense)?
And while we're at it, why not fix the monk. Their supposed to be the baddest of the bad in an oriental setting but instead they are nerfed to the nth degree.
I suggest some changes to the whole set up of finding traps, opening locks, and scouting in urban environments or giving them some useful dex based combat options.
For the monk give them d10 hd like other fighters and bump their martial feats a bit.
Just my two coppers
Karl
There's also if it ain't broke don't fix it. If people haven't had an issue with rogue in their game why would they take the time to read about why its a problem??
"We just play core and enjoy a simple heavy rp game. I like how I can backstab with my rogue"
"Omg ur maths are flawz0red!"
People keep going after the devs as if they designed the game to play just the way you play it. Maybe they didn't design the rogue to be a dpr master or super specialize in one niche area. Maybe they wanted something that was decent in different areas instead of making A team characters that must be awsome sauce at one role. Maybe they didn't anticipate people just auto adding ninjas to their games like a mechanics free for all and thought it'd be a rarity people would only add as it fit into the setting appropriately like how dnd used to be.
I am playing a PbP where the rogues would not have problem because the overall optimization is low. Heck, we have a healer (me) and a crossbowman that deals 1d8 damage at level 2.
But then I could play others PbP where the optimization is higer and then the rogue suffers, that is how it is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If they came in and said no class can mechanically do better than what the rogue can do! and then refused to read other posts, yes, that would be silly.
They do though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rogue concept itself (not just the class) doesn't work very well in Pathfinder as it is most commonly played.
Pathfinder design priorities seem to be:
- Everyone is good at multiple things and no class is essential.
(This means rogues can't have monopoly on anything vital. Either multiple classes can handle traps, or handling traps must be non-essential. Same goes for stealth and other traditional rogue strengths.)
- This is a team game. Never split the group. (This means that solo tasks like scouting and disarming are dangerous / brief / rare.)
- Do not exceed Wealth By Level. (So if you want to break into the house of the richest guy in town and steal his stuff, the average GM is going to say No.)
- There are lots of big weird monsters to fight. (Which means that if rogues are to be specialists in Disarm and Trip there's going to be lots of situations where they're weak.)
- Combat takes up most of the rules and often most of the game time. (Since rogues are defined as 'better out of combat than fighters' they must also be 'worse in combat than fighters'.)
- Magic can do anything. (If you have the right spell, skills can be boosted by +20 - like invisibility for stealth - or made irrelevant - Fly beats Climb - so being the best at skills is of limited scope by the time you reach higher levels.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is someone expected to read 10 pages before being allowed to give their opinion? If they came in and said no class can mechanically do better than what the rogue can do! and then refused to read other posts, yes, that would be silly.
If people want to say the rogue doesn't suck with the inference being (for me and my games) and don't want to read 10 pages about DPR then what's wrong with that?
Edit: It really depends on the person's definition of "sucks". If its they have to be the best of the best of the best at one facet, then sure rogue sucks. That's not everyone's definition of what means a class sucks.
The problem with the post you are referring to is that he not only told us that he didn't read the thread but that he house-ruled all but 2 classes. And in this special enviroment he thinks that the rogue is fine.
Not helpful at all.| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So you like the sneaky thief trope and want to play Pathfinder. The fact that many other classes can mechanically fill this niche better than the class that was designed to do so means there is a problem with the class. To deny this is merely sticking your head in the sand. The rogue is not "unplayable" but it has problems.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If people want to say the rogue doesn't suck with the inference being (for me and my games) and don't want to read 10 pages about DPR then what's wrong with that?
Probably the part where it's not ten pages about DPR. But more about ten pages a great number of things.
Also, I always kind of funny how people point out Wizards in DPR anything without full understanding of what makes wizards good.
It's not DPR.
Wizards might technically not have top notch DPR due to being more nova oriented but at many tables in effect they are the king of Damage.
Yes,a wizard will never even hold a candle to a Rogue's damage per round if fighting hundreds of rounds(or whatever)but any class that can nova out the VAST amounts of damage a well prepared Wizard can for a limited number of times per day is still considered by most to be top notch damage dealer.
Given that damage is only a small part of the Wizards area of expertise doesn't mean it isn't there.
|
"They're taking big, violent stabs at each other..."
"...they're fretting over details as though their lives depend on it..."
"...they're either setting traps or falling into them..."
"...they have quick reflexes..."
"...they rely chiefly on evasion to survive each others' barbs..."
"...when all else fails, they remain incorrigible gadflies..."
"...and they're depriving each other of what's really valuable."
"I guess if you don't like playing a Rogue in the actual game, it's better to play PbP!"
"D'OH-HOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOOOOOOOOO!!!"
There's also if it ain't broke don't fix it. If people haven't had an issue with rogue in their game why would they take the time to read about why its a problem??
"We just play core and enjoy a simple heavy rp game. I like how I can backstab with my rogue"
"Omg ur maths are flawz0red!"
People keep going after the devs as if they designed the game to play just the way you play it. Maybe they didn't design the rogue to be a dpr master or super specialize in one niche area. Maybe they wanted something that was decent in different areas instead of making A team characters that must be awsome sauce at one role. Maybe they didn't anticipate people just auto adding ninjas to their games like a mechanics free for all and thought it'd be a rarity people would only add as it fit into the setting appropriately like how dnd used to be.
Maybe this is the answer: Backstab (with Sneak Attack rules: Denied Dex, Flanking, etc).
We multiply damage instead of adding damage dice. All non-extra-damage dice multipled(So base weapon, Str, enhancement, the works)Level 1-4: X2
Level 5-8: X3
Level 9-12: X4
Level 13-16: x5
Level 14-20: X6
I think, Rogues might be better if we do this.
Am I the only one who finds it ironic that the rogue's main class features and thus role in the game seems to have been stolen?
Who stole the Rogues Iconic ability to look cool?