|
Hello all.
The messageboards will tell you that the three mechanically weakest classes are Monks, Rogues, and Fighters. Fighters, however, get slightly different responses because at least they are truly the best at their role of all the full-BAB classes [save Gunslinger, who kinda cheats the AC rules]. So that leaves Monks and Rogues. There are plenty of threads on Monks and plenty of threads on Rogues, and often the Monk threads will say rogues are better and the Rogue threads will say Monks are better. So I come here with a question, which class is mechanically stronger from an objective standpoint, Monk or Rogue?
Hello all.
The messageboards will tell you that the three mechanically weakest classes are Monks, Rogues, and Fighters. Fighters, however, get slightly different responses because at least they are truly the best at their role of all the full-BAB classes [save Gunslinger, who kinda cheats the AC rules]. So that leaves Monks and Rogues. There are plenty of threads on Monks and plenty of threads on Rogues, and often the Monk threads will say rogues are better and the Rogue threads will say Monks are better. So I come here with a question, which class is mechanically stronger from an objective standpoint, Monk or Rogue?
** spoiler omitted **** spoiler omitted **** spoiler omitted **
Ninjas are rogue alternate class, basically a bigger archetype: do they count as Rogue for this topic?
|
|
Ninjas are rogue alternate class, basically a bigger archetype: do they count as Rogue for this topic?
Hmm, interesting question, I'm inclined to say yes since they do stack with rogue archetypes. That said, I think it would be nice to see Rogue and Ninja comparisons both, because there are people who consider Ninja to be a completely different class.
|
|
What is this thread's stance on which books / archetypes are allowed? Is this a core-only comparison? I guess if Ninja is classified as Rogue, then it includes UC.
Also what about gear? Do you count things like Sniper Goggles?
How about multiclass dips? Like a 1-level dip into Oracle for Water Sight + Obscuring Mist for Rogues?
Is this a combat-only comparison? Does this thread care about skills / out of combat?
What level is this thread looking at? Level 1? Level 20? What about Mythic Tiers?
I has assumed all non-3pp material for books, and that Multiclassing would be fine as long as you had mostly [like 6/10 minimum] monk or rogue levels. Not just a combat comparison, but there has to be a significant contribution to combat as all PF games have combat in them at some point or another.
Well, for almost all intents and purposes, Ninja's are just better rogues. With the ability to turn invisible on demand, mirror image on demand, and being MUCH better with poisons (poison use by default and they got that very nifty poison bomb ability. If you dip into alchemist, you can very easily alter the poison type to make everything inhalation and abuse the bombs with some fun ease).
As for the ACTUAL rogue, honestly it is horrid. Why? Because, as has been said many times before, many other classes can do what the rogue does but better or can do everything the rogue does AND THEN SOME. While they cannot do everything at the same time, they don't need to. For instance, if you want a skill monkey scouty time rogue: The Crypt Breaker alchemist, the investigator, and the trapper ranger.
Outside of Core, Monk has gotten some decent archetypes to help fix a weak base in Core. Rogue... has gotten significantly less and as time marches on more and more of its role seems to be divided up amongst other classes. Objectively, I'd say the Monk is better then the Rogue, both in and out of core.
Ninja versus a core only Monk I'd have a hard time deciding, but I'd give Monk the edge outside of Core.
Hello all.
The messageboards will tell you that the three mechanically weakest classes are Monks, Rogues, and Fighters. Fighters, however, get slightly different responses because at least they are truly the best at their role of all the full-BAB classes [save Gunslinger, who kinda cheats the AC rules]. So that leaves Monks and Rogues. There are plenty of threads on Monks and plenty of threads on Rogues, and often the Monk threads will say rogues are better and the Rogue threads will say Monks are better. So I come here with a question, which class is mechanically stronger from an objective standpoint, Monk or Rogue?
** spoiler omitted **** spoiler omitted **** spoiler omitted **
A decent core monk can be made if you allow noncore feats, but it is not easy. It is however easier to make a functional rogue in my opinion so to me the rogue has a higher floor, but a lower ceiling than a monk.
PS: I am referring to the core rogue and monk with other splat feats not archetypes. :)
Outside of Core, Monk has gotten some decent archetypes to help fix a weak base in Core.
Yeah, the only real problem I see with the monk is that some of it's best archetypes tend to involve moving away from the traditional monk setup. Zen Archer and Sohei are two of the strongest monk archetypes, but an archer and an armor-wearing weapon-user are both pretty big departures from the classic image of the monk as the shirtless face-puncher.
True Chengar Qordath, but I was only answering the question of which was objectively better. I agree that Zen Archer and Sohei are significant departures from the Core monk.
Rogues are comparatively very squishy and require optimal conditions to function properly. In order to sneak attack you're either completely reliant on party members for flanking or need to pay a steep feat tax to Improved Two Weapon Feint, Moonlight Stalker Feint, Shatter Defenses or gain an Animal Companion for flanking etc. In short you either need a party who set you up or high level of system knowledge to contribute in combat. Even with all this a Rogue is still a soft target for Fort or Will save-or-suck spells, or melee-range retribution. Even assuming you manage to get sneak attack damage it's usually outclassed by a Strength-based Melee character power-attacking. (Let's not mention that most Rogue Talents are fairly pointless, with a few exceptions)
Monks have a great save progression compared to the Rogue, and automatically gain decent survivability with progressing AC bonuses and Wis bonus to AC. They also rely far less on flanking or similar to perform effectively.
Both are somewhat undermined by lack of flexibility though. Defining characteristics of "high-tier" classes are usually the ability to either do everything in combat or summon something that can fill in for their weaknesses. Without significant changes I can't see Rogues (don't know about monks) becoming effective battlefield controllers, debuffers or party buffers.
|
Hello all.
The messageboards will tell you that the three mechanically weakest classes are Monks, Rogues, and Fighters. Fighters, however, get slightly different responses because at least they are truly the best at their role of all the full-BAB classes [save Gunslinger, who kinda cheats the AC rules]. So that leaves Monks and Rogues. There are plenty of threads on Monks and plenty of threads on Rogues, and often the Monk threads will say rogues are better and the Rogue threads will say Monks are better. So I come here with a question, which class is mechanically stronger from an objective standpoint, Monk or Rogue?
** spoiler omitted **** spoiler omitted **** spoiler omitted **
*In regards to Vanilla Fighter/Rogue/Monk only*
My Opinion on Fighters: Fighters really aren't bad off at all. They do great in combat and are fairly versatile depending on what they are fighting. I could understand the complaining about the Skills, but usually there is 1-2 skill monkies in the group covering everything and everyone else becomes redundant. Not to say the other party members' skill's are useless by any means. I can't say I feel the flavor with them though... it tastes bland.My Opinion on Monks: Just bump them up to full BAB and make their Ki Strike(every 4 levels) give a +1 to attack/damage, and make their AC Bonus give +2 every 4 levels instead of +1. They do have several rather pitiful or useless abilities... I'm thankful for Qinggong!(which only makes it a smidgen better really) That should be plenty good. Otherwise, it's a pain due to the MAD issues more than anything. Dumping CHA is a necessity it feels. Lot's of flavor with them though! Makin mah tastebuds dance.
My Opinion on Rogues: Combat-wise, they aren't bad. That sneak attack is what bothers me. Bump it up to a d10, or something like 1d6+DexMod. Either that, or make it easier to get more often. It needs to be more rewarding as-is, or occur more often and be more convenient than rewarding. Skill-wise, pffffft; they're golden! Plenty of flavor with them fo sho.
My Opinion on Who is Stronger between Monk/Rogue:
In Combat: I would say the Monk, purely because they are more consistent; for both PvP and PvE(even though I greatly dislike PvP in a game like this as it just ends with a lot of arguing, lying, and waiting).
RP/Skill-wise: I'd say that's a no-brainer. Rogue. They have so many skill points to push out, and the charisma to boot.
There ya go OP! I hope this helps for whatever you are constructing here.
|
|
The question is if the Temple Sword is a monkish weapon by EP's standards.
First, Sure Temple Swords are monkish. Monks actually did use swords like this, and it fits flavor. Second, I'm not trying to set the standards or restrict things. Its unnecessary to ask if something is "monkish" or "roguish" by my standards. Just try to evade things that are clearly not monkish [bows, etc].
CRB only, I think both are just as bad as each other, although Rogues are better at low level games and Monks are better at levels 7*.
Monks got a lot of cool stuff in other books, though. Some archetypes are pretty good, actually. Rogues, OTOH, got pretty much nothing. They have a couple useful archetypes maybe a cool Rogue talent or two, but 90% of their stuff is useless, and their weak saves, AC and accuracy are still a problem. So Monks win, IMO.
Fighters suck for different reasons.
|
|
As a thing to consider with Monks, unlike the rogue, they have more defenses and are much more likely to survive the campaign than the rogue. They may not bring much to the table, but they have more AC and better Saves by just the CRB, and have certain archetypes that help supplement damage, DR bypassal, and HP. The rogue has 1 archetype that sorta helps with saves by providing a +1 to poor saves, and a couple of rogue talents that kinda help a little with HP in a "HOLY S#!+ I'M DYING" fashion.
I'd rate Rogues as being weaker than Rogues in every category other than that of skill monkey.
In combat, Monks are known for being defensively solid, it's their offense that needs help. With the inclusion of splat books, they can make for pretty decent to good controllers (reach+combat patrol). With very few exceptions, Monks are never going to lead the team in damage so they need to look elsewhere to contribute.
Rogues get to roll a lot of dice via sneak attack, and I'll admit, when you get that flank and you hit 2 or 3 times with a sneak, you fell like a total boss dropping 15d6+ on the table. However, they are notoriously defensibly crap with their awful saves and bad AC and HP meaning they are vulnerable to death or disabling on 3 different fronts. They also suffer from accuracy problems, even the Monk can increase his BAB a little with flurry. They have issues with getting sneak attack, something that is mandatory for the Rogue, while flanking isn't mandatory for the Monk.
Skill wise, the Monk gets 4 and some great skills while the Rogue gets 8 and nearly all skills. Rogue wins skill monkey no question, though the Monk can play a skill monkey if forced to do so.
Flavor wise? Monk wins. Monk is one of the most flavorful classes in the game; he oozes flavor from every poor. The rogue, meanwhile, is almost always set up to be a sneaky, thief, lock-picker with very few exceptions.
The more you move out of core, the more the Monk takes the lead as he's received some strong archetypes, feats and abilities, while the Rogue has received almost nothing (other than the scout archetype) in his favor. It also hasn't helped that as more books have come out, more characters have taken stuff from the Rogue, until the point that even disabling magical traps has been reduced to a trait.
The Ninja, is a completely different story and is hands down better than the Rogue and better than the Monk as well. Hell, some of the Ninja Tricks allows him to play a pseudo-Monk with ease. I think the Monk wins the flavor contest though, as Ninja kind of locks you into the roll of playing... well Ninja.
Role-play wise, while the Rogue has skills, the Monk has lots of abilities, like his amazing acrobatics, his speed, and other things that gives him tons of RP abilities other than just skill points. The Rogue doesn't have that option, not really. The Ninja does, however, and the Ninja beat them both as he's got amazing skill ranks and amazing special abilities to top it off.
As for the Fighter? His biggest problem is out of combat options and will saves. He does his job (fighting) and does it well, even if other classes can do it better. He doesn't have a lot of flavor beyond his feat choices, so he's pretty generic.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd rate Rogues as being weaker than Rogues in every category other than that of skill monkey.
Wow, rogues are even losing to themselves now. I knew the rogue thing was kinda bad, but I never suspected this.
I'd rate Rogues as being weaker than Rogues in every category other than that of skill monkey.Wow, rogues are even losing to themselves now. I knew the rogue thing was kinda bad, but I never suspected this.
You just haven't found out how deep the rabbit hole really goes.
You just haven't found out how deep the rabbit hole really goes.I'd rate Rogues as being weaker than Rogues in every category other than that of skill monkey.Wow, rogues are even losing to themselves now. I knew the rogue thing was kinda bad, but I never suspected this.
well ninjas ARE rogues so.....
well ninjas ARE rogues so.....
Let's not reopen that argument again. They're very like rogues, but are an "alternate class", whatever that may mean. The two are not equivalent, and Ninjas being viable is not the same as Rogues being viable.
IMO - Combat focus.
Fighters are great fighters, and I often consider them the 0 point for comparing other classes. Fighters fit their role well and can be customized easily for what a player wants from the class. Fighters are an easy class to get right and poor choices in feats means less when feats come more often. Their ability to golf-bag weapons also means they can adjust their combat roles on the fly. Fighters also usually benefit from low level dips into other classes, and this seems to almost be a feature of the fighter for how often I have seen it done.
Rogues suffer from being squishy, and compared to a fighter they are harder to build for multiple roles (my rogues often have to choose between "face" or "sneak" or "stabber" abilities, tricks, feats and gear). This limits player creativity and means one bad feat choice is punished for several levels. The skill points are really nice to have, but human wizards can get almost as many with high INT, and a well rounded party will have all the relevant skill checks at the same (or higher) level of the rogue. Low level dips can help the rogue, but these dips can come at a price (noticeably less skill points, offset sneak damage progression, etc).
Ninjas KI abilities make them far less reliant on the party for damage, and they can keep up with teleporting wizards and flying druids somewhat (light steps, ki climb, etc), the forgotten trick is also really handy in making Ninja builds more flexible. Ninjas do suffer from not having evasion, but this is offset slightly by the higher crit ranges of eastern weapons (Wakizashi + Katana), and vanish/mirror image. I see Ninjas as a slightly more combat capable rogue and a general improvement all around.
Monks are MAD, but built right they can be seriously hard to touch and still deliver consistent hits and damage (flurry, stunning fist, etc). A small Monk with some archetypes can have big AC, be fast, hit somewhat hard and often, and stay in the enemies face tripping and debuffing. Monks have fewer roles to fill than a rogue (monks can control or damage) but the bevy of archetypes really helps them fills these roles more easily. The lower skill points usually isn't a determent in a balanced party as everyone can take different strengths. Monks also seem to not get as much benefit from multiclassing as the no armor and need for no or flurry capable weapons can limit choices.
In short, rogues and Ninjas annoy the party because they need certain circumstances to shine, or they use up turns waiting for a flank, or healing from the one hit they took, or simply cannot hit as often (Low BAB). Monks tend to survive more, be a little harder to hit, and spend more turns doing damage or debuffing (trips, sunders, stuns etc). Fighters are fighters, they do the job everyone expects of them, they can tank and do decent damage and adapt more easily with equipment and feats.
A great player can make any class shine, but the question is what class can a bad player take?
A great player can make any class shine, but the question is what class can a bad player take?
Barbarian > Fighter > Paladin > Ranger. Barbarian is one of the easiest classes to play and one of the most powerful. Fighters are easy because mistakes don't hurt for very long and their job is pretty obvious. Paladin is a little tougher as you have more mystical abilities, but still quite easy. Ranger is a great class, but some wrong choices really hurts them, but it's still a pretty easy class to play.
A great player can make any class shine, but the question is what class can a bad player take?Barbarian > Fighter > Paladin > Ranger. Barbarian is one of the easiest classes to play and one of the most powerful. Fighters are easy because mistakes don't hurt for very long and their job is pretty obvious. Paladin is a little tougher as you have more mystical abilities, but still quite easy. Ranger is a great class, but some wrong choices really hurts them, but it's still a pretty easy class to play.
I agree with you here.