| ParagonDireRaccoon |
I have some thoughts on fighters and rogues in Pathfinder, specifically the "fighters and rogues are mechanically weak" discussion:
The improvements Pathfinder made to the d20 mechanics benefit other classes more than fighter and rogues. I've posted this observation before, and there appear to be two main schools of thoughts on the matter. Some gamers point to the fact that players both play and enjoy playing both classes. Other gamers point out that the fighter isn't the best at combat and has little out of combat utility, and the rogue is generally weaker in combat than other classes and no longer plays a vital role.
The mechanical improvements PF made to d20 include more feats, improving skills by an order of magnitude, more class features and more frequent class features, and making WBL and magic item acquisition more consistent. The skills are one of the bigger improvements. In 3E you got skills x4 at first level and there were many redundant skills (hide and move silently instead of stealth, spot and listen instead of perception). Pathfinder replaced skills x4 at first level with the +3 bonus for class skills and added traits to make any skill a class skill. Now any class can be good at stealth and perception and any other skill, so the rogue is no longer needed to be the skill guy. The fighter loses out in the skills department with only two skill points per level and a greater incentive to spend traits on combat bonuses.
The rogue was the best at skills, stealth, and dealt considerable damage with sneak attack in 3E. Now any class can be good at skills and stealth, and the rogue got fewer new class features and options compared to the barbarian or ranger. In 3E a rogue could tumble to get flanking and pair up with a martial to take out a BBEG, then fight defensively until the party cleared out the BBEG's henchmen. Now, those henchmen barbarians and rangers are a lot tougher and other classes can deal more damage than the rogue, so the rogue no longer shines in dealing damage.
The fighter loses out a little because of the increased feats in comparison with other classes. In 3E a fighter got a lot more feats than other classes, so if you wanted to build an archer or THF whirlwind attack character fighter was the best option. Now a ranger can be a better archer and any class has the feats for any of the combat feat trees.
WBL and Ye Olde Magick Shoppe also benefit other classes more than the fighter and rogue. Now it is easier to customize magic gear to fit a particular build. This tends to benefit other classes more, a bad touch cleric or wildshaping druid can be better in melee and have full spellcasting. In 3E there was less customization of magic gear, so the fighter could be the best tank/front line fighter. Now several classes can outshine the fighter on the front line and have a lot of out of combat utility. And any class can be good as the party face or at any number of skills, so the versatiliy of the rogue no longer stands out.
My observation is there is a bit of a generational gap in viewing the fighter and rogue. Gamers who played 1E, 2E, and 3E before PF seem more likely to focus on how the fighter and rogue can still fill the roles they've always filled, and focus less on how other classes can outshine them in those roles. Younger gamers are (subjectively) more objective, and seem more likely to focus on how other classes can do those things as well or better and also do other things.