| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The complaint people have is that there are all of these new options that yes, outshine the Rogue and Fighter, but those two classes aren't getting anything new or useful in compensation, so the classes are just getting worse and worse, whereas other classes (both new and old) are getting better and better.
That being said, I doubt people have said "Give them the nerfbat," I believe their sentiments are more along the lines of "Give the Fighter and Rogue other nice stuff."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed completely 100%. I think someone even mentioned something along of the lines of "If the Slayer is supposed to be a ranger rogue, it will always be weaker than the ranger because it is part rogue, but always stronger than the rogue because it is part ranger." Sad. Hilarious. Totally true.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That being said, I doubt people have said "Give them the nerfbat," I believe their sentiments are more along the lines of "Give the Fighter and Rogue other nice stuff."
I thought swoosh was talking about the developer talk in the ACG where they aimed to keep the investigator at a lower combat ability than the rogue. Hard to nerfbat something that doesn't exist yet, but... yeah. I think there was also some chat in the slayer discussion. It got quiet a bit of commentary about how people weren't happy about that type of idealism because they weren't happy with things that were underpowered being used as a standard, if I remember right.
That said, I can't find a lot of post in either of those discussions that I can remember being there. So maybe I'm just going crazy.
Edit: Gosh, ACG must be a hot topic now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, it wouldn't take an entire new edition for Paizo to redo 3 core classes would it? I mean, keep all of their current class features and just add a few more. Buff bad rogue talents and print new ones. Buff fighter-only feats and print new ones. It could be one Companion book even. Heck, the new class features for Fighter and Rogue could be errata put on the Paizo website for free.
Also, it wouldn't take an entire new edition for Paizo to redo 3 core classes would it?
I don't think its part of their MO to try and buff classes that are seen as underpowered or nerf ones seen as overpowered, especially not in core. I think the only big change that has been made is to the monk, and that was after a nerf to his flurry stood for several months and a lot of other things happened in between. I think its more their MO to defend their content, though YMMV.
|
I thought swoosh was talking about the developer talk in the ACG where they aimed to keep the investigator at a lower combat ability than the rogue. Hard to nerfbat something that doesn't exist yet, but... yeah.
As I understand it, this wasn't precisely the issue. The issue was with them doing literally the exact same thing as a Rogue (Sneak Attack, basically) only unambiguously better. Doing something else that's possibly mechanically more effective, but also distinctly different (like the revised version of Studied Strike suggested towards the end) is fine, it's doing the exact same thing only better that's the issue.
Just to be clear.
And to the OP: They really don't seem to be balancing new content based on the Fighter and Rogue's level of capability, just take a look at the Ninja...
And to the OP: They really don't seem to be balancing new content based on the Fighter and Rogue's level of capability, just take a look at the Ninja...
Better yet, look at the arcanist, or oracle, or summoner, or magus, or alchemist, or...
|
|
And to the OP: They really don't seem to be balancing new content based on the Fighter and Rogue's level of capability, just take a look at the Ninja...Better yet, look at the arcanist, or oracle, or summoner, or magus, or alchemist, or...
True...but the Ninja really is "Rogue, only better." making the point more obvious.
Also, it wouldn't take an entire new edition for Paizo to redo 3 core classes would it? I mean, keep all of their current class features and just add a few more. Buff bad rogue talents and print new ones. Buff fighter-only feats and print new ones. It could be one Companion book even. Heck, the new class features for Fighter and Rogue could be errata put on the Paizo website for free.
The problem with that is the game is so far along, fixing it now only provides a problem, especially for all of the current customers who have published copies not wanting to look stuff up and the like.
On top of which, Paizo is under the impression that there is no problem with the two classes, ergo they feel there is no need to change them. Good luck convincing them otherwise, unfortunately...
On top of which, Paizo is under the impression that there is no problem with the two classes, ergo they feel there is no need to change them. Good luck convincing them otherwise, unfortunately...
Its possible some people think there is a problem but aren't allowed to admit it because business. [/Conspiracytheory]
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
On top of which, Paizo is under the impression that there is no problem with the two classes, ergo they feel there is no need to change them. Good luck convincing them otherwise, unfortunately...Its possible some people think there is a problem but aren't allowed to admit it because business. [/Conspiracytheory]
I honestly hope that is the case. If thats the case, then their analytical abilities are on a tier I can at least respect, even if they can't admit it.
|
|
Paizo, as well as all the other gaming companies out there, has a problem. They must publish or they will perish. Thus they must constantly be coming up with new stuff. In order to get people to buy the new stuff once they've already spent money on the old stuff the new stuff has to be "sexier" in some sense. That necessarily entails a certain amount of "inflation" in what new classes and new abilities can do.
It is really hard for companies to break out of that mold. Ideally one could publish a basic system with the additional books coming out later just providing fluff for different campaign settings. Some companies have tried that with reasonable success but the problem of "inflation" with some of the gee whiz stuff added for some campaign world's still remains.
The only real cure as I see it is for GMs to rigidly define what is acceptable in their worlds in terms of only allowing material from a limited set of source books. People interested in the system would likely still buy the additional books just because not all GMs are going to agree on which source books they will allow.
And to the OP: They really don't seem to be balancing new content based on the Fighter and Rogue's level of capability, just take a look at the Ninja...Better yet, look at the arcanist, or oracle, or summoner, or magus, or alchemist, or...
The problem ofcourse is these classes are casters. They have the 'caster' chasis. So the point of comparison isnt hte rogue or fighter. The op is concerned with mundane classes that dont have 'well magic' as their excuse for being awesome.
|
|
My own view of the Ninja is skewed a bit, since the pre-gen only has a Con of 10 and dies a lot.
To go forward about five years from now, the one class that needs a complete over haul is the Monk. Get rid of all the static class abilities that do nothing in game, please!!
It isn't hard to outshine the Monk, I notice that no one even mentioned the poor thing.
|
My own view of the Ninja is skewed a bit, since the pre-gen only has a Con of 10 and dies a lot.
To go forward about five years from now, the one class that needs a complete over haul is the Monk. Get rid of all the static class abilities that do nothing in game, please!!
It isn't hard to outshine the Monk, I notice that no one even mentioned the poor thing.
It's because the Monk was "fixed" with enough archetype and feat support that it actually isn't particularly hard to build a good monk if you have access to the PRD. The Core class has a lot of non-complimentary or highly conditional features, but between Qinggong (or however it's spelled) being compatible with pretty much everything and archetypes like the Sensei, Tetori, Sohei, Zen Archer, etc., you can build a good monk. It's harder to build a Fighter or Rogue that both fills a unique niche and manages to be an equal contributor throughout the game, particularly after you get out of those first 5 levels of play where the Fighter and Rogue are still managing to look good and holding their own.
My own view of the Ninja is skewed a bit, since the pre-gen only has a Con of 10 and dies a lot.
I am confused as to what the strength of a pre-gen has to do with the strength of a class.
Or perhaps some optiosn have to be inferior to other options.On top of which, Paizo is under the impression that there is no problem with the two classes, ergo they feel there is no need to change them. Good luck convincing them otherwise, unfortunately...Its possible some people think there is a problem but aren't allowed to admit it because business. [/Conspiracytheory]
I'm 100% certain that this is untrue. Human error or deliberate design paradigms can create this, but nothing requires that some options be strictly better or strictly worse. Look at Rule of Cool's Legend for a great example of asymmetric balance.
Reading some of the ACG playtest stuff I saw a few mentions of things like "Well if we do this they'll outshine the rogue, so we'll probably tone that back".
Please, please don't keep this mentality. The fighter and rogue are bad. Really, really bad. The target goal should at least be the barbarian. Or maybe you can stack them up against nonmundanes like the inquisitor or magus... but please not the fighter or rogue.
I agree with you in general, although i think that the ranger should be the target goal and not the barbarian for martials.
|
|
My own view of the Ninja is skewed a bit, since the pre-gen only has a Con of 10 and dies a lot.I am confused as to what the strength of a pre-gen has to do with the strength of a class.
The alternate class (something that these new hybrids are gonna be also) just didn't gel with me when I played the Pre-Gen, and I look at it from another side, one as the GM, and see that the lower level one is... lacking.
Might be a good class to Dip into, cept the Rogue can't do that, but, again, my view of it is skewed, see above.
Also, it wouldn't take an entire new edition for Paizo to redo 3 core classes would it? I mean, keep all of their current class features and just add a few more. Buff bad rogue talents and print new ones. Buff fighter-only feats and print new ones. It could be one Companion book even. Heck, the new class features for Fighter and Rogue could be errata put on the Paizo website for free.
Those are core rule book classes. Releasing a years later that adds X, Y and Z to the class officially means buying the core isn't getting you the core rules.
It's better to obsolete the fighter and rogue with new and better classes. The rogue and fighter would still be the same in the CRB for anyone new to the game buying that book and the option to play a class that does the job better is available in later books.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On top of which, Paizo is under the impression that there is no problem with the two classes, ergo they feel there is no need to change them.
And I agree with Paizo. Sure, at the highest levels, full spell caster rule over just about ALL non-spellcasting classes.
But we have both in our games, and up thru 13th level, those two classes are fun to play and contribute.
What nice is that the niches are also filled by many other classes. Don't like the rogue? Bard, Inquisitor, some Ranger variants, etc. Don't like the Fighter? Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin, Cavalier, etc.
Plenty of players really enjoy playing both classes.
But we have both in our games, and up thru 13th level, those two classes are fun to play and contribute.
Devil's advocate ask why it has to stop at 13th.
The fighter and rogue are bad. Really, really bad.The fighter is good. Really, really good, if you have the system mastery and the will.
He's as good as the feats he can take.
But we have both in our games, and up thru 13th level, those two classes are fun to play and contribute.Devil's advocate ask why it has to stop at 13th.
Because that's how high my highest level PF game has gone, out of many. Thus, I can state categorically that's there's no real issue with those classes- for those who want to play that sort of class. In our style of games. James Jacobs has also said he has played and has rogue played in his games and there's been no issue either.
So, that's our style of games and the Designers own style of games. That does't mean it holds true fro every game style, of course.
True, I have played other D&D variants, and can say that once spell casters get 9th level spells, they can do anything and everything, thus any other type of class becomes obsolete. The disparity isn't too bad until you get to double-digit levels, but it's there.
Now, from what I have seen, PF is somewhat better balanced that 3.5. Thereby I can't state for sure when the disparity will be obvious, but it hasn't happened yet.
I found quickened mirror image to be a very powerful ninja trick that really ups their defenses. Not to mention the ease with which they sneak attack make them an effective class.
Sure, at the highest levels, full spell caster rule over just about ALL non-spellcasting classes.
There is not need to speack about full caster when comparing against Fighter and rogues.
How many of you people play with mythic tiers? I find that mythic stacks with the more vanilla options better than the "cool" ones.
Especially rogue and fighter.
Fighters go guardian with mythic vital strike and suddenly they are just as scary as the Champion Superstitious pouncing barbar. And those trickster rogues more less match up or surpass every other wannabe mythic skillmonkey.
I don't really have an issue with the classes myself in the core game. I am aware of flaws, fighters saves, rogue's sneak attack could stand to hurt more, rogues are very hard to build and many iconic niches (TWF slayer) just don't work (much like a dex/wis monk). I feel like these issues are over-hyped and don't really translate well to a party setting (except for flanking dependent rogues, you gonna have a bad time).
I found quickened mirror image to be a very powerful ninja trick that really ups their defenses.
Shadow Clone (Su): The ninja can create 1d4 shadowy duplicates of herself that conceal her true location. This ability functions as mirror image, using the ninja's level as her caster level. Using this ability is a standard action that uses up 1 ki point.
Is there a trick I'm missing to quicken that?
My mistake, but still a very powerful defensive combat option.
True...but the Ninja really is "Rogue, only better." making the point more obvious.And to the OP: They really don't seem to be balancing new content based on the Fighter and Rogue's level of capability, just take a look at the Ninja...Better yet, look at the arcanist, or oracle, or summoner, or magus, or alchemist, or...
No trapfinding. Ninjas are better for combat-oriented games, but worse for dungeon crawls.
No trapfinding. Ninjas are better for combat-oriented games, but worse for dungeon crawls.True...but the Ninja really is "Rogue, only better." making the point more obvious.And to the OP: They really don't seem to be balancing new content based on the Fighter and Rogue's level of capability, just take a look at the Ninja...Better yet, look at the arcanist, or oracle, or summoner, or magus, or alchemist, or...
Trapfinding is easy to get(spells/trait/dip), boring to use(roll to take damage and heal or walk through), bad design(niche), and there are other ways to get around traps(mount spell...).
Ninja has this nifty thing where he can turn invisible to get his sneak attacks better. Its... supernatural though.
Yup, the trapfinding trait was like the last nail in the rogue´s coffin. It was like "this AP will ahve a lot of traps, but we will not force ou to play an subpar class, here, take this trait".
Would've been easier just to let everyone else disarm magical traps imo...
No trapfinding. Ninjas are better for combat-oriented games, but worse for dungeon crawls.True...but the Ninja really is "Rogue, only better." making the point more obvious.And to the OP: They really don't seem to be balancing new content based on the Fighter and Rogue's level of capability, just take a look at the Ninja...Better yet, look at the arcanist, or oracle, or summoner, or magus, or alchemist, or...Trapfinding is easy to get(spells/trait/dip), boring to use(roll to take damage and heal or walk through), bad design(niche), and there are other ways to get around traps(mount spell...).
Ninja has this nifty thing where he can turn invisible to get his sneak attacks better. Its... supernatural though.
I tend to think that using Campaign traits outside of the campaign is bad form, but perhaps that's just me. If you're dipping to get Trapfinding, you're still making use of the class, and most magic solutions to traps assume a level of preparation that can't always be relied upon. The trait was necessary because no AP should *require* a single class in order to succeed.
IMO, a simple fix for the Rogue's trapfinding would be to give them the free Perception roll to notice traps within 10 feet as part of the base ability, rather than making it a Rogue Trick. I'd replace that Trick with one that lets you trade out the sneak attack for some kind of debuff attack that doesn't require flanking or surprise. It fits in better with the Rogue's role as melee support.
That said, you can still make a perfectly serviceable, survivable character with the Rogue as it currently exists (ditto Fighter). People tend to exaggerate how "bad" they are.
I tend to think that using Campaign traits outside of the campaign is bad form, but perhaps that's just me.
Can be, obviously your not out finding haleen in every adventure ever, but the trapfinding one is especially not campaign specific in flavor.
Well, giving fighter 4 + int skill per level will be the easier errata ever, but It will not happen.
Well yeah, I mean clearly 2+ is enough. It makes up for all their fighty power! [/totallynotserious]
I agree with spectrevk . It;s the duty of a DM to set campaign parameters, and "everyone ever from any book or publication, including 3/5 and 3pp" is too broad, IMHO. Generally, for these kinds of discussions, whatever is on the PRD is a reasonable start for comparisons, and that trait is not there.
|
|
Well, giving fighter 4 + int skill per level will be the easier errata ever, but It will not happen.Yup, the trapfinding trait was like the last nail in the rogue´s coffin. It was like "this AP will ahve a lot of traps, but we will not force ou to play an subpar class, here, take this trait".Would've been easier just to let everyone else disarm magical traps imo...
Lore Warden
Make your Warden Human with a 12 intelligence and you can get 7 skill points/level.
Lore WardenWell, giving fighter 4 + int skill per level will be the easier errata ever, but It will not happen.Yup, the trapfinding trait was like the last nail in the rogue´s coffin. It was like "this AP will ahve a lot of traps, but we will not force ou to play an subpar class, here, take this trait".Would've been easier just to let everyone else disarm magical traps imo...
Doesn't actually give 4+ Skill Points and SKR actually said the lore warden gave too much at one point.
Probably a bit off topic.