I got lots of love for rogues. Roleplay wise they are tons of fun.
I cry when I see how they got shafted by a combination of changes in the play style of the game combined with selective nostalgia and niche protection.
Once upon a time when rogues were still called thieves, traps could kill characters outright if not wipe entire parties. Back then character death was considered normal and gameplay was much more roguelike than collaborative story telling.
Then things changed, the game became more about the story and character death became unfun badwrong. So traps became less deadly, more of an inconvenience really. But selective nostalgia of rogues saving the party from deadly traps got them assigned the niche of trap monkey. This selective nostalgia also gave them sneak attack which is one of their few saving graces, but it is still all but useless at range (because ranged combat is the ranger's niche and you can't be better at it than they are). But then because it gives them fairly consistent DPS selective nostalgia is used again to demand it be nerfed (because get back in your niche trap monkey).
I still love playing rogues despite all of this. If anything I hate how they get marginalized and when playing a rogue I refuse to be shoved into the corner.
Nobody puts Hanse Shadowspan in a corner. I agree with what you are saying. Playing a rogue can be fun. You can never be accused of min maxing when you are playing a rogue.
if you truly love the rogue, give it a quick death.
kinda how a rogue should be able to do it.
Nobody puts Hanse Shadowspan in a corner. I agree with what you are saying. Playing a rogue can be fun. You can never be accused of min maxing when you are playing a rogue.I got lots of love for rogues. Roleplay wise they are tons of fun.
I cry when I see how they got shafted by a combination of changes in the play style of the game combined with selective nostalgia and niche protection.
Once upon a time when rogues were still called thieves, traps could kill characters outright if not wipe entire parties. Back then character death was considered normal and gameplay was much more roguelike than collaborative story telling.
Then things changed, the game became more about the story and character death became unfun badwrong. So traps became less deadly, more of an inconvenience really. But selective nostalgia of rogues saving the party from deadly traps got them assigned the niche of trap monkey. This selective nostalgia also gave them sneak attack which is one of their few saving graces, but it is still all but useless at range (because ranged combat is the ranger's niche and you can't be better at it than they are). But then because it gives them fairly consistent DPS selective nostalgia is used again to demand it be nerfed (because get back in your niche trap monkey).
I still love playing rogues despite all of this. If anything I hate how they get marginalized and when playing a rogue I refuse to be shoved into the corner.
nonsense--youre FORCED to minmax when playing a rogue. Its just more acceptable to the anti-stats players due to the class'... Special needs.
Its just hard to call it cheap/overpowered when youre doing it to break even with everyone else (and irks me to no end when someone actually thinks the rogue is somehow overpowered and in need of a nerf of all things).
Nobody puts Hanse Shadowspan in a corner. I agree with what you are saying. Playing a rogue can be fun. You can never be accused of min maxing when you are playing a rogue.I got lots of love for rogues. Roleplay wise they are tons of fun.
I cry when I see how they got shafted by a combination of changes in the play style of the game combined with selective nostalgia and niche protection.
Once upon a time when rogues were still called thieves, traps could kill characters outright if not wipe entire parties. Back then character death was considered normal and gameplay was much more roguelike than collaborative story telling.
Then things changed, the game became more about the story and character death became unfun badwrong. So traps became less deadly, more of an inconvenience really. But selective nostalgia of rogues saving the party from deadly traps got them assigned the niche of trap monkey. This selective nostalgia also gave them sneak attack which is one of their few saving graces, but it is still all but useless at range (because ranged combat is the ranger's niche and you can't be better at it than they are). But then because it gives them fairly consistent DPS selective nostalgia is used again to demand it be nerfed (because get back in your niche trap monkey).
I still love playing rogues despite all of this. If anything I hate how they get marginalized and when playing a rogue I refuse to be shoved into the corner.
nonsense--youre FORCED to minmax when playing a rogue. Its just more acceptable to the anti-stats players due to the class'... Special needs.
Its just hard to call it cheap/overpowered when youre doing it to break even with everyone else (and irks me to no end when someone actually thinks the rogue is somehow overpowered and in need of a nerf of all things).
That is because GM's see all of those dice from sneak attack and get worried. It also does not help when you put them beside a badly made/played martial, and the rogue ends up doing more damage, and/or some houserule is in play that is not being accounted for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think someone said it already, but I agree that Rogue can be great for dipping. 2-4 levels of Rogue can be fantastic, depending on what you're going for. If you're a martial build that plays off feat trees, 4 levels of Rogue can be much more lucrative than 4 levels of Fighter (assuming that your build needs Weapon Focus, Weapon Finesse and/or any style feat). You get two feats you need, same as you would have from Fighter, plus then you get Sneak Attack (+2d6), evasion, uncanny dodge and a bunch of skill points. That's pretty sweet when all you're giving up for it is 1 point of BAB and 4 hp.
|
I was wondering when someone would use the " it's not poor class design it's your fault that you can't play class xyz" copout. We know a Rogue can have a high AC. It's assuming that a player optimzes from the start. The right build and find dydtem mastery. A DM allows a player to take non-standard items. As well as give out enough money to purchase such items. It's all good to point out that one can take a Mithral Kikko. Not so much when a DM allows core only.
It's all good to point out that one can take a Mithral Kikko. Not so much when a DM allows core only.
Any DM that wants to run this game with Core only should probably just be running 5e. At this point, PF has to justify its existence over D&D 5e, and I think the main thing doing that is the number of choices and the amount of customization available. Take that away and 5e is just a better game.
That said, I think the pressure is now on for PF to develop a more definitive attitude towards game balance, since customization invariably disrupts that. But that's for another thread, I'd say.
My favorite Rogue build is a theory more then a practiced one; but it's a Rogue that accesses the Shattered Defenses chain with a bow, SNap Shot chain, and Thug Rogue. One the first round of combat, using Dazzling Display (Sometimes to even Frighten someone instead of Shaken.), then spreading sneak attacks with rapid shot, and snap shot, or laying down fire one one unfortunate soul.
Hell, it wasn't a sniper sneak; it's a bold battlefield dominator challenging his enemies with psychology.
This is a very cool idea, but as someone who plays a DD Thug build currently I can tell you that you will run into more problems than you might think in the field. The main problem is that Dazzling Display takes a full round action and only works within 30 ft. So you wind up spending a round just getting into position and then a round using the feat before you get to attack anything. On top of that, you definitely nerf the main advantage of bow fighting (range) pretty significantly when your main tactic requires that you get up close to your enemies. Still, it's a cool idea. Might actually work better with a whip...
Incidentally, two levels of Order of the Cockatrice Cavalier reduces DD to a standard action, which helps tremendously.
I like the concept.
anything can conceptually be a 'rogue'. if you do all the things you think a rogue should do (traps, skills, sneaking and stabbing? or dex-based swashbuckling talky guy? or stealthy sniper archer? and so on) you're a rogue, regardless of what the class name on your character sheet says.
@flawed: i find that lack of AC isn't really a problem if you increase your AC laterally (dex->armor->neck->ring->misc.) instead of just through raw armor bonus, but the same is true for literally anyone.
my main problems with the rogue are their lack of accuracy booster (which literally every class other than monk gets access to), utter reliance on a combat mechanic that is spotty at best and unusable at worst (sneak attack is completely shut down in a dark alley, for example), horrible saves (poor fort AND will is a death sentence at/after level 6-9 when all the SoL/SoD's come online for enemies), and lobotomized rogue talents (many of which make you WORSE at a task than if you didnt have them--rumormonger, for example).
the barbarian's rage powers should be a baseline for effectiveness, not a paragon among all other class' talents (magus arcana are good-if-not great as well, and even slayers and investigators have better ones). a class' talent should be worth spending a feat on, rather than spending a talent to emulate a feat because your other options are complete trash.
that everyone and their dog gets to steal class abilities from the rogue (and to much greater effect), and that the rogue doesn't get to return the favor is just a slap in the face--we were told during the playtest that the rogue would have the ability to get things like the investigator's studied combat/strike, or the slayer's favored target (and gotten nothing). that the ACG didn't even let them get access to panache or brawler feat-grabbing (which almost every class did) is terrible.
It's all good to point out that one can take a Mithral Kikko. Not so much when a DM allows core only.Any DM that wants to run this game with Core only should probably just be running 5e. At this point, PF has to justify its existence over D&D 5e, and I think the main thing doing that is the number of choices and the amount of customization available. Take that away and 5e is just a better game.
That said, I think the pressure is now on for PF to develop a more definitive attitude towards game balance, since customization invariably disrupts that. But that's for another thread, I'd say.
I think PF justifies itself just fine. The PRD alone is a big enough reason for me to stick with PF and buy paizo products. I'm not content with only having the "basic rules" when looking over a system.
An SRD also makes looking up rule LOADS easier. WotC can keep their "better game".Also from what I have seen of 5e, it seems like Swords and Wizardry fills the niche better.
I think PF justifies itself just fine. The PRD alone is a big enough reason for me to stick with PF and buy paizo products. I'm not content with only having the "basic rules" when looking over a system.
An SRD also makes looking up rule LOADS easier. WotC can keep their "better game".Also from what I have seen of 5e, it seems like Swords and Wizardry fills the niche better.
PF has a major issue which is game balance, or in other words the fact that there isn't any. No balance means players and GMs have to agree amongst themselves what the internal balance of their game will be, and that is very often an aggravating process.
When I say 5e is a "better game," pretty much all I mean is that by and large it avoids this problem. Since I consider it a major problem though, that's a big deal.
PF does indeed have a lot going for it still. The monsters and tactics are more complex and interesting, especially with the release of Mythic Adventures. But then, tactics are only interesting when there is balance, so we're back to that...
The point is that 5e is much closer to the spirit and design of PF/3e than 4e was, so I think we have to acknowledge that D&D is now in much more competitive territory with PF than before. Have to wait and see what comes of that.
While I like 5E and do believe it is better balanced then 3.5, once again Casters have the run of the joint. Animate Dead and Animate Object are both incredibly powerful. Contagion is pretty much a guaranteed win against any one enemy. Simulacrum is back and just as overpowered though oddly enough wants you to use it to copy monsters instead of yourself. Wish is still crazy powerful, though the drawback at least is fairly severe, it's still very much a "get a free simulacrum" spell.
Paizo needs to get Unchained right, to address major balance issues (ie. caster/martial), clarify serious rules holes (the wonkiness of the combined stealth system, summoning into occupied squares, etc.), and weed out some of the stuff that is just plain corny (most uses of Intimidate, Bounding Hammer, etc.). PF is still a better system than D&D 5.0, but it is beginning to creak under the same bloat that killed 3.5.
This can be reversed, but they're only going to get one shot at it, in all likelihood. 5.0 is a pretty good game which dispenses with a lot of the decadence that still plagues 3.5 and everything it ever touched. I'm sure the new system will eventually get bloated with expansion just like every other system, but right now it is not, and PF is. Unchained will either change this state of affairs, or it won't. We shall see.
Paizo needs to get Unchained right, to address major balance issues (ie. caster/martial), clarify serious rules holes (the wonkiness of the combined stealth system, summoning into occupied squares, etc.), and weed out some of the stuff that is just plain corny (most uses of Intimidate, Bounding Hammer, etc.). PF is still a better system than D&D 5.0, but it is beginning to creak under the same bloat that killed 3.5.
This can be reversed, but they're only going to get one shot at it, in all likelihood. 5.0 is a pretty good game which dispenses with a lot of the decadence that still plagues 3.5 and everything it ever touched. I'm sure the new system will eventually get bloated with expansion just like every other system, but right now it is not, and PF is. Unchained will either change this state of affairs, or it won't. We shall see.
I agree with your points, but I shall continue to play the pessimist. It's a wonderful surprise if you're proven wrong, and it hurts less when you're proven right.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with your points, but I shall continue to play the pessimist. It's a wonderful surprise if you're proven wrong, and it hurts less when you're proven right.
I'm cautiously optimistic. I think the Paizo devs are for the most part pretty sharp, and I understand the fact that they were constrained by the 3.5 rules when they came out with Core because hacking off a big chunk of the 3.5 fan base was the entire modus operandi of the business model that gave birth to Pathfinder. They couldn't change too much of the old system without putting their business at serious risk.
But they've got a solid customer base now, a fleshed-out world and a pretty good reputation. They can move in their own direction now without the same risks that applied at the time of the WoTC/Paizo split. They'll probably only get one real shot at it, though, so we can only hope they shoot straight, and demonstrate the balls and the vision to move the game in a bold and positive direction.
the only way the bold new direction will stick in any manner is if they actually keep the material updated for unchained (or release similar books later). if the words of power system is any indication, that will likely not be the case.
I think PF justifies itself just fine. The PRD alone is a big enough reason for me to stick with PF and buy paizo products. I'm not content with only having the "basic rules" when looking over a system.
An SRD also makes looking up rule LOADS easier. WotC can keep their "better game".Also from what I have seen of 5e, it seems like Swords and Wizardry fills the niche better.
PF has a major issue which is game balance, or in other words the fact that there isn't any. No balance means players and GMs have to agree amongst themselves what the internal balance of their game will be, and that is very often an aggravating process.
When I say 5e is a "better game," pretty much all I mean is that by and large it avoids this problem. Since I consider it a major problem though, that's a big deal.
PF does indeed have a lot going for it still. The monsters and tactics are more complex and interesting, especially with the release of Mythic Adventures. But then, tactics are only interesting when there is balance, so we're back to that...
The point is that 5e is much closer to the spirit and design of PF/3e than 4e was, so I think we have to acknowledge that D&D is now in much more competitive territory with PF than before. Have to wait and see what comes of that.
PF has enough balance that it is manageable if you are GM willing to nudge the spinning top so it stays upright.
You have to realize that yes casters > martials, that if you want CR appropriate fights you do need to make it rain gear (for the martials), and that you can only counter magic with magic.The "balance" problem in PF is the same one as in 3.5, but what PF does better is that it is easier to obscure that problem.
5e will never be a consideration for me with WotCs business practices staying as they are. Unless they come out with God's gift to table-top gaming, they can keep their system that only seems balanced because it is new and has yet to be thoroughly combed through by the user-base.
I don't find there is need for balance. The key is having fun. Balance is boring and not fun. Balance is useful for tactical war game. Balance is hindrance in role playing game where tactics don't mean much. In RPG you have people want to act out their character, collaboratively tell and bring stories to life, problem solve, build and design characters and worlds. None of this required balance and actually a lack of balance make better.
If you want to play the game like a game of chess then sure you need balance and RPGs probably aren't the game for you. I used to play PCPCS (Pheonix Command Personal Comabat System). That game is balanced and plays out like a chess game. Everything is balance and it's your skill in tactics that wins the game. There is a winner and loser in the game. They added an RPG element to it and with it unbalanced the game because you need that freedom to have an RPG otherwise it's just tactic war game with a winner and loser.
The problem, Voska, is that the game is equal parts role-playing theater and a tactical combat simulator. Both elements are fundamental aspects of the system, but only one is concerned with what we typically talk about as balance. Fixing issues with the latter does not mean you will 'break' the former because the type of fun you have with one aspect is not the same as the other. True, it's best when the fun from those two categories mixes together, but the idea that modifying one part of the system will wreck the other is silly and unrealistic.
|
I don't find there is need for balance. The key is having fun. Balance is boring and not fun. Balance is useful for tactical war game. Balance is hindrance in role playing game where tactics don't mean much. In RPG you have people want to act out their character, collaboratively tell and bring stories to life, problem solve, build and design characters and worlds. None of this required balance and actually a lack of balance make better.
I disagree most heartily. Symmetrical balance is boring. Balance is key to make things interesting.
Symmetrical balance without chance (such as chess) gets predictable to the point where memorization trumps strategy. (reason I gave it up)
But overall balance between players (or characters in Pathfinder) is required in any game. Not in every situation. But overall.
The best love to the rogue I've run across so far is the Glory Rogue from Rogue Glory and the Genius Guide to the Talented Rogue from Rogue Genius Games. Both do a good job of bringing love to the rogue without changing the class entirely.
I find balance to be only required in game where you have one clear winner and clear loser. So in Player vs Player game balance is important. In a game where the goal is not to win but create a story, develop the adventure, simulate a setting then balance is not important. The party works together and the wizard being able to move mountain while the fighter hack the bad guy in two is exciting. The Wizard dropping a mountain on the fighter and saying I win is not exciting.
|
|
The best love to the rogue I've run across so far is the Glory Rogue from Rogue Glory and the Genius Guide to the Talented Rogue from Rogue Genius Games. Both do a good job of bringing love to the rogue without changing the class entirely.I find balance to be only required in game where you have one clear winner and clear loser. So in Player vs Player game balance is important. In a game where the goal is not to win but create a story, develop the adventure, simulate a setting then balance is not important. The party works together and the wizard being able to move mountain while the fighter hack the bad guy in two is exciting. The Wizard dropping a mountain on the fighter and saying I win is not exciting.
Yes - but if the wizard can drop a mountain on the bad guy - why does the fighter need to be there?
(Of note - I actually think overall balance in Pathfinder is pretty decent up until level 11-12ish. Then the whole system breaks down pretty quickly. Hence my rarely playing games outside of the single digits.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
nonsense--youre FORCED to minmax when playing a rogue. Its just more acceptable to the anti-stats players due to the class'... Special needs.
Pffffff!
Nonsense. A rogue is a viable character class. DPR olympics are absurd. Constantly comparing your "power level" to other PCs in your own party is absurd. They're your party members, you're working together.
The rogue hasn't gotten the love it needs from Paizo, OK. It's not "optimised", OK. Other classes (slayer, bard/archaeologist, etc) do the rogue better than the rogue, OK.
But the rogue class is still "viable". It all comes down to how you play it, and how much pleasure you derive from playing a rogue character.
Perhaps unchained will give us a better rogue. We shall see.
I've had a lot of success with maneuver Rogue builds in PFS. I dug up a Google doc I did once for a DPR showdown, demonstrating one iteration of this sort of Rogue.
-Matt
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...
So...
The point of this was to say "hey, I like rogues," but very few have...
Sad day.
Well, a few things. Some posters pile on anyone who claims to like rogues. I, myself, have seen it played and played well, and it can really contribute.
Of course, like with most classes, you have to pick your archetype for your game. For Combat the Scout and Ninja archetype are good choices (and yes, the Ninja is a just a rogue archetype, statted out.)
True, in Pathfinder AP's you dont have the diabolical Gygaxian traps we had back in AD&D days. This does mean the Scout/skillmonkey/Trapfinder is not as critical as before. This does make me a little sad.
And, it means nothing that other classes can fill the Scout/skillmonkey/Trapfinder niche. This is a FEATURE of Pathfinder, not a bug. No one cares that both the Witch & Sorc can fill the Wizard niche. PF has 30+ classes, there are only four classic niches, thus of course there will be overlap.
Mind you, the Rogue does need some cool new rogue talents. The Devs have said they are on the way. I even started a thread some time ago so we could suggest some.
The Rogue's talents do suffer from one design flaw- the "one a day" talents, which should be 3+ times a day, in line with other bloodlines, schools, etc.
...
So...
The point of this was to say "hey, I like rogues," but very few have...
Sad day.Well, a few things. Some posters pile on anyone who claims to like rogues. I, myself, have seen it played and played well, and it can really contribute.
Of course, like with most classes, you have to pick your archetype for your game. For Combat the Scout and Ninja archetype are good choices (and yes, the Ninja is a just a rogue archetype, statted out.)
True, in Pathfinder AP's you dont have the diabolical Gygaxian traps we had back in AD&D days. This does mean the Scout/skillmonkey/Trapfinder is not as critical as before. This does make me a little sad.
And, it means nothing that other classes can fill the Scout/skillmonkey/Trapfinder niche. This is a FEATURE of Pathfinder, not a bug. No one cares that both the Witch & Sorc can fill the Wizard niche. PF has 30+ classes, there are only four classic niches, thus of course there will be overlap.
Mind you, the Rogue does need some cool new rogue talents. The Devs have said they are on the way. I even started a thread some time ago so we could suggest some.
The Rogue's talents do suffer from one design flaw- the "one a day" talents, which should be 3+ times a day, in line with other bloodlines, schools, etc.
Even 3+ times a day... Rogue Talents are the weakest of the weak. Giving them something on par with Slayer Talents (much better!) or Discoveries (options!) would be much much appreciated.
...
So...
The point of this was to say "hey, I like rogues," but very few have...
Sad day.Well, a few things. Some posters pile on anyone who claims to like rogues. I, myself, have seen it played and played well, and it can really contribute.
Of course, like with most classes, you have to pick your archetype for your game. For Combat the Scout and Ninja archetype are good choices (and yes, the Ninja is a just a rogue archetype, statted out.)
True, in Pathfinder AP's you dont have the diabolical Gygaxian traps we had back in AD&D days. This does mean the Scout/skillmonkey/Trapfinder is not as critical as before. This does make me a little sad.
And, it means nothing that other classes can fill the Scout/skillmonkey/Trapfinder niche. This is a FEATURE of Pathfinder, not a bug. No one cares that both the Witch & Sorc can fill the Wizard niche. PF has 30+ classes, there are only four classic niches, thus of course there will be overlap.
Mind you, the Rogue does need some cool new rogue talents. The Devs have said they are on the way. I even started a thread some time ago so we could suggest some.
The Rogue's talents do suffer from one design flaw- the "one a day" talents, which should be 3+ times a day, in line with other bloodlines, schools, etc.
So I've seen you talk about the effectiveness of a Fighter in your high level groups in the fighter's realm of expertise.
Do you have similar stories for high level rogues?
...
So...
The point of this was to say "hey, I like rogues," but very few have...
Sad day.Well, a few things. Some posters pile on anyone who claims to like rogues. I, myself, have seen it played and played well, and it can really contribute.
Of course, like with most classes, you have to pick your archetype for your game. For Combat the Scout and Ninja archetype are good choices (and yes, the Ninja is a just a rogue archetype, statted out.)
True, in Pathfinder AP's you dont have the diabolical Gygaxian traps we had back in AD&D days. This does mean the Scout/skillmonkey/Trapfinder is not as critical as before. This does make me a little sad.
And, it means nothing that other classes can fill the Scout/skillmonkey/Trapfinder niche. This is a FEATURE of Pathfinder, not a bug. No one cares that both the Witch & Sorc can fill the Wizard niche. PF has 30+ classes, there are only four classic niches, thus of course there will be overlap.
Mind you, the Rogue does need some cool new rogue talents. The Devs have said they are on the way. I even started a thread some time ago so we could suggest some.
The Rogue's talents do suffer from one design flaw- the "one a day" talents, which should be 3+ times a day, in line with other bloodlines, schools, etc.
So I've seen you talk about the effectiveness of a Fighter in your high level groups in the fighter's realm of expertise.
You have similar stories for high level rogues?
No, sorry. Just low-mid level.
Perhaps, indeed, the rogue suffers at high levels. Perhaps the Wizard does too, since I havent seen any of them played past L5. But I doubt it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I dedicated lots of love to Rogues! In fact, I did it twice. (And not just by claiming they are a good class, never giving any credible reason to back up said claim and then pretending to be an oppressed victim when people disagree).
I managed fine on my PFS path to 20th level. Once I had all the essential feats online, I had plenty of room to install a sweet feint-chain as well as Greater Blind-Fight. My character can sneak attack with her eyes closed and without invisibility or a flanking partner.
-Matt
...
So...
The point of this was to say "hey, I like rogues," but very few have...
Sad day.Well, a few things. Some posters pile on anyone who claims to like rogues. I, myself, have seen it played and played well, and it can really contribute.
Of course, like with most classes, you have to pick your archetype for your game. For Combat the Scout and Ninja archetype are good choices (and yes, the Ninja is a just a rogue archetype, statted out.)
True, in Pathfinder AP's you dont have the diabolical Gygaxian traps we had back in AD&D days. This does mean the Scout/skillmonkey/Trapfinder is not as critical as before. This does make me a little sad.
And, it means nothing that other classes can fill the Scout/skillmonkey/Trapfinder niche. This is a FEATURE of Pathfinder, not a bug. No one cares that both the Witch & Sorc can fill the Wizard niche. PF has 30+ classes, there are only four classic niches, thus of course there will be overlap.
Mind you, the Rogue does need some cool new rogue talents. The Devs have said they are on the way. I even started a thread some time ago so we could suggest some.
The Rogue's talents do suffer from one design flaw- the "one a day" talents, which should be 3+ times a day, in line with other bloodlines, schools, etc.
So I've seen you talk about the effectiveness of a Fighter in your high level groups in the fighter's realm of expertise.
You have similar stories for high level rogues?
No, sorry. Just low-mid level.
Perhaps, indeed, the rogue suffers at high levels. Perhaps the Wizard does too, since I havent seen any of them played past L5. But I doubt it.
Wizard has two problems:
1) Tendency to be a spreadsheet simulator with all the various resources you can have in play (our party wizard carries around 160+ magically crafted items at all times).2) Wizards either do little or devastate the encounter. They can also devastate the encounter easily, but for Wizards who have party members that can't keep up, they'll scale themselves back. Either for fun's sake or because they fear GM ire. (I mainly see the latter, which is disgusting)
Also interesting to know that your successful important fighter is not playing with a wizard.
Also interesting to know that your successful important fighter is not playing with a wizard.
There's a Sorcerer, Oracle and a Cleric.
Also interesting to know that your successful important fighter is not playing with a wizard.There's a Sorcerer, Oracle and a Cleric.
And?
A cleric can tangle with the wizard. I don't really know how, but I've been assured that they can (I could never get into their spell list, pass the druid please).
Without knowing the builds for the sorcerer and the oracle, I can't really assess what they are capable of. It's really easy to just grab lots of spells that do little and be stuck with them forever.
I don't find there is need for balance. The key is having fun.The thing is, if you minimise balance problems, it generally makes the game better, unless you create some other problem while you're at it. Some people are put off by imbalance, so balance suits them. Some don't care, so they don't care. But very few love imbalance, and they're usually the ones that ruin it for everyone else.
Yeah, RPGs in general are a lot more fun when everyone can make a more-or-less equal contribution. "God Wizard and his three useless tagalong buddies" gets old very fast, as does playing the one useless guy in a part of otherwise capable and effective characters.
...
So...
The point of this was to say "hey, I like rogues," but very few have...
Sad day.Well, a few things. Some posters pile on anyone who claims to like rogues. I, myself, have seen it played and played well, and it can really contribute.
Of course, like with most classes, you have to pick your archetype for your game. For Combat the Scout and Ninja archetype are good choices (and yes, the Ninja is a just a rogue archetype, statted out.)
True, in Pathfinder AP's you dont have the diabolical Gygaxian traps we had back in AD&D days. This does mean the Scout/skillmonkey/Trapfinder is not as critical as before. This does make me a little sad.
And, it means nothing that other classes can fill the Scout/skillmonkey/Trapfinder niche. This is a FEATURE of Pathfinder, not a bug. No one cares that both the Witch & Sorc can fill the Wizard niche. PF has 30+ classes, there are only four classic niches, thus of course there will be overlap.
Mind you, the Rogue does need some cool new rogue talents. The Devs have said they are on the way. I even started a thread some time ago so we could suggest some.
The Rogue's talents do suffer from one design flaw- the "one a day" talents, which should be 3+ times a day, in line with other bloodlines, schools, etc.
So I've seen you talk about the effectiveness of a Fighter in your high level groups in the fighter's realm of expertise.
You have similar stories for high level rogues?
No, sorry. Just low-mid level.
Perhaps, indeed, the rogue suffers at high levels. Perhaps the Wizard does too, since I havent seen any of them played past L5. But I doubt it.
Wizard has two problems:
1) Tendency to be a spreadsheet simulator with all the various resources you can have in play (our party wizard carries around 160+ magically crafted items at all times).
2) Wizards either do little or devastate the encounter. They can...
So... why was I quoted at the beginning of this?
why was I quoted
Heaven forbid we don't quote snips.