Impact of Advanced Class Guide on Organized Play

[Jane "The Knife"]

There's a reason you never see many Rogues...
When you do see us, it'll be too late.
(Hint: Put ranks in Perception!)
;)

[Jane "The Knife"]

David Bowles wrote:

It's not that rogues can't do well. It's just that other classes do more well. I imagine you can have all your PCs with rogue levels and not deaths, it's just harder.

I ... don't understand your comments David. Sorry, could you re-word this and try again?

[David Bowles]

Sadly, I've seen several rogues get road pizzaed by sneak attacking a powerful foe and then absorbing all the retaliation after failing to kill it.

[David Bowles]

Jane "The Knife" wrote:

David Bowles wrote:

It's not that rogues can't do well. It's just that other classes do more well. I imagine you can have all your PCs with rogue levels and not deaths, it's just harder.

I ... don't understand your comments David. Sorry, could you re-word this and try again?

Rogues can be quite good compared to PFS scenarios. Therefore, they can function just fine. However, rogues are not so good compared to what other PCs classes can do. That's what I meant.

[Jane "The Knife"]

David Bowles wrote:

Jane "The Knife" wrote:

David Bowles wrote:

It's not that rogues can't do well. It's just that other classes do more well. I imagine you can have all your PCs with rogue levels and not deaths, it's just harder.

I ... don't understand your comments David. Sorry, could you re-word this and try again?

Rogues can be quite good compared to PFS scenarios. Therefore, they can function just fine. However, rogues are not so good compared to what other PCs classes can do. That's what I meant.

I will have to respectfully disagree. Though this is just opinion...

[Imbicatus]

I really don't want to derail this into a rogue bashing class. Suffice to say, a rogue is supposed to be an agile, skillful, and sneaky killer.

3/4 bab with no method in class of increasing accuracy, a damage boosting mechanic that can't be used in shadow conditions where a rogue is supposed to excel, the desire to twf when you can't afford the accuracy penalty, the desire to be finesse taking your rogue talent and making you do less damage, and tons of skill points with no synergy or bonuses for using them.

The rogue is barely able to fill it's role of agile, skillful, and sneaky killer.

Of the core classes, Bard and Ranger are better rogues than the rogue. If you add base classes, Alchemist & Inquisitor are as well. Hybrid classes give you the Slayer and Investigator.

That isn't even counting the countless archetypes that grant trapfinding or sneak attack.

[Auris Deftfoot]

I gotta admit, some missions I had to be carried. More often than not.

[David Bowles]

Jane "The Knife" wrote:

David Bowles wrote:

Jane "The Knife" wrote:

David Bowles wrote:

It's not that rogues can't do well. It's just that other classes do more well. I imagine you can have all your PCs with rogue levels and not deaths, it's just harder.

I ... don't understand your comments David. Sorry, could you re-word this and try again?

Rogues can be quite good compared to PFS scenarios. Therefore, they can function just fine. However, rogues are not so good compared to what other PCs classes can do. That's what I meant.

I will have to respectfully disagree. Though this is just opinion...

I am only mildly anti-rogue, so I'm not going to carry their water in this thread. I am more reporting the news here than anything else. The single biggest problem I see is a bad fort and bad will save combo. In fact, I call phantasmal killer "power word: kill rogue".

[FranKc]

I've seen a swashbuckler, a shaman, an investigator, a bloodrager, a slayer, a warpriest and I have myself tried the arcanist a bit. Nothing game-breaking so far.

[Sebastian Hirsch]

Frankly I think class design just got better in the last years, so while new classes might not be strictly better than core classes, they seem to me more fun to play.
I would take my hunter over ranger any day, and ranger is still the stronger archer class.

[David Bowles]

I still think most of the core classes are quite good. The rogue is just a special exception due to some of the mechanics in the game.

[DM Beckett]

Imbicatus wrote:

I really don't want to derail this into a rogue bashing class. Suffice to say, a rogue is supposed to be an agile, skillful, and sneaky killer.

Spoiler:

ROGUE

Life is an endless adventure for those who live by their wits. Ever just one step ahead of danger, rogues bank on their cunning, skill, and charm to bend fate to their favor. Never knowing what to expect, they prepare for everything, becoming masters of a wide variety of skills,
training themselves to be adept manipulators, agile acrobats, shadowy stalkers, or masters of any of dozens of other professions or talents. Thieves and gamblers, fast talkers and diplomats, bandits and bounty hunters, and explorers and investigators all might be considered rogues, as well as countless other professions that rely upon wits, prowess, or luck. Although many rogues favor cities and the innumerable opportunities of civilization, some embrace lives on the road, journeying far, meeting exotic people, and facing fantastic danger in pursuit of equally fantastic riches. In the end, any who desire to shape their fates and live life on their own terms might come to be called rogues.
Role: Rogues excel at moving about unseen and catching foes unaware, and tend to avoid head-to-head combat. Their varied skills and abilities allow them to be highly versatile, with great variations in expertise existing between different rogues. Most, however, excel in
overcoming hindrances of all types, from unlocking doors and disarming traps to outwitting magical hazards and conning dull-witted opponents.

Curious, where in there does it talk about being sneaky killers? I think the number one issue with Rogues is that some people say Rogue, but really want a Fighter with 8+ Skills and some Rogue tricks, (not the class itself).

I did think the ACG would eliminate a lot more of the original classes than, in my experience, it has turned out to, but I don't know. So far no real issues I can think of, outside of the above mentioned bloat.

Has anyone had any experience with the new playtest classes? Personally, I'm not really seeing anything I'd even be interested in, and have not really seen anyone at all bring one to the table. I haven't really been following the forums dedicated to Occult Adventures, because honestly just no appeal, so I haven't seen if there was a similar thread there (or outcry against them in PFS).

[TOZ]

DM Beckett wrote:

Curious, where in there does it talk about being sneaky killers?

"bandits and bounty hunters"

[David Bowles]

Warpriest is $$, imo.

[The Fourth Horseman]

Imbicatus wrote:

I really don't want to derail this into a rogue bashing class. Suffice to say, a rogue is supposed to be an agile, skillful, and sneaky killer.

3/4 bab with no method in class of increasing accuracy, a damage boosting mechanic that can't be used in shadow conditions where a rogue is supposed to excel, the desire to twf when you can't afford the accuracy penalty, the desire to be finesse taking your rogue talent and making you do less damage, and tons of skill points with no synergy or bonuses for using them.

The rogue is barely able to fill it's role of agile, skillful, and sneaky killer.

Of the core classes, Bard and Ranger are better rogues than the rogue. If you add base classes, Alchemist & Inquisitor are as well. Hybrid classes give you the Slayer and Investigator.

That isn't even counting the countless archetypes that grant trapfinding or sneak attack.

Sounds like you want to play a slayer.

[Merisal The Risen]

As my old guild master used to say rogues don't do well in a fair fight never get involved in a fair fight

A lesson I was slow to learn hence the name

[Imbicatus]

The Fourth Horseman wrote:

Imbicatus wrote:

I really don't want to derail this into a rogue bashing class. Suffice to say, a rogue is supposed to be an agile, skillful, and sneaky killer.

3/4 bab with no method in class of increasing accuracy, a damage boosting mechanic that can't be used in shadow conditions where a rogue is supposed to excel, the desire to twf when you can't afford the accuracy penalty, the desire to be finesse taking your rogue talent and making you do less damage, and tons of skill points with no synergy or bonuses for using them.

The rogue is barely able to fill it's role of agile, skillful, and sneaky killer.

Of the core classes, Bard and Ranger are better rogues than the rogue. If you add base classes, Alchemist & Inquisitor are as well. Hybrid classes give you the Slayer and Investigator.

That isn't even counting the countless archetypes that grant trapfinding or sneak attack.

Sounds like you want to play a slayer.

Not really, but if I wanted to play a rogue and cared about being optimal, it would be a great alternative.

It's not that I don't like the rogue. I really do. I just don't like the eternal disappointment of the rogue. Hopefully unchained will help rebalance the class.

[N N 959]

When I look at the rogue, what I see is a class that requires a level of system mastery in build mechanics to approach the effectiveness that other classes can provide with much less mastery on the part of the player.

I suspect the rogue is a lot like the Investigator. You need to know what you want to do with the class from the get go. Only the Investigator has Knowledge efficacy baked into the core experience where as rogue has very little baked in. So if you don't know what you're doing, you're doing a lot of nothing.

[Zach Klopfleisch]

The problem with the Rogue, I think, is the intersection between design and practicality: Rogues are 3/4 BAB, meaning they're a support class*. But their support/non-combat schtick is skills, and skills just don't have the impact that the designers back in the 3.0/3.5 days expected.

And it's not just that they're behind on attack scores: 3/4 BAB slows down their iteratives, slows down Power Attack progression, and puts them 2 levels behind full BAB on the key combat feats which require BAB 1. Combat Trick catches them up on the feats, but they're still behind on the other progressions. The fact that they have no innate class abilities to improve their attack bonuses is what really makes them bad at landing hits.

I think the Slayer and Investigator are intentional fixes to this: The Slayer takes over the combat side and the Investigator takes over the non-combat side, each doing their schtick without reservation because they're focused on it.

*

Rogue design theorizing:

You basically have 3 groups of classes:

Full BAB = Good at doing damage, meh at doing "other stuff."
3/4 BAB = "About" half as good at doing damage, decent at doing "other stuff."
1/2 BAB = Meh at doing damage, good at doing "other stuff."

So, the full BAB characters simply don't do much out of combat, and most of what they do in combat is HP damage.

1/2 BAB characters suck at doing damage in combat (10d6 Fireball vs CR 10 Couatl with 126hp in Pathfinder compared to a 10d6 Fireball vs 9 hit die Couatl averaging 41hp (max 72) in 1st Edition.) But they're amazing at doing "other things" both in and out of combat.

The 3/4 BAB characters were, I think, meant as support characters for both sides of the specialists: They can do "other things" to either fill in for the 1/2 BAB characters (both in and out of combat), but they don't do them as well even if they specialize. They do about half the damage as full BAB characters, and can improve on that if they specialize, but even specialized they don't do as well as full BAB characters.

The problem for the Rogue is that their "other things" are skills. For the most part, skills just don't have the legs to stay tremendously useful throughout all levels. At the same time, those skills that do stay useful throughout all levels: Social and knowledge skills mainly, are done as well or better by other classes. Cha and Int based casters do their respective skills better than Rogues due to synergy with their stats, and Rogues simply have more skill points, they don't have anything to actually allow them to do any better than any other character with the same stats in a class skill. (Aside from finding and removing traps. But traps have become downright rare and mostly minor.)

So, Rogues' utility at "other things" is minimal, but they're still stuck with the support character baggage when it comes to doing damage. They probably should have been rolled in with Fighters. But this is D&D, and where there's D&D there are Rogues. So failing that, they should have been given extra power for their skills, something like giving them Su or Sp abilities when they put a certain number of ranks into a class skill, roughly equivalent to a Bard spell of the level they would be able to cast at that level. I.e, putting 4 ranks into Diplomacy would give the rogue a SLA roughly equivalent to a 2nd level Bard spell, 7 ranks would increase that to roughly the equivalent of a 3rd level Bard spell, etc. (Of course, the word count on that would be horriffic.)

Monks don't really fit into the BAB paradigm directly: They're specialists, but neither in doing damage or doing "other stuff" the way Wizards and Sorcerers do. I think they probably fit into the full BAB space, but instead of doing tons of damage they're focused on having great defenses or being great at combat maneuvers. Unfortunately, while defense wins championships in the real world, it's not so hot in D&D.

[BigNorseWolf]

In brief, having 8 skill points per level just means you're better at your 7th and 8th choices for skills than someone with 6 skill points per level, but doesn't make you very good at the other 6, which you're proably using more often.

[N N 959]

Zach Klopfleisch wrote:

The problem with the Rogue,

*** spoiler omitted **...

Let me throw something out for you to mull over...what if I told you that the rogue was one of the best designed classes ever made, but the it's the other classes that actually were poorly designed?

Fun topic.

The real key to understanding the short comings of any class is.....context.

Deeper thoughts...:

Every class/archetype must fulfill some unique non-trivial purpose

Classes are fun when they can have an impact on the fate of the game by performing some non-trivial task/roles. The rogue does this. Or to put it another way, the rogue can do this, the problem is that there are so many classes and multi-classing options, the design space for each pure class has gotten smaller and smaller. And...as I said earlier...if you don't build your rogue with a purpose, it has no purpose. This is generally not true with other classes that generally have their raison d'etre baked in.

But let's start with your focus on combat. You make the observation that a 3/4 class is intended to be a support role. "half as good at damage." What if I told you that one reason to give a class 3/4 BAB is so that you can make it really good in given context? What do I mean?

Because of Sneak Attack, a Rogue has a tremendous circumstance advantage. That circumstance includes two-weapon fighting with highly accurate weapons. A rogue can take Weapon Finesse and Weapon Focus with short swords and do 6d6 of damage by 3rd level with a 10 STR. That's normally more than any other character can sustain at that level and it's way more than any other 3/4 BAB class can do absent the same Sneak Attack ability.

Remember what I said earlier about purpose and context? From a design perspective the Rogue is a work of art in providing a class in which characters will be good in specific circumstances and mediocre in others. This is exactly what you want in a game. You want each class to have its moment.

The problem is you have a class like Druids with dinosaur pets and are good in far more circumstances

Another factor I'll mention is that the calling card for rogues is a mechanic that does not lend itself well to group play. Nobody wants to sit around the table while the one rogue scouts the entire dungeon. In PFS, Stealth is a non-factor. It almost never comes into play because one unstealthy party member generally eliminates any strategies that require it.

Apologies for any typos or broken sentences...

[Righty_]

I have plenty of rogue characters, I'm far from a newbie, and none of my rogues have the cant do anything in or out of combat spiel I keep seeing. If anything, I build more rogues than I would usually, the latest version has a few levels of monk. I like to say he's character level -2 based on popular belief.

The odd item - its hard to find rogue hate beyond these boards (in pfs). I did find one guy spouting off at me once (which was hilarious because he was using a 5 level rogue sap master thug build) but was adamantly "not a rogue" as he had levels in other things too :)

[Z...D...]

I believe there will always be a place for rogues in PFS. Sure they may not be able to sneak like they should, but the other skills they can possess makes them very useful..My tengu rogue is awesome in and out of combat... then when it come time for support, he is usually the first one up to be the diplomat or disabling a trap...plus a high linguistics has been pretty useful for me.

[Imbicatus]

DM Beckett wrote:

Has anyone had any experience with the new playtest classes? Personally, I'm not really seeing anything I'd even be interested in, and have not really seen anyone at all bring one to the table. I haven't really been following the forums dedicated to Occult Adventures, because honestly just no appeal, so I haven't seen if there was a similar thread there (or outcry against them in PFS).

I'm not going to be able to play in a PFS game until the 15th, but I am building a kineticist and will possibly play it if we are playing down tier in Hall of the Flesh Eaters.

I'm not sold on the burn mechanic, but I really like the look of the class.

[WiseWolfOfYoitsu]

I like the burn mechanic actually. I need more mental power to enhance my abilities, why would it not give me a headache or cause my nose to bleed?

[WalterGM]

Only ACG class I've made so far is my Goblin Skald that sings the goblin song whenever he starts his performance.

[Sammy T]

A Geokineticist playtest thread. 1 Game down of a 5 or 6 game playtest.

[Mattastrophic]

Righty_ wrote:

I have plenty of rogue characters, I'm far from a newbie, and none of my rogues have the cant do anything in or out of combat spiel I keep seeing.

Heh, if my character can make 20th, so can a Rogue.

I'll say that every time I've posted builds on the Paizo boards showing an effective Rogue or methods to make a solid Rogue, the Rogue-bashers never cease to immediately move the goal posts. It's pretty silly.

-Matt

[Imbicatus]

Mattastrophic wrote:

Righty_ wrote:

I have plenty of rogue characters, I'm far from a newbie, and none of my rogues have the cant do anything in or out of combat spiel I keep seeing.

Heh, if my character can make 20th, so can a Rogue.

I'll say that every time I've posted builds on the Paizo boards showing an effective Rogue or methods to make a solid Rogue, the Rogue-bashers never cease to immediately move the goal posts. It's pretty silly.

-Matt

It's possible to make an effective rogue, if you have enough system mastery. I have yet to see an effective rouge that could not be more effective in it's desired role if it were built with a different class.

[Tweedle-Dum]

I just don't get it... What's with all the Rogue hate out here? Can you build a character that does some aspect of what my Rogue can do better than he can? I'd think so. after all, my guy was built from level 1 up, as I played him, to fit several different functions.

I have a Trapsmith. He gets a Perception roll for traps just by being wtihin 10' (he's got that 'cause of the Judges who say "you forgot to say you were checking this 5' square for traps"), his perception is something like really over-the-top (esp. in dim light). And I alway take 10 on perception - SOP. Always. He scouts ahead of the party. He's very Stealthy. He (almost) always goes first - auto goes in the surprize round (even when surprized) and he has something like a +18 init. Standard response when the DM says - "roll init" and you see nothing (remember he has a really good perception) is to Vanish. And if he does see something he has the option to do a load of damage on that first shot (Sneak dice out to 45' or so), with a ranged touch attack (Ray) against the monsters flat footed AC - or just to fade away. (he is a rogue after all - killing things isn't his job). Can you create a non-rogue that can do that? Maybe... but would whatever you do it with also have evasion... at 5th level, in a PFSOP game?

If you build a thought exercise to create a PC that does one aspect of my guys abilities better, I would be real surprized if you couldn't. But to do everything he can do... all in one PC? And NOT take rogue?

[TOZ]

Tweedle-Dum wrote:

I just don't get it... What's with all the Rogue hate out here?

Because it doesn't perform the way I expect. But that doesn't make me hate it. It makes me disappointed. Because I want to like the Rogue.

[The Fourth Horseman]

Wow, this thread is super derailed.

[David Bowles]

"Can you create a non-rogue that can do that?"

That's assuming what you have constructed is the desired target. I don't consider trap finding that critical of an ability myself.

[pauljathome]

Tweedle-Dum wrote:

I have a Trapsmith. He gets a Perception roll for traps just by being wtihin 10' (he's got that 'cause of the Judges who say "you forgot to say you were checking this 5' square for traps"), his perception is something like really over-the-top (esp. in dim light). And I alway take 10 on perception - SOP. Always. He scouts ahead of the party. He's very Stealthy. He (almost) always goes first - auto goes in the surprize round (even when surprized) and he has something like a +18 init. Standard response when the DM says - "roll init" and you see nothing (remember he has a really good perception) is to Vanish. And if he does see something he has the option to do a load of damage on that first shot (Sneak dice out to 45' or so), with a ranged touch attack (Ray) against the monsters flat footed AC - or just to fade away. (he is a rogue after all - killing things isn't his job). Can you create a non-rogue that can do that? Maybe... but would whatever you do it with also have evasion... at 5th level, in a PFSOP game?

You can do all that with a PFS legal L5 rogue? I'm more than impressed, I'm absolutely astounded. Could you please post this character.

Incidentally, if your reaction to "roll initiative" was to vanish when you couldn't see anything then I'd be calling shenanigans as GM.

[Tweedle-Dum]

TOZ wrote:

Tweedle-Dum wrote:

I just don't get it... What's with all the Rogue hate out here?

Because it doesn't perform the way I expect. But that doesn't make me hate it. It makes me disappointed. Because I want to like the Rogue.

You know, I've been disappointed in the way almost every class performs - at least at one point or another.

Esp. when I try to push them into a picture I have in my brain that doesn't match the picture that was in the hundreds of guys how contributed to the way the class works in this system. Heck, why limit it to classes. I have been very disappointed in the way many things work. Why are Spears so much worse than Swords? Why can't someone in armor pick a lock? Why are Clerics restricted to a spell list? These are miracles they do!

So many things can disappoint me.

Threads like this remind me of the guy who commented about his buddies character -
"An AC of 18 and only 10 HP? How do you survive in combat?"
"Ah... I'm a 2nd level wizard?"
"And a dagger and crossbow for weapons? What kind of joke is this?"

Yep, I really heard that a while back... the funniest part was the critic really couldn't see how his friend could possibily run that kind of character.

Build what you want. It all has advantages. And issues. Every last build has a down side - that's kind of part of having a system like we do.

I'm not about to turn to someone like Jiggy and say "You're playing this wrong"... though I would say "So, what's this guys gimmick? Why do you have a rogue with a 12 Dex and a 18 Str?" And I'd listen closely and maybe even learn some things.

[Imbicatus]

Tweedle-Dum wrote:

If you build a thought exercise to create a PC that does one aspect of my guys abilities better, I would be real surprized if you couldn't. But to do everything he can do... all in one PC? And NOT take rogue?

Yes, you can. A cryptbreaker alchemist can do everything in your post and gets full extracts.

[Tweedle-Dum]

pauljathome wrote:

Tweedle-Dum wrote:

I have a Trapsmith. He gets a Perception roll for traps just by being wtihin 10' (he's got that 'cause of the Judges who say "you forgot to say you were checking this 5' square for traps"), his perception is something like really over-the-top (esp. in dim light). And I alway take 10 on perception - SOP. Always. He scouts ahead of the party. He's very Stealthy. He (almost) always goes first - auto goes in the surprize round (even when surprized) and he has something like a +18 init. Standard response when the DM says - "roll init" and you see nothing (remember he has a really good perception) is to Vanish. And if he does see something he has the option to do a load of damage on that first shot (Sneak dice out to 45' or so), with a ranged touch attack (Ray) against the monsters flat footed AC - or just to fade away. (he is a rogue after all - killing things isn't his job). Can you create a non-rogue that can do that? Maybe... but would whatever you do it with also have evasion... at 5th level, in a PFSOP game?

You can do all that with a PFS legal L5 rogue? I'm more than impressed, I'm absolutely astounded. Could you please post this character.

Incidentally, if your reaction to "roll initiative" was to vanish when you couldn't see anything then I'd be calling shenanigans as GM.

Currently he is 10th (just click his name), though his stats online are a little out of date.

His reaction to dropping into Initiative - because he has a level of Diviner Wizard (Prescience sub-school) and always goes in the surprize round (he can "see the future") is to vanish. I guess I could say "I ready an action to cast vanish before anyone else does anything in the round..." - as as Readied actions go before the action that triggers them... I figure it is easier than asking the judge what's going to happen, so my guy can react to it before it actually happens (as he sees slightly into the future).

Though I guess you can call it anything you want. I have had judges give the monsters a surprise round that goes before the normal surprise round... You know, monster goes, surprise round starts, then we enter inititive.

[Tweedle-Dum]

Imbicatus wrote:

Tweedle-Dum wrote:

If you build a thought exercise to create a PC that does one aspect of my guys abilities better, I would be real surprized if you couldn't. But to do everything he can do... all in one PC? And NOT take rogue?

Yes, you can. A cryptbreaker alchemist can do everything in your post and gets full extracts.

As I also run 3 cryptbraker Alchemist (ah... maybe 4 now) I know what they can do. And they don't get evasion. ever. and no sneak dice. And my rogue (with one level of Wizard) get's detect magic, which my Alchemist don't.

[TriOmegaZero]

Tweedle-Dum wrote:

Build what you want. It all has advantages. And issues. Every last build has a down side - that's kind of part of having a system like we do.

Thank you for your permission to find the Rogue disappointing.

[David Bowles]

Who cares about evasion? Fort saves and will saves are much important than preventing some hp loss.

[G-Zeus]

I've never once had my rogues effectiveness come into question. He's even been asked for on multiple occasions. Rogues are a fantastic mix of steady and spike dmg, with skills to aid the table without rendering any other class useless (rare).
To answer the posts question, up here in Boston pretty much everyone jumped on the play test so the new classes are calm. I see them being less broken then some other classes, but mostly due to them being new. Maybe in the future when people are on their fourth or fifth instead of second and third creation this will change.

[Tweedle-Dum]

The Fourth Horseman wrote:

Wow, this thread is super derailed.

yeah... I guess I shouldn't post more to it... sorry.

It sort of hit a hot button for me.

[TOZ]

Tweedle-Dum wrote:

It sort of hit a hot button for me.

You and everyone else, judging by the number of unrelated threads derailed by it.

[Tweedle-Dum]

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

Tweedle-Dum wrote:

Build what you want. It all has advantages. And issues. Every last build has a down side - that's kind of part of having a system like we do.

Thank you for your permission to find the Rogue disappointing.

Welcome.

Personally, I've always found Magic Users (esp. in their current forms of Wizard/Sorcerer/Magi/Summoner/Etc.) to be much more disappointing than Rogues (or other forms of Skill Classes).

[Iammars]

David Bowles wrote:

Who cares about evasion? Fort saves and will saves are much important than preventing some hp loss.

I traded away Evasion on my monk/fighter. I then proceeded to die twice because I didn't have evasion. One fireball is not bad. Multiple fireballs can easily kill you if even if you make all your saves.

Mattastrophic - People constantly move the goalposts on me when I do that with Investigators too. It's really annoying.

[nosig]

David Bowles wrote:

Who cares about evasion? Fort saves and will saves are much important than preventing some hp loss.

Anyone taking more damage from HP than he has?

I run Alchemists often. My 11th level Alchemist has the most problems with any creature with Evasion and a good reflex save. Splash damage from 3 or more Explosive bombs a round really adds up.

And his use of two Detonate spells in a round (22d6 damage) gets noticed too... Reflex save for half...

[Imbicatus]

If evasion is that important, you can always just get it as a ring.

Besides, it wont help you vs phantasmal killer.

[David Bowles]

I'll take my chances without evasion, thanks. I really like improved evasion, but the fact that you have to make the roll to me makes evasion pretty weak.

On top of that, I have seen WAY more Pathfinders hosed over by fort and will effects. Effects that both crush rogues.

[nosig]

and that's why this game is so cool.

Different opinions.

I just hate it when someone says something like...

"An AC of 18 and only 10 HP? How do you survive in combat?"
"Ah... I'm a 2nd level wizard?"
"And a dagger and crossbow for weapons? What kind of joke is this? You need to run a real character! One that works!"

[G-Zeus]

Rogues are similar to bards and clerics. When you have one absolutely fantastic, I don't think a party would turn one down. Their benefit Way outshines any lack you might pinpoint. That said the only reason to not like it is if you have some idea of them that's not what they are specifically designed for.