I want a skill monkey that can advance in 10 skills at once and NOT suck in it's other abilities.Uh... Alchemists/Investigators? 6+Int and Int is your primary stat.
That's only 10 Skills max...
Which could be comparable to many of the Rogues I've seen in play.
However, getting 12 isn't possible if they want to have a Rogue with the max skills.
And unless they dump stat other things, they suck at the some of their abilities.
Then again, the Rogue who focuses on Int will also have similar problems with some of the WIS skills (such as that vital perception).
Same go for most of the other supposedly great classes.
Investigator IS a good comparison (then again, they are a cross between the alchemist and the Rogue), and one could argue powercreep in this.
However, some of the Rogue talents do help a lot with some of the abilities of the Rogue...so I'd say it's a toss up in some ways with the Talents being brought into consideration.
However, with the magical abilities of the Investigator...that's a win on the Investigators side.
I'd still say it's a toss up on what flavor of the skill monkey you want to play.
Edit: It should be noted, several of the ACG classes are pretty good in regards to the hybrid classes they are made of...not just the Rogue. It think there's one that's involved with another class that many threw an uproar about being broken even.
human Investigator with 16 int, without favored class bonus can have 10 skills maxed out, if they had fast learner and DPS open minded alongside an 18 intelligence, they can max out 13 skills and actually, get more benefit out of intelligence than the rogue does.
|
That's only 10 Skills max...
Which could be comparable to many of the Rogues I've seen in play.
However, getting 12 isn't possible if they want to have a Rogue with the max skills.
Favored Class + Human can make it 12. That'd allow a Rogue 14, of course...but he'd need Int 18, which is viable for Investigators, but not generally for Rogues.
Of course, with a free +4.5 on all skills via Inspiration Talents, the Investigator can be 4 ranks lower and still better than the Rogue on average. At 15th level, for example, the Investigator can better the rogue with 10 skills at 12 ranks, then 4 at 15, to the Rogue's 14 skills at 15 ranks. He's only slightly better at 10, but much better at the other 4...and has all his non-skill advantages to boot.
And unless they dump stat other things, they suck at the some of their abilities.
Eh, Int 16-18 is very viable for an Investigator.
Then again, the Rogue who focuses on Int will also have similar problems with some of the WIS skills (such as that vital perception).
Indeed. An Investigator can go Empiricist and get Int instead of Wis to Perception...
Same go for most of the other supposedly great classes.
Not all of them, no.
Investigator IS a good comparison (then again, they are a cross between the alchemist and the Rogue), and one could argue powercreep in this.
If they were better than most other Classes rather than just rogue, yes, but they're still way less good than, say, Clerics or Wizards, so...
However, some of the Rogue talents do help a lot with some of the abilities of the Rogue...so I'd say it's a toss up in some ways with the Talents being brought into consideration.
Which ones? Investigators can grab a lot of them if they feel like it.
However, with the magical abilities of the Investigator...that's a win on the Investigators side.
Indeed.
I'd still say it's a toss up on what flavor of the skill monkey you want to play.
Only if you don't care about anything but skills (the Investigator being on par or better on those, and better at everything else)...and even then Empiricist definitely wins out due to using Int for so many of them.
Edit: It should be noted, several of the ACG classes are pretty good in regards to the hybrid classes they are made of...not just the Rogue. It think there's one that's involved with another class that many threw an uproar about being broken even.
Uh...which? Arcanist? Arcanist is good, but not quite all it was cracked up to be.
You could go 18 Int on an Underground Chemist Rogue.
"I want a simple character"
The answer is probably not. It's because they are so modular. A fighter is a bunch abilities you don't care about and bonus feats, a rogue is a bunch of bonus skill points and some pick-and-choose talents. It is their base nature to be customizable, easily stacking with anything. Therefore any attempt to specialize and give them a specific path instead of generic abilities going to be losing that versatile modularity in favor of something you could just take another class to get.
I'm finding a few issues here. First, the feat chain structure gets in the way of the fighter being anything of a generalist and reaching the really good feats the class needs to shine. I find that many feats are loaded down with prerequisites that don't seem to make much sense to me and are there more or less to delay entry into those feats.
Secondly, if there are a bunch of abilities that people don't really care about, then these abilities are merely add-ons that take up space and bog down the game.As for the rogue, most of the rogue talents seem to me to be niche and inferior compared to the selectable abilities of other classes (with a few notable exceptions that seem to be the backbone of what characters use.)
If the fighter could get past the feat chain system and the rogue could get some better talents, I think that would be a good first step to breathing some life into these classes.
You have 4 types of magic (buff/heal, direct damage, noncombat utility...I may have miscounted...oh right crowd control/debuff). You have 4 types of martials, there are reavers (damage deal), bricks (damage soak), runners(monks and mounted combat), and archers
Another complicating factor is that spellcasters have a lot easier and readier access to the four types (or most of the four types) of magic. than martials have access to one of their four types. And with conjuration magic, etc., the spellcaster is likely to have some fort of ready access to the four types of martials as well.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
For some players, mundane is a feature not a bug.
I have a friend who won't touch any form of spellcasting on any character he plays. He is fantastic at playing rogues.
And for people like this, there's the Slayer, which do the same thing thematically and are much better mechanically, generally speaking.
I have another friend who plays a fighter when she wants something mechanically simple. Sometimes your combat options being "all I do is hit things" is all you want out of your character.Barbarians and Slayers both do that better than most Fighters, IMO (though I guess Slayers vaguely care about getting Sneak Attack). As do Brawlers if you're willing to go unarmed or with something in the Close weapon group.
My rogue-playing friend looked at the Slayer and he thinks he may try it someday, but he's leery of the fewer skill points. He builds rogues who get 11+ per level and still complains he can't keep his skills where he wants.
He just really likes the rogue toolbox. He likes never having to declare that he searches for traps, for example(trap spotter talent). He likes rolling high on many varied skills. He has fun and contributes to the group, so I can't really judge him for it. Would he contribute more as a bard or investigator? I don't know, some of his mad creativity comes from not always having the perfect tool for a problem. And he really hates spellcasting so just having the ability would make him have less fun.
I haven't tried the ACG classes yet myself, but I vastly prefer fighters over barbarians mostly because fighters don't instantly die when they drop, which is a serious danger with barbarians unless you spend a feat. Also if you want simple you suddenly have to track rage rounds, fluctuating ability scores, and so forth. I agree it's not much to keep track of but it's more conditional stuff than a fighter.
I haven't tried the ACG classes yet myself, but I vastly prefer fighters over barbarians mostly because fighters don't instantly die when they drop, which is a serious danger with barbarians unless you spend a feat. Also if you want simple you suddenly have to track rage rounds, fluctuating ability scores, and so forth. I agree it's not much to keep track of but it's more conditional stuff than a fighter.
With the extra hit points a barbarian gets from raging he should not have to worry about running out unless he has extremely bad luck. They can get decent AC so while many are built so they can be easily hit, upping the AC helps make sure they actually have staying power.
As for the fluctuation in ability scores, saves, and so on, all you have to do is write down their normal and raging stats. That is what I do as a GM. Most of the time you don't even need to even write down the strength and con score. You know what it is, and it almost never comes up anyway. When it does just add the number mentally.
DICLAIMER: I'm not really interested in a purely min/max optimization debate. In my mind the debate is done in regards to these two classes for now.
With that out of the way I'm left wondering if there is really any point to these classes.
What I mean is is there a concept that can't be better covered through another class?
Since the consensus on these boards is that class (and skill) descriptions are fluff that don't matter in how you play the class, and you can "re-fluff" your class however you want, you're pretty much left with class features, Sp, and Su abilities to answer your question. Since Rogue and Fighter are short on unique class abilities, and you can re-fluff any class text you want, you're going to come to the conclusion that there is no concept that can't be covered better by another class, and there is no point to the classes.
That being said, there are a number of concepts you can build with these classes, and it doesn't matter if other classes can build the same concepts. And if, for example, you wanted to make a concept like a soldier or a regular knight, Fighter works better than Barbarian, Paladin, Cavalier, or Ranger, if you care about the way the class is actually described in the manual (which many people do).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I seriously doubt there is a "rogue" or "fighter" concept that those classes can't cover. The trouble is wondering whether there are concepts that only they can cover not just mechanics but a combination of the two.
Could the argument be made that the other classes shouldn't have the options that allow them to mimic or eliminated the need for rogue and fighter options? Is the problem that the barbarian can accomplish the same thing a fighter can or that the fighter can accomplish the same thing a barbarian can?
I personally believe that if someone can make a concept worth with a particular class or class combination that's good enough for me. I like having more than one way to accomplish the same overall goal.
Why isn't there a discussion on how other classes can do what classes other than the rogue or fighter can do (concept wise not specific abilities)?
I personally believe that if someone can make a concept worth with a particular class or class combination that's good enough for me. I like having more than one way to accomplish the same overall goal.
Why isn't there a discussion on how other classes can do what classes other than the rogue or fighter can do (concept wise not specific abilities)?
Because only the Rogue and the Fighter ride the short bus (and, to some extent the Cavalier, but he's got a proper pet).
Are there builds that eclipse the Martial Master Mutagen Warrior combo?
Build Path
lvl 12 Build
lvl 20 Build
Max Build
I think we have a niche folks.
For some players, mundane is a feature not a bug.
I have a friend who won't touch any form of spellcasting on any character he plays. He is fantastic at playing rogues.
I have another friend who plays a fighter when she wants something mechanically simple. Sometimes your combat options being "all I do is hit things" is all you want out of your character.
Right, I have explained this several times, yet the Fighter-haters continue to want to take this option away from the players who enjoy this.
Now, when you included classes outside the CRB, the only REAL one I think is great, is the Ninja. That...I admit, may be better than the Rogue in just about every way, since their focus goes so closely to what a Rogues would be.
Do note that the Ninja is just a special archetype of the Rogue, that is stated out.
But for combat, the Ninja is a pretty cool archetype.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...but if you run a REAL dungeon with a REAL day (at least 8-12 hours)...where you'd actually NEED a Rogue (so none of this one or two trap stuff, the dungeon is LOADED with traps and locks and other things), they run out of these types of spells within the first hour or two...and then...they are back at the square where a Rogue with a high Dex is better at many of the skills.Your neckbeard doesn't impress me, i used to DM with the red box edition. Even back then, the giant dungeons had places to rest and recover spells.
Some did some didn't. RedBox, eh? Get off my law, kid. ;-)
Still, back in those days of fiendish Gygaxian traps, you NEEDED a Thief in a dungeon crawl.
This is one issue with the rogue today, lack of fiendish Gygaxian traps in most PF AP's. You can often just take the hit from the occasional trap. Sad, really.
I've been a little curious about this line of thinking. Fighty McGee is never going to have a spell list, obviously, it destroys everything the character indicates, but can you really say it's spoiling the fun for the people that just want a hitting-things platform if the class becomes a 4+Int skill classRight, I have explained this several times, yet the Fighter-haters continue to want to take this option away from the players who enjoy this.For some players, mundane is a feature not a bug.
I have a friend who won't touch any form of spellcasting on any character he plays. He is fantastic at playing rogues.
I have another friend who plays a fighter when she wants something mechanically simple. Sometimes your combat options being "all I do is hit things" is all you want out of your character.
Sure, the Players who like simple PC's wont really be hurt by more Skill points. But they mostly dont really care about them, either. Why do we need a new Edition just to fix this, something that obviously many Fighter players care little about? (Some dump their INT note, so 4Skp wont give any more SkP that 2SkP will).
And, Players who want a lot of Skill points can just play a Ranger.
I mean- there's nothing wrong with giving a Fighter 4 SkP, or heck, giving every class 2 more SkP. But that ship has sailed.
Unchained is not simply going to re-do a class by making it better, like adding 2SkP.
Since the consensus on these boards is that class (and skill) descriptions are fluff that don't matter in how you play the class, and you can "re-fluff" your class however you want,....
Who decided that? A few very vocal posters? Do any Devs say that?
|
I want a skill monkey that can advance in 10 skills at once and NOT suck in it's other abilities.
Rogues can put all their points into DEX and INT to basically have 10-12 skills, and be good at most of the Rogue abilities.
No other class can really do that. They normally don't get the skill points.
***
Have you seen the Occultist from the Occult adventures playtest? 4 + Int skills, INT based class abilities including spellcasting, a class skill list rivaling the Rogue's, better proficiencies, the ability to pick up always-on detection modes like see invisibility and blindsense, the option to throw on a permanent DEX booster, better saves, magical scouting tools that let him explore without putting himself in danger... The Occultist is accidentally better at being a rogue than the Rogue while he's busily chugging away at doing/being other things. Honestly, Rogue's are so squishy that I wouldn't say you can really get away with just DEX/INT builds; your really need CON and WIS if you want to survive. And classes like the Slayer, Occultist, and Alchemist get more return on investment for high INT than the Rogue does.
Who decided that? A few very vocal posters? Do any Devs say that?
Since the consensus on these boards is that class (and skill) descriptions are fluff that don't matter in how you play the class, and you can "re-fluff" your class however you want,....
Well, you certainly can do those things; I'm pretty sure JJ isn't going to kick down your door and hold you at swordpoint. But yeah, I don't play the "bucket-o'-stats" approach in a typical game. At the least, I wouldn't expect the GM to allow arbitrary refluffing and get upset if she didn't.
|
|
***Unchained is not simply going to re-do a class by making it better, like adding 2SkP. ***
My understanding is that that is actually exactly what will be happening in a few instances with Unchained. That is, there will be several classes that they just flat out make better than they were previously because several years into the game now they're very aware that they short-changed a few classes, like the Rogue, and they want to present superior options that are more on par with the other classes in the game. And apparently there will also be at least one instance of a nerfed class, the Summoner, because they went too far in the other direction.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Have you seen the Occultist from the Occult adventures playtest? 4 + Int skills, INT based class abilities including spellcasting, a class skill list rivaling the Rogue's, better proficiencies, the ability to pick up always-on detection modes like see invisibility and blindsense, the option to throw on a permanent DEX booster, better saves, magical scouting tools that let him explore without putting himself in danger... The Occultist is accidentally better at being a rogue than the Rogue while he's busily chugging away at doing/being other things. Honestly, Rogue's are so squishy that I wouldn't say you can really get away with just DEX/INT builds; your really need CON and WIS if you want to survive. And classes like the Slayer, Occultist, and Alchemist get more return on investment for high INT than the Rogue does.I want a skill monkey that can advance in 10 skills at once and NOT suck in it's other abilities.
Rogues can put all their points into DEX and INT to basically have 10-12 skills, and be good at most of the Rogue abilities.
No other class can really do that. They normally don't get the skill points.
***
The occultist is magic. Maybe I want to play a rogue that doesn't have mysterious occult powers, super-assassin powers, or a wacky chemistry set.
Who decided that? A few very vocal posters? Do any Devs say that?
Since the consensus on these boards is that class (and skill) descriptions are fluff that don't matter in how you play the class, and you can "re-fluff" your class however you want,....
Sorry, consensus is the wrong word, I was in a rush while writing that.
Let me rephrase, "If you believe that any and all 'flavor text' on classes and class abilities can be refluffed to whatever you like, you will almost surely agree with the OPs sentiment."
|
|
The occultist is magic. Maybe I want to play a rogue that doesn't have mysterious occult powers.
Good for you, but that has nothing to do with the post I was responding to, and I actually included the Slayer in my post, which your comment doesn't address either.
**EDIT**
Ah, I see you actually went back and read my post and edited your response. The Slayer no more has "super assassin powers" than the Rogue does; remember sneak attack? That ability Rogues get that lets them implant a fireball in your kidneys by poking you with 4 inches of steel? If anything, the Slayer is more "realistic", since his abilities actually require him to study his target and his sneak attack sits on a chassis that could believably capitalize on his strength and accuracy.
Fortunately, the Paizo devs have openly acknowledeged how bad off the Rogue is and are releasing a fix.
The occultist is magic. Maybe I want to play a rogue that doesn't have mysterious occult powers, super-assassin powers, or a wacky chemistry set.
That's a totally legit wish. Below level 6 or so.
Have you seen the Occultist from the Occult adventures playtest? 4 + Int skills, INT based class abilities including spellcasting, a class skill list rivaling the Rogue's, better proficiencies, the ability to pick up always-on detection modes like see invisibility and blindsense, the option to throw on a permanent DEX booster, better saves, magical scouting tools that let him explore without putting himself in danger... The Occultist is accidentally better at being a rogue than the Rogue while he's busily chugging away at doing/being other things. Honestly, Rogue's are so squishy that I wouldn't say you can really get away with just DEX/INT builds; your really need CON and WIS if you want to survive. And classes like the Slayer, Occultist, and Alchemist get more return on investment for high INT than the Rogue does.I want a skill monkey that can advance in 10 skills at once and NOT suck in it's other abilities.
Rogues can put all their points into DEX and INT to basically have 10-12 skills, and be good at most of the Rogue abilities.
No other class can really do that. They normally don't get the skill points.
***
I have to admit, I added the playtest document with the intention of DL and testing it, unfortunately haven't even gotten to look at it much less playtest it yet.
I don't know anything about the Occultist, so it's possible they have a new class that dominates the Rogue in everything and every aspect.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's a totally legit wish. Below level 6 or so.
The occultist is magic. Maybe I want to play a rogue that doesn't have mysterious occult powers, super-assassin powers, or a wacky chemistry set.
You are unnecessarily adversarial toward play styles that differ from your own. This makes it difficult for me to take anything you post seriously. I thought you should know.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are unnecessarily adversarial toward play styles that differ from your own. This makes it difficult for me to take anything you post seriously. I thought you should know.That's a totally legit wish. Below level 6 or so.
The occultist is magic. Maybe I want to play a rogue that doesn't have mysterious occult powers, super-assassin powers, or a wacky chemistry set.
Pot, meet kettle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pot, meet kettle.You are unnecessarily adversarial toward play styles that differ from your own. This makes it difficult for me to take anything you post seriously. I thought you should know.That's a totally legit wish. Below level 6 or so.
The occultist is magic. Maybe I want to play a rogue that doesn't have mysterious occult powers, super-assassin powers, or a wacky chemistry set.
I disagree sometimes, but I at least try to maintain a civil tone. This has become increasingly difficult of late given the worsening tone of the boards.
No, that was before my time.
You are unnecessarily adversarial toward play styles that differ from your own. This makes it difficult for me to take anything you post seriously. I thought you should know.That's a totally legit wish. Below level 6 or so.
The occultist is magic. Maybe I want to play a rogue that doesn't have mysterious occult powers, super-assassin powers, or a wacky chemistry set.
maybe sometimes they are unnecessarily adversarial. But this comment was just fine. Wanting to play a non-magic/non-neat tricks person is totally fine pre 6, the average power is low enough that you'll be able to compete just fine. Getting much higher than 6 and you'll probably be put into "useless" by those who do have special abilities, as they can do your job better than you, while doing their other jobs.
Pot, meet kettle.You are unnecessarily adversarial toward play styles that differ from your own. This makes it difficult for me to take anything you post seriously. I thought you should know.That's a totally legit wish. Below level 6 or so.
The occultist is magic. Maybe I want to play a rogue that doesn't have mysterious occult powers, super-assassin powers, or a wacky chemistry set.Once again, "I want a character who is special but isn't special" is kind of a weird order. Either s/he is "gritty real" and doesn't get past level 6 for the same reason all your favorite characters die in Game of Thrones, or s/he is made of magic and does things which are "magical" (or at the very least extraordinary).
That's the nature of fantasy characters, they're doing "fantastic" things.
Such a view--that this is the only valid play style--dismisses a plethora of fictional works and character archetypes. I cannot agree.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My rogue-playing friend looked at the Slayer and he thinks he may try it someday, but he's leery of the fewer skill points. He builds rogues who get 11+ per level and still complains he can't keep his skills where he wants.
That's fair, I suppose, but a flat bonus in most circumstances to the skills you have is pretty nice compensation for losing a couple.
He just really likes the rogue toolbox. He likes never having to declare that he searches for traps, for example(trap spotter talent). He likes rolling high on many varied skills. He has fun and contributes to the group, so I can't really judge him for it. Would he contribute more as a bard or investigator? I don't know, some of his mad creativity comes from not always having the perfect tool for a problem. And he really hates spellcasting so just having the ability would make him have less fun.
Trap Spotter is available to Slayers. For the record. :)
And I sympathize on the mundane thing, and agree that there needs to be a mundane option...but Slayer is better at that than Rogue is by quite a bit.
And, for the record, obviously he shouldn't be judged. If he's having fun, more power to him...I just suspect he might have even more as a Slayer and should give it a try (or wait for Unchained's new Rogue).
I haven't tried the ACG classes yet myself, but I vastly prefer fighters over barbarians mostly because fighters don't instantly die when they drop, which is a serious danger with barbarians unless you spend a feat. Also if you want simple you suddenly have to track rage rounds, fluctuating ability scores, and so forth. I agree it's not much to keep track of but it's more conditional stuff than a fighter.
Slayer is an excellent solution for this problem as well. They get one less Feat than Fighters over the first 10 levels if built in a Fighter-y way, and require very little more bookkeeping or effort (indeed, as of 7th level it's debatably less in some ways since you can apply Studied Target to all weapons, not just one, and it'll almost always apply). And you can actually do non-combat stuff, too. Try it out.
The occultist is magic. Maybe I want to play a rogue that doesn't have mysterious occult powers, super-assassin powers, or a wacky chemistry set.
As noted, the Slayer lacks 'super assassin powers' in any meaningful sense. In terms of 'powers' they have that Rogues don't...they have Studied Target.
ie: The ability to judge people's fighting style (and other things about them) well and quickly. That's...really not a super-power, and indeed one of the most appropriate combat skills I can think of for a Rogue-like character.
|
|
I have to admit, I added the playtest document with the intention of DL and testing it, unfortunately haven't even gotten to look at it much less playtest it yet.I don't know anything about the Occultist, so it's possible they have a new class that dominates the Rogue in everything and every aspect.
The Rogue actually still has the whole sneak attack thing going for him, and the Occultist's nearest equivalents for direct damage are probably the evocation school abilities, so he doesn't completely subsume the things that the Rogue can do; I'd have to do some number crunching to see how that really all works out, whether the Occultist's superior proficiencies and enhancements can meat or beat the Rogue's Sneak Attack, but I know he has an easier time doing his thing than the Rogue does. I think the Occultist doesn't really push on the Rogue too much more than the Alchemist already did, but having 18 class skills to the Alchemist's 13 and the Rogue's 21 means he's a lot closer, and the Divination school giving him a free action ability to boost any skill check by 1/2 his level pretty much closes any gap that might have been there. The big thing I was addressing was that the Occultist is actually really, really good for making a INT and DEX only character, since he can slap on all kinds of defenses and bonus hit points and has such a substantial class skill list. He almost becomes the "magical Rogue" by accident if you pick up the Divination school.
I'm not sure that really impacts the overall game dynamic though, like I mentioned before, the Slayer gets more return on investment for pumping INT than the Rogue does, so you can easily play an 18 INT Slayer and make up for any gaps between him and the Rogue by fleshing out interaction skills like Bluff and Sense Motive with his Studied Target ability.
|
|
Such a view--that this is the only valid play style--dismisses a plethora of fictional works and character archetypes. I cannot agree.
No it doesn't, it points out that those characters are largely either best represented by play below level 7, or in a system other than Pathfinder where the magical members of the party will be performing feats beyond the scope of most Greek deities by level 12.
Also, please stop putting words in people's mouths. He never said that there was only one valid playstyle, he just pointed out the very true fact that over-adherence to realism in a fantasy game has made classes that people want to weigh down with the "mundane" tag less good than their counterparts who have magic. Which is demonstrably true.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is one issue with the rogue today, lack of fiendish Gygaxian traps in most PF AP's. You can often just take the hit from the occasional trap. Sad, really.
But necessary honestly. Kids these days tend to resent instant death and having you class defined by your race. :P
That being said, there are a number of concepts you can build with these classes, and it doesn't matter if other classes can build the same concepts. And if, for example, you wanted to make a concept like a soldier or a regular knight, Fighter works better than Barbarian, Paladin, Cavalier, or Ranger, if you care about the way the class is actually described in the manual (which many people do).
Cavalier is the regular knight class. Though in truth a knight can be represented by any martial class and even some 3/4 bab ones.
Could the argument be made that the other classes shouldn't have the options that allow them to mimic or eliminated the need for rogue and fighter options? Is the problem that the barbarian can accomplish the same thing a fighter can or that the fighter can accomplish the same thing a barbarian can?I personally believe that if someone can make a concept worth with a particular class or class combination that's good enough for me. I like having more than one way to accomplish the same overall goal.
Why isn't there a discussion on how other classes can do what classes other than the rogue or fighter can do (concept wise not specific abilities)?
I think it's most certainly a fair argument that classes shouldn't "share" class features especially the features of fairly anemic classes like clerics and fighters.
The problem is that the barbarian can accomplish the same thing a fighter can. So can a ranger, so can a slayer, or a paladin or a cavalier or a brawler, or a swashbuckler, or any archetype of the things mentioned.
If you're okay with this that's fine. The question doesn't consider whether or not you like it but whether or not there are character concepts that would flat out cease to exist if the fighter and rogue simply ceased to exist.
|
|
Such a view--that this is the only valid play style--dismisses a plethora of fictional works and character archetypes. I cannot agree.No it doesn't, it points out that those characters are largely either best represented by play below level 7, or in a system other than Pathfinder where the magical members of the party will be performing feats beyond the scope of most Greek deities by level 12.
Batman has a sad now.
|
|
Batman has a sad now.Such a view--that this is the only valid play style--dismisses a plethora of fictional works and character archetypes. I cannot agree.No it doesn't, it points out that those characters are largely either best represented by play below level 7, or in a system other than Pathfinder where the magical members of the party will be performing feats beyond the scope of most Greek deities by level 12.
Batman is a multi-class Slayer/Investigator :P
In all seriousness though, Batman only really fits in with the Justice League because he has nearly unlimited wealth, and Superman is too busy dealing with galactic level threats to run around dealing with crime bosses and lunatics like the Penguin and the Joker.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Guys, maybe we could cool it down some?
Cavalier is the regular knight class. Though in truth a knight can be represented by any martial class and even some 3/4 bab ones.
That being said, there are a number of concepts you can build with these classes, and it doesn't matter if other classes can build the same concepts. And if, for example, you wanted to make a concept like a soldier or a regular knight, Fighter works better than Barbarian, Paladin, Cavalier, or Ranger, if you care about the way the class is actually described in the manual (which many people do).
While many warriors strive to perfect their art, spending all of their time honing their skill at martial arms, others spend as much effort dedicating themselves to a cause. These warriors, known as cavaliers, swear themselves to a purpose, serving it above all else. Cavaliers are skilled at fighting from horseback, and are often found charging across a battlefield, with the symbol of their order trailing on a long, fluttering banner. The cavalier's true power comes from the conviction of his ideals, the oaths that he swears, and the challenges he makes.
Granted, Cavalier does have the whole "mounted warrior" thing going for it, and it works for a certain idealized picture of knight. But it's news to me that (actual) knights got their power from "dedicating themselves to a cause and issuing challenges" rather than "honing their skill at martial arms." I was under the impressions that knights spent a lot of their time for a number of years "honing their skill at martial arms," and that a cause generally meant "what your lord tells you to do."
|
|
Way I see it, the main benefit of both the Rogue and the Fighter is that they usually do not have limited resources (other than HP of course).
A Fighter or a Rogue can adventure all day long and he is still as efficient after hours in the dungeon as he was when he started.
Few other classes can say the same.
So, the real problem lies with the inability of GMs to tackle the 15-minutes day of adventuring.
When the casters have spent all their spells, the barbarian all his rage rounds and the paladin all his smites and lay on hands, the good old meat shields and their flanking buddies can shine again ;-)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, the real problem lies with the inability of GMs to tackle the 15-minutes day of adventuring.When the casters have spent all their spells, the barbarian all his rage rounds and the paladin all his smites and lay on hands, the good old meat shields and their flanking buddies can shine again ;-)
This wasn't even true in (pre-Advanced) Dungeons & Dragons, and it's certainly not true today.
well, seeing as how a Cavalier is a full BaB class with proficiency in all martial weapons, I'm guessing that they have "honed their skill at martial arms"
It's true, but their true power comes from devotion to ideals. /swoon
Great if I want to play that sort of class. There are a lot of "knights" that I could see myself wanting to play where that description is just ridiculous. See: any cynical knight who does what he does because he's good at it and it elevates his station in life.