This wasn't even true in (pre-Advanced) Dungeons & Dragons, and it's certainly not true today.
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 ;-)
I see a LOT on these boards to indicate that it is. Not everyone, obviously, but with some of the assumptions which would be done away with after an 8 hour day...yea...I'd say there are some that definitely have problems letting players only do a 15 min adventuring day.
Though it is ONE element (how easily and much a Wizard could replicate Rogue abilities)...there are multiple other elements that probably affect the Rogue with other classes comparable to the Rogue that are much more heavily weighted and stronger in consideration (since many have equally long term skills that they use effectively).
I think one REALLY strong point someone made in this thread, personally speaking, is the background information on the classes. After all, if you look at classes more like an archetype instead of a bunch of numbers, that could actually be a significant item in regards to whether one class can substitute for another.
For those who don't see the background and fluff as a big item or even necessary, then seeing if there is anything that can't really replace the rogue is a much more valid reasoning in a number crunching way.
If Fluff and background, as well as archetypal and descriptions DO matter as much as the rules with numbers...than it becomes MUCH harder.
For example, the investigator vs. the Rogue idea. Can an Investigator be a burglar who breaks into houses just to rob them like a Rogue...or is there some inherent other things which qualifies the Investigator to be what they are?
Or with a Ninja...can you have a Ninja in a setting which is pure European...with no real background to allow an Oriental type class like the Ninja?
If you take the text and descriptions of the classes as seriously as you do the number rules...than it actually becomes much harder than if you disregard the text, and only include the numbers.
Which of course is reliant on the type of game and players you have...but an excellent point nonetheless, I think.
Guys, maybe we could cool it down some?
Or heat it up, it's almost enough to cook my popcorn.
I see a LOT on these boards to indicate that it is. Not everyone, obviously, but with some of the assumptions which would be done away with after an 8 hour day...yea...I'd say there are some that definitely have problems letting players only do a 15 min adventuring day.This wasn't even true in (pre-Advanced) Dungeons & Dragons, and it's certainly not true today.
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 ;-)
I think it's been shown that a paladin without smite is still better or on par with a fighter. Barbs would have a little lower AC probably than a fighter. Slayer goes all day.
Also though, how many fights are you doing in a day that require the expenditure of resources? A CR = APL should use what 20% of daily resources? So that mean you should have like 5 =CR fights in a day. So I don't see running out of resources as an issue. And if you throw CR+4 against them, yeah they'll use everything but also expect the chance to recharge afterwards. Or have fights so easy they shouldn't need their good stuff. If you want to throw two CR+4 a day at them, watch them die and the fighter and rogue still die because they can't do it alone.
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."
Okay, so you want to play an Order of the Lion Cavalier. Guard could work too, if you're traveling with your liege.
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.
Have fun with the Order of the Cockatrice!
You might want to actually read the class before dismissing it, friend.
|
A few small changes to rogue talents plus some revisions to the archetypes would be all that was needed.
My personal thoughts
Give rogues Piranha Strike for free at level 1
Give fighters Quick Draw for free at level 1 and give them an ability to have weapons they wield overcome various DRs as they increase in level.
There's some other things, but those are easily addressed through talents, archetypes, or feats/proficiencies you'd get for free.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
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 ;-)
That's... really not true. Being able to "go all day" is really overrated in this gaming system.
Rogues and Fighters have one limited resource that they need in order to use any of their abilities: hit points. Both of these classes rely on other classes to help them conserve this resource; Rogues have poor armor proficiencies and poor Fortitude, but their class abilities push them into dangerous situations, like taking apart poisoned needle traps and trying to flank big scary monsters. Fighters intentionally try to get enemies to hit them first, and their poor Reflex and Will combined with their substantial damage-dealing power makes them prime targets for any spellcaster who comes into conflict with the party. They need the healing and buffing resources of the spellcasters in the group. When the cleric and wizard run out of spells, the rogue and fighter aren't powering through the dungeon solo; they just lost the means of preserving and renewing their own limited resource, and are now one critical hit or failed DD check away from being taken out of the game.
Basically, a Paladin can get way closer to "going all day" than the Fighter can, because the Paladin packs along his own healing, has way better saves, boosts his allies with defensive auras, and has equivalent proficiencies. He simultaneously extends the adventuring day for his allied casters, because they don't have to expend resources on him and may even conserve resources ear-marked for themselves thanks to his auras.
A Cavalier is better at going all day than a Fighter, because his mount is providing additional damage-dealing capabilities and action economy, his buffs make the entire party better, and well-timed use of his Tactician ability can often cut the duration of a fight in half, preserving the other party member's resources.
The Barbarian is better at going all day than the Fighter because his superior skills, including the ever-essential Perception, his Damage Reduction, his Uncanny Dodge, and his Trap Sense all mean he'll be taking less damage than the Fighter over the course of a balanced adventure. His d12 hit die means he has a larger pool of hit points to spare, and many of his Rage powers simulate effects a Fighter would have to rely on a party member for, so the Barbarian also helps in making the adventuring day last longer for his allies.
Ashiel did a really good comparison once where she basically ran a Fighter and a Paladin through a Paladin hell full of oozes, constructs, and other un-Smiteable things, and the Paladin actually still came out ahead by a clear margin. The Fighter causes 15 minute adventuring days, not prevents them. The Rogue is a little more nebulous in that, depending on the scenario, his skill abilities may allow him to bypass obstacles that would otherwise cost party resources, but the cost to keep him up and contributing in combat is likely to be higher.
This wasn't even true in (pre-Advanced) Dungeons & Dragons, and it's certainly not true today.
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 ;-)
Actually it was true back in the Old Days. Altho not common, many times we ran out of everything but "swings". At least in our games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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."Okay, so you want to play an Order of the Lion Cavalier. Guard could work too, if you're traveling with your liege.
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.Have fun with the Order of the Cockatrice!
You might want to actually read the class before dismissing it, friend.
Both of which, again, evoke specific images. Neither of which directly matches what I'm going for. You could play a LG Knight (Fighter) who is a Knight because it's how he can survive in a LN land. He's not full of himself, not a braggart, doesn't like to steal the glory from everyone. He's not particularly devoted to his lord, but that obeys him out of general respect for the law and because it's how he survives. If his lord stepped too far out of line, he might even join a rebellion against him. Does not fit well with a Cavalier class in general, or with either Order you linked.
I have no problem with Cavalier. It would probably be a fun class to play, depending on the campaign. But it evokes a specific image. What if you don't want that image? Play a Barbarian? Again, very specific things pop up. Samurai? We're not in Japan. Paladin? Not a Holy Warrior.
|
Rogues and Fighters have one limited resource that they need in order to use any of their abilities: hit points. Both of these classes rely on other classes to help them conserve this resource; Rogues have poor armor proficiencies and poor Fortitude, but their class abilities push them into dangerous situations, like taking apart poisoned needle traps and trying to flank big scary monsters. Fighters intentionally try to get enemies to hit them first, and their poor Reflex and Will combined with their substantial damage-dealing power makes them prime targets for any spellcaster who comes into conflict with the party. They need the healing and buffing resources of the spellcasters in the group. When the cleric and wizard run out of spells, the rogue and fighter aren't powering through the dungeon solo; they just lost the means of preserving and renewing their own limited resource, and are now one critical hit or failed DD check away from being taken out of the game.
...do you really have your casters spend spell slots on healing after level 2?
Rogues and Fighters have one limited resource that they need in order to use any of their abilities: hit points. Both of these classes rely on other classes to help them conserve this resource; Rogues have poor armor proficiencies and poor Fortitude, but their class abilities push them into dangerous situations, like taking apart poisoned needle traps and trying to flank big scary monsters. Fighters intentionally try to get enemies to hit them first, and their poor Reflex and Will combined with their substantial damage-dealing power makes them prime targets for any spellcaster who comes into conflict with the party. They need the healing and buffing resources of the spellcasters in the group. When the cleric and wizard run out of spells, the rogue and fighter aren't powering through the dungeon solo; they just lost the means of preserving and renewing their own limited resource, and are now one critical hit or failed DD check away from being taken out of the game....do you really have your casters spend spell slots on healing after level 2?
For our games- often. In fact the Free Empowered Cure spells are a big help. Mind you, now that we're 15th level Heal is the "go-to" in combat spell.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Slayer can. And Investigator is better than a Rogue even without their expendable resources. Which makes the rest of this argument a bit lackluster...
On the Cavalier thing, this:
Sounds like you want Order of the Knight Errant :P
Actually pretty much says it all. There's literally an Order for 'I define my own code of conduct'...so Cavalier has literally whatever Code you want it to.
On the traps thing:
There are several Classes other than Rogue with Trapfinding, including both Investigator and Slayer...making the claim that Rogue still has a niche as a trap guy shaky at best (especially since Investigator is basically just better at it).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a lot of times players don't have the luxury of slugging it out through the battle and topping off with wands afterwards, especially in non-high op groups. Combat healing's not a great option, but while the Wand of CLW is the most efficient thing you can be doing, a lot of people still want the casters that can heal to provide some so minutes aren't lost to get everyone back up and running.Rogues and Fighters have one limited resource that they need in order to use any of their abilities: hit points. Both of these classes rely on other classes to help them conserve this resource; Rogues have poor armor proficiencies and poor Fortitude, but their class abilities push them into dangerous situations, like taking apart poisoned needle traps and trying to flank big scary monsters. Fighters intentionally try to get enemies to hit them first, and their poor Reflex and Will combined with their substantial damage-dealing power makes them prime targets for any spellcaster who comes into conflict with the party. They need the healing and buffing resources of the spellcasters in the group. When the cleric and wizard run out of spells, the rogue and fighter aren't powering through the dungeon solo; they just lost the means of preserving and renewing their own limited resource, and are now one critical hit or failed DD check away from being taken out of the game....do you really have your casters spend spell slots on healing after level 2?
Direct damage also isn't the only kind of thing that requires healing to prevent hp loss. Poison, disease, curses, negative levels, ability damage, ability drain, etc. all require someone to patch them up in a way the Rogue and Fighter (particularly the Fighter) don't have a solid answer to. Status effects like blindness can cripple a character and will never be removed without magical intervention of some kind. Notice how I said "preserving and renewing". This also includes spells like false life, haste, heroism, fly, greater invisibility, death ward etc., or even more costly buffs like mind blank and true seeing, all the little things that allow Rogues and Fighters to continue to function.
|
|
See, in terms of rogues having to "stand there and take it" if they're going to be up in melee and do more than one attack, I'd either change the class to do more damage when mobile (I.E they can do a single large hit) or give them fewer hit points but make them harder to hit (I.E. they're hard to hit, but one hit might take them down). The bad guy might waste a lot of cycles trying to splat the little rogue that's smacking them hard, but if they do happen to hit, that rogue is gonna be sorry.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paladin's aren't MAD any more than a fighter is. They can run with lower wisdom and lower con if needed and because of divine grace and LoH they still have more HP and better saves than a fighter.
To get things back to something resembling the topic let's take a look at this concept.
You could play a/an X who is a/an X because it's how he can survive in a LN land. He's not full of himself, not a braggart, doesn't like to steal the glory from everyone. He's not particularly devoted to his lord, but that obeys him out of general respect for the law and because it's how he survives. If his lord stepped too far out of line, he might even join a rebellion against him.
This is not to pick on anyone but to illustrate a point.
What class works best with the above?
What image does this simple concept evoke?
|
|
Only if they have to cover other people. In the hypothetical situation where the fighter or the rogue are operating without one-and-done classes they can do other things, like fight in a mobile fashion (instead of standing their to take aggro) or hit-and-run with stealth.
But this is a red herring, the point which you're kind of underselling is that a fighter who is "going all day" can use his biggest and baddest actions every time. A wizard is always playing buyer's remorse and spell slot budgeting on whether she should fire off the big 4th level Heroism spell or save it for later and just drop another Enlarge Person. Unsurprisingly, the fighter can't hit stuff as hard as someone who's packing finite resources (rages, smites, etc.) but that's part of the trade-off. You say Paladin is better than fighter even after smite runs out because of the save bonuses, but of course with a paladin's MAD nature every point of divine grace is a lost point of to-hit/damage and with a fighter's bonus feats he can do quite a bit that a paladin can't. Every factor you add to the comparison makes it harder to compare.
Which brings us back around to the whole "want a simpler character." You're a fighter, you fight, you don't have to weigh odds or predict challenge levels because you hit stuff hard and don't know how to hit stuff less hard.
Not to say it isn't weaker than other classes, but to discount the "go all day" advantage as nonexistent is simply incorrect.
Which would be great if any of that were true. To be clear, we're talking about levels 6+, because everyone pretty much agrees that it really doesn't matter what you play up to that point because the spread of bonuses is still very small and the limit on spells prepared / spell slots is still somewhat relevant.
A Fighter with no one to cover is a Fighter with no one facilitating his ability to do anything, like fly, see invisible threats, or dispel obnoxious wind walls and obscuring mists that prevent him from using his bow.
The Fighter isn't using his "biggest and baddest actions" every time, he's using the only goddamn action he has which may or may not work.
I've never seen an experienced player play buyer's remorse with his Wizard; aside from the fact that they get Scribe Scroll as a class feature and can always have their basic staples ready to go without cutting into their spells per day, a quick Knowledge check should help them easily discern which spell is correct for the encounter. [nitpick] I may have started this, but a wizard should probably never be choosing between enlarge person and heroism since heroism is an out-of combat buff that lasts long enough to see an affected character through almost any standard dungeon crawl (not including ToH-style super dungeons.[/nitpick]
The Paladin is actually substantially less MAD than the Fighter. One stat boosts his spellcasting, Smite bonuses, all of his saves, his spellcasting, and Lay on Hands. So he needs CON less, reliance on heavy armor and the ability to pull out a deflection bonus to AC equal to CHA against the evil heavy hitters means he needs DEX less, and CHA is serving the role of WIS in his saves, so he needs that less too. Really, the Paladin only needs 2 good stats to the Fighter's 4, so it's the Fighter suffering lost points of to-hit/damage; combine that with Spellcasting and Divine Bond, and the Paladin pretty much laughs at the Fighter's bonus feats, many of which will be spent playing catch-up.
As far as the Fighter being "simpler": He's got literally hundreds, if not more, feats to choose from, that range from no-brainers to incredibly situational options that may sound cool but never come up in a given campaign. Most of these will be mediocre stepping stones on the way to the feats that actually make a noticeable difference in character performance. And the thing is, the Fighter has to choose the right feats. He has a slightly higher margin for error thanks to being able to retrain his bonus feats, but that's useless if he decides he wants to pick up Improved and Greater Trip, spends a normal feat on Improved Trip, and then discovers that the main enemy in the next phase of the campaign are a race of flying creatures.
Finally: The Fighter's baseline can only be so much better than the other classes for balance reasons. What this ends up meaning is that the Fighter gets to be slightly better at combat only when the other classes aren't using their limited resources, in exchange for being substantially worse when they are. The Fighter is reliant on classes with limited resources to do his own job though, so...
There was no red herring. As I said, the "go all day" factor is incredibly overrated in the current core system, and almost meaningless for the Fighter.
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.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,....
There is a big difference between "I don't want to use a rogue for my "thief"", and playing "bucket-o'-stats".
I also don't think many GM's will say your angry fighter concept must be a barbarian or your "priest", must be a cleric.
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 ;-)
A barbarian can put out decent damage even when not raging, and casters running out of spell is rare after level 7.
Hit points are not a small thing to run out of. The fighter, and the rogue could run out of hit points before the other classes expend their resources. It also does not help that it does not matter if the rogue and fighter did not run out of hit points first, since they are not going to go adventuring alone.
I really doubt the 15 minute adventuring day is a problem for most groups anyway. Playing shackled city(a difficult 3.5 AP) we were able to clear several rooms at low levels. If you are running two fights and then resting then something is either wrong, or out of the norm. That is a group issue, not a class issue, most of the time.
18 charisma, 7 wisdom vs. 7 and 10 leaves an extra 17 points to play with, and after the fighter takes Iron Will (because he can afford it) he has the same will save. Lay on hands is harder to track since the initial argument was to IGNORE per-day specials, and it's hard to agree how much weight to put on that particular one.
Paladins are absolutely more MAD than a fighter, are you kidding?
I have never seen a paladin at a table with 7 wisdom. I am sure it happens, but it is not the norm. I also don't see them start with an 18 charisma so that can't be the default either, even if that also happens.
18 charisma, 7 wisdom vs. 7 and 10 leaves an extra 17 points to play with, and after the fighter takes Iron Will (because he can afford it) he has the same will save. Lay on hands is harder to track since the initial argument was to IGNORE per-day specials, and it's hard to agree how much weight to put on that particular one.
Paladins are absolutely more MAD than a fighter, are you kidding?
20 pt buy paladin
str 17dex 10
con 14
int 7
wis 7
cha 16
20 pt buy
str 17
dex 13
con 16
int 7
wis 12
cha 7
Since we want to have 2 dump stats. Fighter has 1 HP per level more than me, but at lv2 I have LoH many times a day. More HP paladin. Paladin takes iron will, at lv2 I have a higher saves on everything, and my will save will continue to outpace since it's a good save. Your AC is 1 higher, but LoH probably makes up for the difference. And Lay on Hands just keeps getting better. and the paladin could totally run fine with a 14 charisma and 11 wisdom. still be better.
The paladin is just the same as the fighter without LoHs. But paladins get a magic sword or a mount. You get a bonus to fear, I'm immune to it.
and so on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why do these threads always get into a heated debate over whether or not the Rogue oe Fighter sucks?
Can we just do the OPs question, and not rehash the same arguments again?
Why do these threads always get into a heated debate over whether or not the Rogue oe Fighter sucks?
Can we just do the OPs question, and not rehash the same arguments again?
Yes please. I have zero interest in another 1000 post thread along those lines. To me the debate is done to the point where we had to grant the horse lichdom.
I'm more interested if seeing if there is conceptual ground covered by the fighter or the rogue that has yet to be covered by anyone else.
I think the good things for fighters and rogues are a few level dip. By themselves they don't do much. But a level or two can complete a build for some ideas.
Why do these threads always get into a heated debate over whether or not the Rogue oe Fighter sucks?
Can we just do the OPs question, and not rehash the same arguments again?
Because mechanics matter, and at some point they always come up. But to answer the question it depends on how you look at concept which is likely what he meant by "archetype".
If 12 skill points is your concept, which is based off of a metagame concept it is much harder to replace any class.
If your concept is "has a lot of mundane out of combat utility", then it is much easier to just use class ___.
|
|
Why do these threads always get into a heated debate over whether or not the Rogue oe Fighter sucks?
Can we just do the OPs question, and not rehash the same arguments again?
Yes please. I have zero interest in another 1000 post thread along those lines. To me the debate is done to the point where we had to grant the horse lichdom.
I'm more interested if seeing if there is conceptual ground covered by the fighter or the rogue that has yet to be covered by anyone else.
Mundane, non-raging, heavily armored, guy without a mount of any sort. That's something that Fighter's currently got the market cornered on. That's the only thematic area I can think of that no other class covers, though.
Rogue doesn't even have that.
|
|
Bunch of stuffI already answered that and you either dodged or just refuse to believe it. Can't discuss things when your answer is "nuh-uh".
I'm not sure how responding to your post point by point in a 7 paragraph response is "nuh uh". Just because you say something, which is wrong, doesn't mean the book is closed.
The point is, "going all day" is neither particularly mechanically beneficial in a real game, nor representative of any "special" fantasy archetype.
From a roleplaying perspective, I have a hard time finding any particular niche the Fighter or Rogue are necessary for. There's some cool 3pp stuff out there that helps change that dynamic; I wrote "The Genius Guide to Feats of Bravery" for Rogue Genius Games and Christos Gurd did a project for Forest Guardian Press, both of which helped play up the "brave non-magical guy who gets by on Bravery and guts where other people use supernatural power".
The problem lies with the fact that in the core line, the Fighters schtick is "guy who has a slightly higher chance of hitting or successfully performing a combat maneuver, and whose armor chafes less". And where the Fighter doesn't have anything truly iconic about him, the Rogue goes the other direction and tries to tie too many elements of swashbucklers, backstabbers, street thugs, charlatans, etc. into one chassis. There just isn't much that either class can represent that isn't represented just as well on a mechanically superior chassis.
That's not to say "I can make a class that gets everything the Rogue gets in the exact same way and at the same progression" but rather "There aren't any character archetypes or ideas that I can play with a Rogue/Fighter, that I can't play with equal or greater mechanical effectiveness with another class". Take the tower shield specialist mentioned earlier. He can wield a tower shield with fewer penalties than another class perhaps, but in what way does that lend to an actual roleplay experience more than someone else who uses a tower shield sufficiently, if not quite as, competently? Particularly if that other class has a broader toolbox to draw from, for example, having more skill points so you can drop some in Diplomacy and represent your hearty warriors natural ability to make friends, which he does at every bar he goes to.
The classes lack defining features that are more than just "do this thing that anyone can do slightly better". I know that hedges into the "Rogues suck, Fighters drool" territory (and note that I don't believe that to be the case, but I can recognize their mechanical deficiencies for what they are), but it's hard to answer the subject at hand without acknowledging a lack of iconic abilities to be the case. There's nothing they can do that another class can't also do, because the sole province of those two classes is doing things everyone can do slightly better and/or faster than everyone else can do them. Anyone can hit something, take ranks in disable device, or perform a combat maneuver. Many classes can competently switch-hit, disable magic devices, or wield a signature weapon.
Why do these threads always get into a heated debate over whether or not the Rogue oe Fighter sucks?
Can we just do the OPs question, and not rehash the same arguments again?
Yes please. I have zero interest in another 1000 post thread along those lines. To me the debate is done to the point where we had to grant the horse lichdom.
I'm more interested if seeing if there is conceptual ground covered by the fighter or the rogue that has yet to be covered by anyone else.
Mundane, non-raging, heavily armored, guy without a mount of any sort. That's something that Fighter's currently got the market cornered on. That's the only thematic area I can think of that no other class covers, though.
Rogue doesn't even have that.
Cavalier can do that too. Just ignore the mount. having a feature doesn't mean you need to use it. Or take the musketeer archetype to really get rid of it. And guns are mundane. and then take heavy armor as a feat.
A fallen paladin also meets the requirement.
And Barbs/bloodragers that don't use rage can meet it too.
Edit - And the Guntank can do it too.
To get things back to something resembling the topic let's take a look at this concept.
You could play a/an X who is a/an X because it's how he can survive in a LN land. He's not full of himself, not a braggart, doesn't like to steal the glory from everyone. He's not particularly devoted to his lord, but that obeys him out of general respect for the law and because it's how he survives. If his lord stepped too far out of line, he might even join a rebellion against him.This is not to pick on anyone but to illustrate a point.
What class works best with the above?
What image does this simple concept evoke?
I don't think this concept particularly requires any class. The quote could just as easily describe a wizard as it does a fighter. I'd probably pick a Ranger or a Slayer personally, though.
|
|
Mundane, non-raging, heavily armored, guy without a mount of any sort. That's something that Fighter's currently got the market cornered on.
Pretty sure there's actually a couple archetypes that cover that as well. A sword and board Skirmisher Urban Ranger who takes Heavy Armor proficiency maybe? That Samurai archetype that trades its mount for an Iaijitsu strike? There's got to be more.
|
|
Mundane, non-raging, heavily armored, guy without a mount of any sort. That's something that Fighter's currently got the market cornered on.Pretty sure there's actually a couple archetypes that cover that as well. A sword and board Skirmisher Urban Ranger who takes Heavy Armor proficiency maybe? That Samurai archetype that trades its mount for an Iaijitsu strike? There's got to be more.
Ranger doesn't work given their loss of Fighting Style Feats in heavy armor.
Sword-Saint and Gun-Tank do technically qualify...but both have really specific flavor that restricts what kind of mundane heavily armored guy you can manage. I'm talking something where you can say "I wanna play a warrior in heavy armor, without a horse." and thats the Class you use for that and aren't required to throw on guns or the Samurai class.
Cavalier ignoring the mount would technically work...but if you have to ignore entire class features to make a concept work, the Class is really poorly designed for that concept. Heck, by that logic, you could go Ranger and just not have a Fighting Style...which, IMO, isn't a viable character. A mountless Cavalier is...but is flatly inferior to one with a mount accompanying them.
The Cavalier archetype that's on foot (and basically a samurai). The Armored Hulk Barbarian. The Stonelord paladin gets pretty close with the no-spell having.
Edit: Nevermind, that one was the Sword Saint, Samurai. Not sure why I thought it was Cavalier.
Armored Hulk's lack the 'non-raging' requirement. Stonelords are not remotely 'mundane', despite lacking spells, having numerous overtly supernatural capabilities.
And strictly speaking heavy armor proficiency isn't that hard to take as a feat. But it *is* a bit surprising just how many classes don't get heavy armor.
Armor Proficiency isn't, but a surprising number of classes restrict its use (Ranger, as noted above, leaps to mind), and few Classes are actually mundane when you get right down to it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the concept that fighters and rogues have "limited resources" in the form of hit points is flawed. ALL the characters have limited hit points.
Yes everyone has hit-points, but most of them have more limited resources, and they just need positive hitpoints to keep going. And they'd often run out of those other resources before they run out of HP. A wizard at 1hp can be pretty safe and strong. A fighter or rogue at 1 hp can't still be in the front of things.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the concept that fighters and rogues have "limited resources" in the form of hit points is flawed. ALL the characters have limited hit points.
Sure...but nobody's denying that. The point of that argument is that, regardless of their 'lack of expendable resources' Fighters and Rogues stop when they run out of readily available healing...which often happens before the party members with spells/rage rounds/whatever have run out of them, making their 'lack of things to run out of' a highly dubious advantage.
the concept that fighters and rogues have "limited resources" in the form of hit points is flawed. ALL the characters have limited hit points.Sure...but nobody's denying that. The point of that argument is that, regardless of their 'lack of expendable resources' Fighters and Rogues stop when they run out of readily available healing...which often happens before the party members with spells/rage rounds/whatever have run out of them, making their 'lack of things to run out of' a highly dubious advantage.
it isn't an advantage, it is a disadvantage because it means they have to leech resources from their allies.
Why do these threads always get into a heated debate over whether or not the Rogue oe Fighter sucks?
Can we just do the OPs question, and not rehash the same arguments again?
Yes please. I have zero interest in another 1000 post thread along those lines. To me the debate is done to the point where we had to grant the horse lichdom.
I'm more interested if seeing if there is conceptual ground covered by the fighter or the rogue that has yet to be covered by anyone else.
Mundane, non-raging, heavily armored, guy without a mount of any sort. That's something that Fighter's currently got the market cornered on. That's the only thematic area I can think of that no other class covers, though.
Rogue doesn't even have that.
...Urban Barbarian? Sure it will take two feats to get him Heavy Armor proficiency, but his "Rage" isn't a "RAGE" since it doesn't restrict his actions in the least. It acts more like a time period of intense focus. There we go, found a Mundane, non-raging, heavily armored, guy with no mount that has better/more saves, DPR, and combat utility(dem rage powers) than a fighter!
Instead of armor feats a 1 level dip into Sword Saint gets you a bag of goodies.
|
|
...Urban Barbarian? Sure it will take two feats to get him Heavy Armor proficiency, but his "Rage" isn't a "RAGE" since it doesn't restrict his actions in the least. It acts more like a time period of intense focus. There we go, found a Mundane, non-raging, heavily armored, guy with no mount that has better/more saves, DPR, and combat utility(dem rage powers) than a fighter!
Instead of armor feats a 1 level dip into Sword Saint gets you a bag of goodies.
Hmmm. Okay, that'd do it. It's still pretty kludgy, though. And a Fighter dip is probably better than a Sword-Saint dip, IMO, at least if only going for a single level.
I'm still holding out hope for a well-made Class that inherently does this without needing dips or several Feats, though.
Sword Saint Dip gives you a better level 1 IMO due to skills, skill points, challenge+Resolve pool, and Order. If I'm not mistaken the Gendarme archetype for Cavalier is also available to give you a bonus feat and several other nice bonuses even if all you use the horse for is a pack animal.
Agreed on that sentiment Deadman. If only the Fighter were on the Unchained list. At least we have third party materials like DSP's Warder and Warlord or Rogue Genius's Talented Fighter+expanded talents+Bravery Feats, or Amora Game's Battlelord.
|
|
Sword Saint Dip gives you a better level 1 IMO due to skills, skill points, challenge+Resolve pool, and Order. If I'm not mistaken the Gendarme archetype for Cavalier is also available to give you a bonus feat and several other nice bonuses even if all you use the horse for is a pack animal.
Eh, with one level, it's a grand total of 2 skill points, and one challenge a day for, what, +1 to hit and +1 damage vs. one target and -2 AC vs. all others, plus Resolve and Iajutsu...okay, you've convinced me, it's a better option. I honestly forgot Samurai got Resolve as early as 1st level. That's pretty cool, and outweighs a Feat when combined with the rest.
Gendarme is also absolutely worth it over Fighter in its own right, given that it gives a Feat, just like Fighter, and a variety of other bonuses over Fighter...but doesn't stack with any sort of Samurai (both Samurai and Gendarme replace Tactician), and does technically give you a Mount, which'll annoy some people.
Agreed on that sentiment Deadman. If only the Fighter were on the Unchained list. At least we have third party materials like DSP's Warder and Warlord or Rogue Genius's Talented Fighter+expanded talents+Bravery Feats, or Amora Game's Battlelord.
I haven't given up hope entirely. Something making getting a bunch of unspecified bonus Feats a vastly better thing might still be in the offing for Unchained. That'd make Fighter miles better, if likely still not anywhere near the best Class there is.
The thing is, wouldn't such a system benefit Slayers and Rangers almost as much? At least for PFS levels.
Honestly the fighter was the perfect oppurtunity to revamp fighters. Have armor training do something to any armor as opposed to only being useful for full plate. Make Bravery a REAL feature. Make Weapon training come online at level 1. Give it more class features that make sense for the role. More skill points and class skills that make sense like acrobatics, perception, ect. Class features like the Brawlers ability to skip int requirements.
|
|
The thing is, wouldn't such a system benefit Slayers and Rangers almost as much? At least for PFS levels.
Not if it's in the form of new Feats (which has been sorta implied to be at least partially the case). The fighting style lists Rangers and Slayers draw on are quite specific, after all, and would not necessarily include these new Feats. Slayer could grab one with Combat Trick...but only one.
Now, obviously, anyone could grab them, but if there are enough and they're good enough, particularly for martial characters specifically, the Fighter gets a bit of edge back (along with the Brawler).
Honestly the fighter was the perfect oppurtunity to revamp fighters. Have armor training do something to any armor as opposed to only being useful for full plate. Make Bravery a REAL feature. Make Weapon training come online at level 1. Give it more class features that make sense for the role. More skill points and class skills that make sense like acrobatics, perception, ect. Class features like the Brawlers ability to skip int requirements.
I tend to agree, but alas, that doesn't appear to be the direction they went.