To try to return to the subject at hand, all the talk of saves has me curious: would people find the Rogue significantly more viable if it had good Ref and Will saves, or even all three good saves? Or does the lack of BAB/HP still damn it?
Considering people have bashed the monk relentlessly from it's debut until the release of a multitude of support archetypes and finally pummeling style making it "not too bad", I don't think saves would help rogues.
Then again, as I've said in another thread, some people just like to b!+*#.
Even if Unchained swaps the rogue up so much that it becomes indisputably the most powerful non-caster in the game, there'll still be a handful of dicks who whine about it not comparing with casters.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
what the rogue looks like when she takes off her make-up:
The Real Rogue
1- Sneak Attack, Trapfinding
2- Rogue Talents, Evasion
3- Trap Sense
4- Rogue Talent, Uncanny Dodge
5-
6- Rogue Talent
7-
8- Rogue Talent, Improved Uncanny Dodge
9-
10- Advanced Talents, Rogue Talent
11-
12- Rogue Talent
13-
14- Rogue Talent
15-
16- Rogue Talent
17-
18- Rogue Talent
19-
20- Rogue Talent, Master Strike
...
to me, this is the real problem: not enough class features. compare this to almost any class - even classes with spells!
Sneak Attack is not the problem - lack of class features that synergize with it is
Skills are not the problem - lack of class features that synergize with them are*
Rogue Talents are not the problem - lack of class features that synergize them are**
*(not entirely true - but skills are a greater systemic problem, beyond the scope of this discussion)
**(ok. Rogue Talents are the problem. they need to stack up to Rage Powers and Discoveries power-wise)
|
To try to return to the subject at hand, all the talk of saves has me curious: would people find the Rogue significantly more viable if it had good Ref and Will saves, or even all three good saves? Or does the lack of BAB/HP still damn it?
It's still pretty damning. Rogues really need three things to excel:
1. Some sort of accuracy booster. It doesn't need to be all that much, to be honest. Just stealing the Studied Target feature from the Slayer would do so to a very large degree, honestly.
2. Better Saves. Because yeah. Any two Good Saves would probably do it combined with these other ideas.
3. Since they're billed as a skill class, some way to actually be good at several skills. +1/2 level on a certain number would do, for example. As would the above suggestion of Studied Target combined with Stalker.
Note that both Slayer and Investigator meet all the above criteria...
Car Talk was a radio program that came on NPR. Two brothers hosted it, and would take calls about people having car troubles-- call in, explain the problem, they try to figure out what it is. The show is humorous, typically in an extremely self-depreciating way-- mocking each other and the entire show was a standard, and they'd happily tell embarrassing stories of each other if it was even tangentially related. Unfortunately, one of the brothers died fairly recently, and I'm not sure what's happened/is going to happen to the show going forward.I think they've had both been retired since 2012, and the show was going on reruns. So it can probably continue with the reruns for a while.Apparently so, though Ray (the surviving brother) hosted at least one episode after his brother died.
To try to return to the subject at hand, all the talk of saves has me curious: would people find the Rogue significantly more viable if it had good Ref and Will saves, or even all three good saves? Or does the lack of BAB/HP still damn it?
I think it needs at least one more good save, something to make it better at skills and I don't mean just give it more skills. Bonuses to attacks would not be bad either. Those rogue talents also need some work.
I am waiting to see what unchained does.
I think it's likely that Unchained will be PFS - legal, just because Paizo generally wants to encourage PFS players to buy stuff.
|
|
I think it's likely that Unchained will be PFS - legal, just because Paizo generally wants to encourage PFS players to buy stuff.
I agree. At least in terms of the new classes, and possibly some new Feats. That'd be enough to justify PFS players buying the book, and a lot easier to integrate than most of the rest of the Alternate Rules stuff.
I think it's likely that Unchained will be PFS - legal, just because Paizo generally wants to encourage PFS players to buy stuff.I agree. At least in terms of the new classes, and possibly some new Feats. That'd be enough to justify PFS players buying the book, and a lot easier to integrate than most of the rest of the Alternate Rules stuff.
Does anyone have any snippets from this upcoming book or are we all just hoping at the moment?
Does anyone have any snippets from this upcoming book or are we all just hoping at the moment?I think it's likely that Unchained will be PFS - legal, just because Paizo generally wants to encourage PFS players to buy stuff.I agree. At least in terms of the new classes, and possibly some new Feats. That'd be enough to justify PFS players buying the book, and a lot easier to integrate than most of the rest of the Alternate Rules stuff.
No snippets. Paizo even said they would not be play testing the thing. You can tell it's the kind of thing they imagined would bring problems among the community. Perhaps they thought people would be too quick to judge?
Anyway, on saves: the Rogue has some tools to protect itself on the front of Will/Fort. Slippery Mind and some Wisdom go a long way. Fort saves require that feat that allows you to use Evasion on those saves but staggers you and then you likely need good CON and the feats.
The issue here is that spending so many resources to fix the saves leaves you unable to focus on getting the accuracy you need, the AC to keep you alive, the combat tools to apply sneak attack, or a boost to your skills and abilities.
This is the issue: huge build pressure on too many fronts.
This is why I like Swindler Rogues: they have good Will saves and inbuilt skill/accuracy boosts, so you have less issues to patch up.
I also love the Savage Critical feat (apply sneak attack damage each time you use Vital Strike or hit with a critical) since it reduces the number of feats you need to invest on sneak attack to ONE and it allows you to focus on one big hit per turn, which reduces your accuracy constraints. Sadly, the feat is Ogre-only so it requires some Racial Heritage shenanigans.
Two good saves is a good idea, but I would prefer new and improved talents that vastly improve rogues defenses. Paizo do not even need errata anything for that.To try to return to the subject at hand, all the talk of saves has me curious: would people find the Rogue significantly more viable if it had good Ref and Will saves, or even all three good saves? Or does the lack of BAB/HP still damn it?
Without a doubt Rogue needs good talents. I'd so far as to say the class as is could be salvaged if it had some truly worthwhile talents.
Reflex in place of Will or Fort, Evasion applies (maybe pick one, talent can't be taken twice). Reduce Sneak Attack damage dice (d4s, or maybe just -X dice) for a bonus to hit equal to number of SA dice. Hell, I'd settle for something that's actually better than a standard feat.
That aside, I don't think increasing base saves is enough to help the Rogue. As someone else already said, core Monk, perhaps tied for bottom, has many similar issues to the Rogue and it has great base saves.
|
|
No snippets. Paizo even said they would not be play testing the thing. You can tell it's the kind of thing they imagined would bring problems among the community. Perhaps they thought people would be too quick to judge?
Nah, they've gone on record as saying it had more to do with the entire game up until this point being a play test for the Classes, and them generally only play testing new classes in open play tests.
No snippets. Paizo even said they would not be play testing the thing. You can tell it's the kind of thing they imagined would bring problems among the community. Perhaps they thought people would be too quick to judge?Nah, they've gone on record as saying it had more to do with the entire game up until this point being a play test for the Classes, and them generally only play testing new classes in open play tests.
¬¬'
Seriously?
They playtested the Ninja! And half the classes in the ACG are really similar to their parent classes! Can you imagine if they hand't playtested the Hunter? The class is completely redundant as it's, but at least it got solid mechanics now... The playtest version was a complete waste of ink!
*sigh*
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No snippets. Paizo even said they would not be play testing the thing. You can tell it's the kind of thing they imagined would bring problems among the community. Perhaps they thought people would be too quick to judge?Nah, they've gone on record as saying it had more to do with the entire game up until this point being a play test for the Classes, and them generally only play testing new classes in open play tests.
I'd take a Sense Motive check on that one.
Considering how troubled the ACG playtest was and how much the devs complained about it, I'm not shocked they're not doing another one.
?
Paizo schedules a playtest for the GenCon release book. They do that every year. So of course the ACG had a playtest, and of course Occult Adventures had a playtest, and whatever is going to come out in that time slot in 2016 is also going to have a playtest.
My understanding is that the GenCon book playtest is the only one the Design team can fit into their schedule, and they're the only team that can fit in a playtest at all.
Unchained isn't the GenCon release, so it's not getting a playtest. It's that simple.
(Though I think in 2015 Occult Adventures will be getting released after GenCOn, because GenCon got moved up?)
I always thought one of the things that made PF appealing to so many players was that they were so heavily playtested. It seems to me turning that tradition aside would be like the creators of Savage Worlds coming up with a complex version...contrary to that which makes it so appealing.
|
|
I always thought one of the things that made PF appealing to so many players was that they were so heavily playtested. It seems to me turning that tradition aside would be like the creators of Savage Worlds coming up with a complex version...contrary to that which makes it so appealing.
The only thing that's ever been heavily publicly playtested since the game actually came out have been the character classes. Not other rules elements.
And in regards to Unchained's classes, well, I think the Paizo folks have a point. Do a search on threads about Rogues, Monks, or Summoners, and you'll see a ridiculous amount of 'playtest fedback' in regards to how to make those Classes better balanced. Years worth, not weeks.
Barbarian not quite so much, but I'm willing to roll with it until we see what they came up with there.
Seriously, the last several years isn't a multi-stage playtest, but it's sure a long and thorough one of the problems with the current version. And multi-stage playtests are far from universal for Paizo classes.
and to the paizo devs can go "oh hey there's TWELVE THOUSAND POSTS in one particular thread saying a class needs help--maybe we should get off our asses and finally address that."
Well, except that that it's the same posters saying the same thing over and over.
Yeah... It's always the same guys saying that Rogues are fine.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
and to the paizo devs can go "oh hey there's TWELVE THOUSAND POSTS in one particular thread saying a class needs help--maybe we should get off our asses and finally address that."Well, except that that it's the same posters saying the same thing over and over.
Not really. There are some turnover in them, and different people posting in all. I've only been active on the forums for a year or two, and while I have been involved in several rogue threads, there have been far more people that have been on the needs improvement side than the everything is fine side.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, it's also a matter of degrees.
While there may be a general consensus that fighter and rogue are underpowered compared to other classes (I'll certainly agree to that), there's a toxic minority that insists that the classes are completely unplayable and that anyone who would ever want to play one must be some sort of mouth-breathing simpleton.
I.e., a stance that's actually insulting to everyone who's ever played a fighter or a rogue and enjoyed doing so, as the stance implies that if a person is able to enjoy playing a fighter or rogue, there must be something wrong with that person.
And there's the people who clearly look down on those who have, in fact, played the fighter or rogue in their current state and enjoyed doing so.
Fun facts: I think Paizo just discovered how to make good Rogue archetypes.
The turning point was the Sczarni Swindler on the Harrow Handbook, perhaps the Scroll Scoundrel before that.
The newly released Vexing Dodger is sweet as duck. They realised, around the release of the ACG, that removing rogue talents for archetype features was the way to sneak in some power to the base rogue.
Plus, the Vexing Dodger has the ability to pick up the Uncanny Dodge it trades through Rogue Talents.
The class is still poor in terms of kit power, but there are more knobs to turn now..
Speaking of playtesting and rogues... wasn't the "no quickdraw alchemical items" change a result of a rogue playtest? Or was that just propaganda?
No, that was a nerf because The Gaming Den's Frank told Jason in Paizo about Alchemy throwing rogues are great.
I mean, think, touch ac sneak attacks!
So Jason made sure to nerf quick draw of them and sneak attack of them. Then greases application of it, etc.
Yes, Frank was rude during the beginning, but the math was on Frank's side.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, it's also a matter of degrees.
While there may be a general consensus that fighter and rogue are underpowered compared to other classes (I'll certainly agree to that), there's a toxic minority that insists that the classes are completely unplayable and that anyone who would ever want to play one must be some sort of mouth-breathing simpleton.
I.e., a stance that's actually insulting to everyone who's ever played a fighter or a rogue and enjoyed doing so, as the stance implies that if a person is able to enjoy playing a fighter or rogue, there must be something wrong with that person.
And there's the people who clearly look down on those who have, in fact, played the fighter or rogue in their current state and enjoyed doing so.
I think your're reading too much into it. There is a difference between looking down on someone who enjoys playing a fighter or rogue and advising them to take a more effective class that covers the same concept better than the class they are choosing.
Fun isn't a measure of how well a class is balanced. I have had fun playing an adept and an expert. And for what it's worth, the adept is more powerful than the core rogue.
I have often said that it's possible to play an effective rogue, but it requires system mastery to do so, and it would be easier to make another class that fills the same character role more effectively and with less effort using a different class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking of playtesting and rogues... wasn't the "no quickdraw alchemical items" change a result of a rogue playtest? Or was that just propaganda?No, that was a nerf because The Gaming Den's Frank told Jason in Paizo about Alchemy throwing rogues are great.
I mean, think, touch ac sneak attacks!
So Jason made sure to nerf quick draw of them and sneak attack of them. Then greases application of it, etc.
Yes, Frank was rude during the beginning, but the math was on Frank's side.
"Effective Rogues? Can't have none of that!"
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, that was a nerf because The Gaming Den's Frank told Jason in Paizo about Alchemy throwing rogues are great.
I mean, think, touch ac sneak attacks!
So Jason made sure to nerf quick draw of them and sneak attack of them. Then greases application of it, etc.
And then they wrote the Alchemist.
|
|
Speaking of playtesting and rogues... wasn't the "no quickdraw alchemical items" change a result of a rogue playtest? Or was that just propaganda?No, that was a nerf because The Gaming Den's Frank told Jason in Paizo about Alchemy throwing rogues are great.
I mean, think, touch ac sneak attacks!
So Jason made sure to nerf quick draw of them and sneak attack of them. Then greases application of it, etc.
Yes, Frank was rude during the beginning, but the math was on Frank's side.
Huh. They nerfed it, but added it back with the Underground Chemist.
Well, it's also a matter of degrees.
While there may be a general consensus that fighter and rogue are underpowered compared to other classes (I'll certainly agree to that), there's a toxic minority that insists that the classes are completely unplayable and that anyone who would ever want to play one must be some sort of mouth-breathing simpleton.
I.e., a stance that's actually insulting to everyone who's ever played a fighter or a rogue and enjoyed doing so, as the stance implies that if a person is able to enjoy playing a fighter or rogue, there must be something wrong with that person.
And there's the people who clearly look down on those who have, in fact, played the fighter or rogue in their current state and enjoyed doing so.
I think your're reading too much into it. There is a difference between looking down on someone who enjoys playing a fighter or rogue and advising them to take a more effective class that covers the same concept better than the class they are choosing.
Fun isn't a measure of how well a class is balanced. I have had fun playing an adept and an expert. And for what it's worth, the adept is more powerful than the core rogue.
I have often said that it's possible to play an effective rogue, but it requires system mastery to do so, and it would be easier to make another class that fills the same character role more effectively and with less effort using a different class.
I don't think I'm reading too much into it (as I said, a toxic minority - most posters actually are just trying to help), but otherwise completely agreed.
Playing a rogue or fighter is playing the game on hard mode. And so the players of those classes tend be mixed between (1) people who are new to the game and don't understand they're doing things the hard way, or (2) veterans to the game who understand what they're getting into and welcome the challenge.
Well, it's also a matter of degrees.
While there may be a general consensus that fighter and rogue are underpowered compared to other classes (I'll certainly agree to that), there's a toxic minority that insists that the classes are completely unplayable and that anyone who would ever want to play one must be some sort of mouth-breathing simpleton.
I.e., a stance that's actually insulting to everyone who's ever played a fighter or a rogue and enjoyed doing so, as the stance implies that if a person is able to enjoy playing a fighter or rogue, there must be something wrong with that person.
And there's the people who clearly look down on those who have, in fact, played the fighter or rogue in their current state and enjoyed doing so.
Right. Certainly many people agree that the Rogue can use some cool new talents. And it looks like Unchained will fix some stuff.
And yes, any pure martial class will have issues once the campaign gets to the point where the casters can do 9th level spells. But those are rare. (This is why the devs 'dont seem to care about martial/caster disparity"- it just is not a major problem in many games at the levels where most playing is done and the APs are played).
OTOH, many DM's come here and post that their Rogue is breaking their game- and yes, the rogue has a nice "sweet spot" at about 5th level.
So, there's a difference between saying "Hey the Rogue could use a few improvements' vs saying it's the worst class in the game and should be dumped.
(I also have pointed out that the lack of diabolic Gygaxian traps in most AP's has caused the rogue to fall from favor. That's not a issue with the class, it's a issue with the APs, IMHO)
Fun facts: I think Paizo just discovered how to make good Rogue archetypes.
The turning point was the Sczarni Swindler on the Harrow Handbook, perhaps the Scroll Scoundrel before that.
The newly released Vexing Dodger is sweet as duck. They realised, around the release of the ACG, that removing rogue talents for archetype features was the way to sneak in some power to the base rogue.
Plus, the Vexing Dodger has the ability to pick up the Uncanny Dodge it trades through Rogue Talents.
Yes, and the Ninja, the Scout and the Sapmaster are good combat archetypes.
I say the lack of Gygaxian death traps is a good thing. Instant death is bad for any kind of story and isn't fun to play. Tomb of horrors is a terrible module.
Not always "death traps". Just that they did more than a few points of damage. Perhaps you lost items. Or were teleported. Or cursed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...but the math was on Frank's side.
I saw the posts that lead to that. I'm not convinced that the math was on his side at all. >_>
I was wondering why people are complaining about rogues. I thought as 3/4 BAB classes are concerned, they seem to have a few things going for them. So does anyone have any other reasons behind 'they suck' for them to, well, suck?
Yes, I have hatred for the Rogues, but I can't explain it.
Huh. They nerfed it, but added it back with the Underground Chemist.Speaking of playtesting and rogues... wasn't the "no quickdraw alchemical items" change a result of a rogue playtest? Or was that just propaganda?No, that was a nerf because The Gaming Den's Frank told Jason in Paizo about Alchemy throwing rogues are great.
I mean, think, touch ac sneak attacks!
So Jason made sure to nerf quick draw of them and sneak attack of them. Then greases application of it, etc.
Yes, Frank was rude during the beginning, but the math was on Frank's side.
Once/rd... seriously. Still a nerf but less a nerf. Plus, you lose Evasion.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to play a rogue or fighter.
The issues come about when the GM thinks those classes are fine. If you don't make some effort to account for those classes, you can end up crushing the player.
Some GMs still have 3.5 nam flashbacks, so they go out of their way to crush any and all creative use of abilities to keep spellcasters in check, who by the most strictest of RAW can still do a lot. What gets crushed are our poor fighters and rogues who suddenly end up doing very little and having very little agency since most of what they can do requires creatively using their limited ability set.
This is further compounded when the GM plays the game like chess. Suddenly your poor rogue can never get flanking and monsters seem to always be outside fighter full attack range. Negating those two classes requires a move action, you then can handle the spellcasters with standard actions. At this point the real combat game is between the spellcasters and the monster. Out of combat is also left up to the spellcasters since the rogue/fighter can't really do anything. Rogue skills are not even all that helpful. Whether or not they are important depends heavily on specifics, especially if the GM is crushing any and all creative uses of abilities.
As a GM, you can adapt and correct for the rogue/fighter issues very subtly, but this requires actually being aware of the problem.
Huh. They nerfed it, but added it back with the Underground Chemist.Speaking of playtesting and rogues... wasn't the "no quickdraw alchemical items" change a result of a rogue playtest? Or was that just propaganda?No, that was a nerf because The Gaming Den's Frank told Jason in Paizo about Alchemy throwing rogues are great.
I mean, think, touch ac sneak attacks!
So Jason made sure to nerf quick draw of them and sneak attack of them. Then greases application of it, etc.
Yes, Frank was rude during the beginning, but the math was on Frank's side.
i still have absolutely no clue how that AT isnt a waste of ink, or why people think it isnt.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
i still have absolutely no clue how that AT isnt a waste of ink, or why people think it isnt.Huh. They nerfed it, but added it back with the Underground Chemist.Speaking of playtesting and rogues... wasn't the "no quickdraw alchemical items" change a result of a rogue playtest? Or was that just propaganda?No, that was a nerf because The Gaming Den's Frank told Jason in Paizo about Alchemy throwing rogues are great.
I mean, think, touch ac sneak attacks!
So Jason made sure to nerf quick draw of them and sneak attack of them. Then greases application of it, etc.
Yes, Frank was rude during the beginning, but the math was on Frank's side.
It wasn't, but then the "typed" untyped multisource bonus FAQ came out.
Now, it's a blind, crippled Alchemist wannabe.