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.
The archetype combos with scout.
So a single touch attack sneak attack that can cause bleeding (with a talent).
Consistent damage! (no full attacks though, since it is only one attack for some odd reason).
But you lose out on evasion, further highlighting your crap health.
You can always take Improved Evasion. It doesn't require Evasion.
You can always take Improved Evasion. It doesn't require Evasion.
Well considering how the rules tend to interact with rogues. Improved evasion does not explicit-ally give the effects of evasion.
Ability only explicitally says that rogues take have damage on failed saves.
|
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.
The archetype combos with scout.
So a single touch attack sneak attack that can cause bleeding (with a talent).
Consistent damage! (no full attacks though, since it is only one attack for some odd reason).
But you lose out on evasion, further highlighting your crap health.
It still allows you to quick-draw alchemist fires that get your int bonus to damage. Combine with the Bomber talent to get a double-sneak attack damage bomb with +int to damage and some extra bombs or alchemical items.
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.
At least you're being honest about it. :)
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.
Which FAQ do you mean?
Which FAQ do you mean?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.
Do a search for Fury's Fall and weapon finesse for an in game example of this.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Honestly, Gygaxian death traps are where the problems with the Rogue originated, in my opinion. Being the only one who could handle the things was very powerful, or so the thinking goes, so it gets balanced out by not being as good in combat. The Thief was necessary, but honestly wasn't every really that good. And as more emphasis became placed on story, character background, and the expectation of playing one character over the course of the campaign, traps became less deadly, and the Rogue doesn't even have necessity anymore.
In complete agreement about the ToH. Worse model I've ever had the displeasure of playing.
In complete agreement about the ToH. Worse model I've ever had the displeasure of playing.
I have stated on other forum posts that I would stab the DM that insisted on running that. stab him right in the face. I'd rather play Call of Cthulhu if I wanted to do that kind of game...
|
I'm not getting the problem with the archetype (besides being a rogue archetype)
The archetype works best with a dip into Alchemist.
Even better, with a Vivisectionist dip.
I was going to make my first Rogue PC since just after Beta Playtest, with such a combo.
Would have been an awesome.
Even without the dip, using the archetype, with a Launching Crossbow, and Focused Shot, would have been great.
Now, all is lost.
Again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.Honestly, Gygaxian death traps are where the problems with the Rogue originated, in my opinion. Being the only one who could handle the things was very powerful, or so the thinking goes, so it gets balanced out by not being as good in combat. The Thief was necessary, but honestly wasn't every really that good. And as more emphasis became placed on story, character background, and the expectation of playing one character over the course of the campaign, traps became less deadly, and the Rogue doesn't even have necessity anymore.
Really, I think turning traps into "Roll a dice to disable the trap" was one of the big mistakes in the game. It turned traps from something the whole party could have fun with to a single-character rolling a dice. By far the most fun my players ever had with a classic trap-filled tomb was one where there were no "traps" in the pathfinder sense. Everything was technically hazards that all couldn't be bypassed by rolling a d20. The whole party got involved trying to strategize and come up with ways to get past the dangers.
Imo a big problem with the Rogue that is somehow mostly ignored in the forum and schould be fixed has nothing to with the classfeatures but with the feats and his combat style.
For a Classical Rogue you usually want to build DEX based with TWF and Feint, this costs tons of feats (especially if you want to combine Feint with TWF) and is still suppar in comparison to high stength, Powerattack and a two handed weapon.
To really make the Rouge work the number of Feats to make this work and the disadvateges of this style must be reduced.
That doesn't actually help the Rogue though, since it has nothing to do with the Rogue's actual abilities. All that does is help Slayers and Vivisectionist Alchemists. The problem is squarely the Rogue and it's poor class features that fail to help it excel in either combat or skills.
|
|
Most rogues work better with a couple os levels in something else, But I'm still not getting what happened, what FAQ screwed the archetype?I'm not getting the problem with the archetype (besides being a rogue archetype)The archetype works best with a dip into Alchemist.
Even better, with a Vivisectionist dip.
I was going to make my first Rogue PC since just after Beta Playtest, with such a combo.
Would have been an awesome.
Even without the dip, using the archetype, with a Launching Crossbow, and Focused Shot, would have been great.
Now, all is lost.
Again.
It's now impossible to get 3xINT bonus on alchemical weapons by taking this archetype, alchemist, and the Focused Shot feat.
I disagree that it screwed the archetype, but that combo is no longer viable.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rogue lacks identity, mechanically and in terms of flavour.
Nothing other than sneak attack highlights the rogue as the scoundrel type, it is not particularly gifted in dirty tricks, steal or disarm, it's not a particularly good user of stealth, etc.
The rogue lacks identity, mechanically and in terms of flavour.
Nothing other than sneak attack highlights the rogue as the scoundrel type, it is not particularly gifted in dirty tricks, steal or disarm, it's not a particularly good user of stealth, etc.
I think this is actually where my love of rogues diminishes. I'm very big on the mechanics reinforcing the story and setting. (Extra credits has a few videos about this, and while they're talking about video games one could say it also applies to any game in general)
So the newer classes have mechanics and features that allow the system to further build the immersion to the character. Other classes have features and mechanics that not only let them do cool stuff, but contribute and/or embody the 'flavor' of the class.
Even many of the Core classes have that going for them now. Fighters, while still somewhat generic, can do things with armor/weapon training that others simply can't. They're meant to be an all around fighting class capable of being built to do many things. Rogues get... stuff everyone else can get with minimal loss to their mechanical flavor. They also do not get anything that helps enforce their rogue-ness. Nothing that makes what they do better than another character. No mechanical reinforcement of their being a rogue.
I thought the improvement to sneak attack from 3.5 was a good step up (now can sneak attack undead, etc.) but that is not the lone purview of the rogue, is it?
Fighters, while still somewhat generic, can do things with armor/weapon training that others simply can't.
Uh... Like what? All that Weapon Training gives you is a bonus to hit. Everyone can hit things. Armor training does allow you to move faster in heavy armor... But I'll point out that Barbarian's are naturally faster and Rangers have access to Longstrider. Paladins have access to spells like Grace, which gives them a lot of in=combat mobility.
My dwarven Travel cleric moves 40ft a round in full plate thanks to Longstrider.
My Aasimar Cleric moves 50ft in medium armor thanks to longstrider... And he teleports as a move action too!
Fighters, while still somewhat generic, can do things with armor/weapon training that others simply can't.Uh... Like what? All that Weapon Training gives you is a bonus to hit. Everyone can hit things. Armor training does allow you to move faster in heavy armor... But I'll point out that Barbarian's are naturally faster and Rangers have access to Longstrider. Paladins have access to spells like Grace, which gives them a lot of in=combat mobility.
The how is different.
The how is different.Fighters, while still somewhat generic, can do things with armor/weapon training that others simply can't.Uh... Like what? All that Weapon Training gives you is a bonus to hit. Everyone can hit things. Armor training does allow you to move faster in heavy armor... But I'll point out that Barbarian's are naturally faster and Rangers have access to Longstrider. Paladins have access to spells like Grace, which gives them a lot of in=combat mobility.
Is it? How does adding an extra +1 makes it different?
|
Fighters, while still somewhat generic, can do things with armor/weapon training that others simply can't.Uh... Like what? All that Weapon Training gives you is a bonus to hit. Everyone can hit things. Armor training does allow you to move faster in heavy armor... But I'll point out that Barbarian's are naturally faster and Rangers have access to Longstrider. Paladins have access to spells like Grace, which gives them a lot of in=combat mobility.The how is different.
It really isn't different.
A sword swings at a +1, not in any different way. It's the same thing, but with +1. Nothing is new.
Is it? How does adding an extra +1 makes it different?The how is different.Fighters, while still somewhat generic, can do things with armor/weapon training that others simply can't.Uh... Like what? All that Weapon Training gives you is a bonus to hit. Everyone can hit things. Armor training does allow you to move faster in heavy armor... But I'll point out that Barbarian's are naturally faster and Rangers have access to Longstrider. Paladins have access to spells like Grace, which gives them a lot of in=combat mobility.
For armor, you move faster by ignoring the penalty.
For weapon training, you hit better with that kind of weapon not with weapons in general.
Now to predict the response, "But isn't that just worse than being able to move faster period, and being able to just hit better with any kind of weapon."
Why yes strawman it is. I think that is the fighter's problem. Armor training and weapon training are the main reasons to play a fighter, when that features are really secondary abilities. The fighter's main feature should be bonus feats, but bonus feats are the fighter's worse class feature not counting bravery. I think you need to fix feats to fix the fighter.
Strawman: "But everyone gets feats! Hell rangers and slayers almost get as many bonus feats as the fighter!"
Well rangers and slayers get feats from fixed list. No one but the fighter gets as broad a selection of bonus feats. If feats were good enough then the fighter's 11 bonus feats would be a real advantage.
Strawman2: "What does this have to do with rogues?"
Well rogue talents suck far more than feats, but compared to class features like sneak attack and the rest, you could easily say the rogue's best class feature is their skill list and 8 + int skill points. Rogues have a unique problem that overhauling the skill system would not actually fix rogues. Skills should be the rogues main thing, but fixing skills won't make the rogue best at it since plenty of classes actually get more skill points than the rogue.
Imo a big problem with the Rogue that is somehow mostly ignored in the forum and schould be fixed has nothing to with the classfeatures but with the feats and his combat style.
For a Classical Rogue you usually want to build DEX based with TWF and Feint, this costs tons of feats (especially if you want to combine Feint with TWF) and is still suppar in comparison to high stength, Powerattack and a two handed weapon.
To really make the Rouge work the number of Feats to make this work and the disadvateges of this style must be reduced.
The classical Rogue had a Dagger in one hand with the other open. That's all he needed because he'd be on your back before you notice him and his knife would be in your spleen or across your throat.
The Rogue you're thinking of is the one made popular by World of Warcraft.
The war on straw continues...
Well rangers and slayers get feats from fixed list. No one but the fighter gets as broad a selection of bonus feats. If feats were good enough then the fighter's 11 bonus feats would be a real advantage.
The ranger does not get feats from a fixed list. They get feats from one of a dozen or so fixed lists, one of which is very likely what you were going to pick for your fighter anyway. Not only that, but they ignore a lot of pesky requirements like an obscene dex score or level requirements: if you want a sword and board fighter the sword and board ranger is your go to option because you get the shield master feat five levels earlier.
Weapon Training is an easily stackable buff for wielding a specific weapon.
However, all the melee classes get easily stackable buffs, and aren't restricted to specific weapons.
Armor Training's problem is not speed. It's that is a Stat Tax. If you have Armor Training +2, are wearing Mithral BP, if you don't have a 20 Dex, your class ability is doing jack for you. You MUST wear heavy armor AND have an excellent dex to take advantage of the ability.
Compare to a monk's scaling AC bonus.
The fact fighters get a lot of feats is a misnomer. There are few GOOD feat trees that Rangers and Stalkers don't get to choose, or that other classes can't take with general feats. So the problem is more that so many feat choices are crap choices. If you gave Stalkers and rangers access to a lot of feats that sucked, you'd start seeing the fighter's problem. In the end, they all end up taking the same good, dependable feats, and ignoring the chaff fluttering around out there.
Therefore, the only option is for the fighter to get more out of those same exact feats then they do.
==Aelryinth
The ranger does not get feats from a fixed list. They get feats from one of a dozen or so fixed lists, one of which is very likely what you were going to pick for your fighter anyway. Not only that, but they ignore a lot of pesky requirements like an obscene dex score or level requirements: if you want a sword and board fighter the sword and board ranger is your go to option because you get the shield master feat five levels earlier.
And if paizo just printed some good feats then the fighter would gain an advantage.
It is a problem with feats if a limited list is as effectively good as a broader selection because most feats suck anyways.
Weapon Training is an easily stackable buff for wielding a specific weapon.
However, all the melee classes get easily stackable buffs, and aren't restricted to specific weapons.Armor Training's problem is not speed. It's that is a Stat Tax. If you have Armor Training +2, are wearing Mithral BP, if you don't have a 20 Dex, your class ability is doing jack for you. You MUST wear heavy armor AND have an excellent dex to take advantage of the ability.
Compare to a monk's scaling AC bonus.
The fact fighters get a lot of feats is a misnomer. There are few GOOD feat trees that Rangers and Stalkers don't get to choose, or that other classes can't take with general feats. So the problem is more that so many feat choices are crap choices. If you gave Stalkers and rangers access to a lot of feats that sucked, you'd start seeing the fighter's problem. In the end, they all end up taking the same good, dependable feats, and ignoring the chaff fluttering around out there.
Therefore, the only option is for the fighter to get more out of those same exact feats then they do.
That is exactly why weapon training and armor training should be the fighter's secondary class features.
All paizo has to do is come out with feats that are actually good and not on the ranger's bonus feat list for the fighter's bonus feats to be a real advantage. The issue is that nearly all the good feats are on those limited list.
If paizo stopped putting cantrip like effects behind 9 feat chains 13 int and a particular race subtype then maybe the fighter's bonus feats wouldn't be as worthless as they currently are.
...
You have a very broad definition of "strawman"...
...You have a very broad definition of "strawman"...
I was arguing with a position I constructed.
You didn't actually say many of the things I responded to.
I was arguing with a position I constructed.
You didn't actually say many of the things I responded to.
I didn't say I did.
But getting a +1 doesn't really make anything different... Just (very slightly) more effective.
Fighters, while still somewhat generic, can do things with armor/weapon training that others simply can't.Uh... Like what? All that Weapon Training gives you is a bonus to hit. Everyone can hit things. Armor training does allow you to move faster in heavy armor... But I'll point out that Barbarian's are naturally faster and Rangers have access to Longstrider. Paladins have access to spells like Grace, which gives them a lot of in=combat mobility.
Whether or not they are better than another class is not what I was trying to point out. I was indicating that mechanically, they had features that supported the flavor/lore/whatnot of the fighter class. The fact that they are sub-par is still an issue, but at least their mechanics do support the concept.
Oh, yeah... There is also the archetype that gives Rangers Warpriest's blessings. Now Rangers have access to move action teleport!
Oh, yeah... There is also the archetype that gives Rangers Warpriest's blessings. Now Rangers have access to move action teleport!
Yay blink-ranger.
I just wish... there was stuff that made people excited for the rogue. Like, I dunno, AT's that gave them other classes stuff?
Oh, yeah... There is also the archetype that gives Rangers Warpriest's blessings. Now Rangers have access to move action teleport!Yay blink-ranger.
I just wish... there was stuff that made people excited for the rogue. Like, I dunno, AT's that gave them other classes stuff?
Well there is that sweet Troubadour Archetype that trades Trapfinding and Trap Sense for all the 1st level Bardic Performances with full scaling. And it let's you use Rogue Talents to pick up Bardic Masterpieces and Versatile Performances.. a.. aha... ahahahah... ahahahahahahahaha.
Sorry if I got anyone's hopes up, but come on you should have known it was fake based on the fact that it was useful.
Oh, yeah... There is also the archetype that gives Rangers Warpriest's blessings. Now Rangers have access to move action teleport!Yay blink-ranger.
I just wish... there was stuff that made people excited for the rogue. Like, I dunno, AT's that gave them other classes stuff?
I made these. They are pretty darn cute.
Hey, I got one too! Although it isn't really an archetype...
Can't we just link the Investigator's and Slayer's d20pfsrd pages and be done with it?
We could... But where is the challenge?
We could... But where is the challenge?
Good point. Carry on!
|
There has been at least 3 topics that I found on Google that ask about how Underhanded is supposed to work. The consensus is that it's literally useless unless you take quick draw and are a Bandit.
always threatening trait, lookout feat, and a cohort at level 7... this way I don't think you need Bandit... right?
|
|
There has been at least 3 topics that I found on Google that ask about how Underhanded is supposed to work. The consensus is that it's literally useless unless you take quick draw and are a Bandit.always threatening trait, lookout feat, and a cohort at level 7... this way I don't think you need Bandit... right?
Why did you necro this thread now that rogues don't suck anymore?
|
|
Why did you necro this thread now that rogues don't suck anymore?There has been at least 3 topics that I found on Google that ask about how Underhanded is supposed to work. The consensus is that it's literally useless unless you take quick draw and are a Bandit.always threatening trait, lookout feat, and a cohort at level 7... this way I don't think you need Bandit... right?
...for completely personal and selfish reasons? :)