If I were going to buff the rogue, I'd simply change sneak attack a little bit.
1) Take every other gained sneak attack die and make it a precision die. Precision die work against any creature that can be crit, but are otherwise always in effect. So, rogues get some extra damage dice all of the time, but still have a reason to want to set up flanks. Encouraging good teamwork is always nice, but right now the rogue is too "on" or "off".
2) Add a new rule that sneak/precision attacks made using a weapon two handed use d10s intead of d6s for damage. Dual wielding should be better than two handing for a rogue, but two handing should at least be a semi-valid option. This would greatly benefit the slayer too, who should have some good two handed options.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is nothing wrong with the rogue, fighter, monk, etc. Yes you can build more powerful x using y. But time and again the rogues in pathfinder society games come through against heavily optimized y's. And they also die easily too when played as fighters.
My ninja gunslinger (lv8) has zero problems hitting anything (ranged sneak attack) and beats creatures 2x his cr. The biggest objection was he's not a rogue, so I made 3 replacement rogues to study the difference. One is a monk rogue (lv5) just to add sauce. A cad/rogue (lv2) for catch off guard. A dual wield knife specialist (lv2) to have fun with d8's. This Arcane trickster magus rogue is now lv 13 and retired.
In game I've run into a "rogue denier" once who happened to be playing a rogue sap adept...but its not a rogue really (his panicked response). My experience is not claimed to be more valid than yours so don't panic. Yet when my partner lefty and I are on the same team we melted most scenarios.
If you prefer to play y have fun with it. The majority of "fixes" end up with full bab, 12 skills, spells or slas, and full sneak attack progressions...sorry I don't need a wide variety of super powers, my rogues are just fine as is.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is nothing wrong with the rogue, fighter, monk, etc. Yes you can build more powerful x using y. But time and again the rogues in pathfinder society games come through against heavily optimized y's. And they also die easily too when played as fighters.
My ninja gunslinger (lv8) has zero problems hitting anything (ranged sneak attack) and beats creatures 2x his cr. The biggest objection was he's not a rogue, so I made 3 replacement rogues to study the difference. One is a monk rogue (lv5) just to add sauce. A cad/rogue (lv2) for catch off guard. A dual wield knife specialist (lv2) to have fun with d8's. This Arcane trickster magus rogue is now lv 13 and retired.
In game I've run into a "rogue denier" once who happened to be playing a rogue sap adept...but its not a rogue really (his panicked response). My experience is not claimed to be more valid than yours so don't panic. Yet when my partner lefty and I are on the same team we melted most scenarios.
If you prefer to play y have fun with it. The majority of "fixes" end up with full bab, 12 skills, spells or slas, and full sneak attack progressions...sorry I don't need a wide variety of super powers, my rogues are just fine as is.
Your rogues have an awful lot of non-rogue in them.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is nothing wrong with the rogue, fighter, monk, etc. Yes you can build more powerful x using y. But time and again the rogues in pathfinder society games come through against heavily optimized y's. And they also die easily too when played as fighters.
My ninja gunslinger (lv8) has zero problems hitting anything (ranged sneak attack) and beats creatures 2x his cr. The biggest objection was he's not a rogue, so I made 3 replacement rogues to study the difference. One is a monk rogue (lv5) just to add sauce. A cad/rogue (lv2) for catch off guard. A dual wield knife specialist (lv2) to have fun with d8's. This Arcane trickster magus rogue is now lv 13 and retired.
In game I've run into a "rogue denier" once who happened to be playing a rogue sap adept...but its not a rogue really (his panicked response). My experience is not claimed to be more valid than yours so don't panic. Yet when my partner lefty and I are on the same team we melted most scenarios.
If you prefer to play y have fun with it. The majority of "fixes" end up with full bab, 12 skills, spells or slas, and full sneak attack progressions...sorry I don't need a wide variety of super powers, my rogues are just fine as is.
So am I alone in wanting to see builds here? Once you're a ninja, you're not a Rogue. Ninjas can turn invisible and get ranged sneak attacks. Rogues can't (unless they take 2 Rogue Talents to do it once a day, woohoo!)
All that I see here is a lot of splashing and such in characters that have Rogue levels in them, which isn't a straight Rogue. A straight Alch/Bard/Invest/Inquis/etc can do the same job but better, and not rely on dips and such as well as other things that make them 'not Rogues', like most of the examples there.
Honestly I saw a thread a while back that had a variety of challenges in them, and I'd like to bring them back as a Rogue vs. "Rogue" gauntlet to see which one could do them better.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
main problems with rogue are bad defenses (light armor+bad saves on a melee-centric class), bad accuracy (3/4 BAB+no class booster unlike literally everything not named monk), and paizo absolutely hating rogue talents for some reason.
.
that other classes keep beating it up and rifling through its pockets for loose class abilities (and the rogue doesnt get to return the favor), that's a problem with other classes, not the rogue.
that traps are largely useless outside of a few TPK-tier ones (remobing the need for a trapmonkey for the most part) is a problem with the game, not the rogue.
that sneak attack is ridiculously finicky without 'team-selfishness' (you all need to play around what MY character does, or im going to complain about feeling useless!) or incredibly expensive setups (feinting, dimensional savant, nature soul+animal ally+boon companion, tiny hut archery, darkvision is REQUIRED, etc.) isn't quite a problem with the rogue class itself, but more of just how easy it is to shut down precision damage--such as say, being in a dark alley, ironically.
that sneak attack is their only combat option and they are utterly reliant on it to keep up with their peers IS a rogue problem though.
.
with the advent of the slayer (what combat rogue should be) and investigator (what skill rogue should be) classes, it's largely superfluous at this point, but again, game problem not rogue problem.
the rogue isn't hated by anyone (except perhaps by the paizo devs), it's pitied. the wasted potential and adamant dev response to never fix it is what most folks i see are upset about.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want to add soemthing because I see an oft repeated phrase and it bothers me.
"Paizo hates rogues"
This just kills me. Lets go back to the core rulebook and look at the core rogue, and compare it to the 3.5 rogue. They're almost identical. If anything, Paizo expanded on the available special abilities presented to the 3.5 rogue with talents.
I think the main thing is they just didn't buff it enough to compete with the various changes in the different incarnations of DnD (mostly talking about traps) and the buffs they gave to other classes. But I don't think this means they hate rogue. I think they just didn't give enough consideration.
Of course, it's easy to look now and see that but was harder when the CRB has just come out and there weren't other options.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i've never ever had a problem with a rogue, they've always been able to kick ass for us:)
Paizo didn't touch the rogue class much (aside from adding/reorganizing talents), but the rogue got shafted heavily on the system level by a multitude of changes to skills and SA mechanics.
off the top of my head: namely that skill synergies arent a thing anymore, several skills were consolidated (reducing the need to have lots of skill points to spread around), and acrobatics to tumble past an enemy to flank is now ludicrously difficult (was DC15?, now it's enemy CMD, which scales almost exponentially).
getting SA to constructs and undead was nice, but losing it in anything involving concealment REALLY hurt (making the old 'ring of blink/etc' tactic completely unusable and making rogues terrified of the dark).
i mean if you wanted a scary rogue back in 3.5, just wear a ring of (was it blink or displacement?), stack sneak attack + iaiutsu focus and a gnomish quickblade and then cackle maniacally while you throw bucketfuls of dice at the DM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I won't go too far into this, but:
1) It's rogue "love" much more than "hate." People (correctly) want to see the class improved.
2) Anything a rogue can do other classes with more abilities can do as well or better, and get some additional goodies as well. The clearest example is with the alternate ninja class, which can do all that rogues can do but also a few added things. Not that ninjas are all that powerful, but they come closer to the power curve than rogues.
Well, Ninjas are a rogue archetype so...
But anyway, Sorc & witch can do as well as wizards, oracles as well as Clerics etc, so this is not a big deal. PF has about 30 classes, so sure the four basic niche roles will be filled by more than one class.
Now yes, the basic rogue has a couple of issues: it was a early redesign. The Devs likely didnt realize how weak some of the talents were and how useless the "once a day' talent were.
Next the basic rogue is optimized for skills and trap-finding, not combat. But Paizo APs have few of the diabolical Gygaxian traps that occurred in the OD&D and AD&D days. That's what the Thief was designed for, and believe me friend- you needed a Thief in a old-school dungeon crawl. That why we invented it.
But more AP's are set up for combat,and the basic rogue is not best at that. Mind you, some of the rogue archetypes- ninja, scout, sapmaster- are decent.
So there's the following issues:
The devs didnt realize how weak many of the talents were.
The devs dont care for diabolical Gygaxian traps and have mostly excluded them from the APs. APs are mostly very combat heavy.
So there's the following issues:The devs didnt realize how weak many of the talents were.
The devs dont care for diabolical Gygaxian traps and have mostly excluded them from the APs. APs are mostly very combat heavy.
true. though apparently they still havent realized how weak many of the talents are, since they keep cranking more out that are just as bad.
i agree on he traps though--deadlier (or at least more challenging) traps should definitely be a thing.
So there's the following issues:The devs didnt realize how weak many of the talents were.
The devs dont care for diabolical Gygaxian traps and have mostly excluded them from the APs. APs are mostly very combat heavy.true. though apparently they still havent realized how weak many of the talents are, since they keep cranking more out that are just as bad.
i agree on he traps though--deadlier (or at least more challenging) traps should definitely be a thing.
Actually several of the talents would be really nice if they were (3X+stat mod) like Sorc bloodline, Wizard, cleric, etc.
Resiliency, Defensive Roll, etc.
Not this question again. First of all it is not "hate". Nobody hates the rogue, monk, or fighter, and many people that complain want them to be better. There are probably 20 threads on the topic. If you do a search you will find the answers, and you will not do any less reading by starting your own thread on it.Actually, I hate the rogue. I think making a skill class makes the game less fun for everyone by forcing other classes to be unskilled. I think the rogue's 3.x trap handling niche encourages the inappropriate use of uninteresting traps to justify the existence of the niche. I think the connotations of the name rogue, particularly its use in D&D and other places as a euphemism for thief encourages antisocial play. I think the stealth skill, particular in combination with the lack of skills for other classes to protect the rogue niche, promotes 1 on 1 gaming while the rest of the table plays Angry Birds. The rogue introduced deliberate spotlight balancing, which I consider toxic and antithetical to a good shared gaming experience, but good for Roxio.
The rogue isn't like the monk or fighter. People are indifferent at worst to them because they don't make the game worse just by existing.
you are a fine exception o the rule then--though i can see where you're coming from; one person's competence shouldn't come at the expense of everyone else's. and with skills not having quite as large an impact on combat as previous, the 'fight smarter, not harder' skill setups aren't really workable anymore (kirin style eats feats and swift actions something fierce, as well as skills, and 'Know Thy Enemy' classes don't really have enough skill points to capitalize on it properly)
the fighter and sorcerer suffer most for it (both being 2+int/level classes with absolutely no int focus).
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you don't want to be a rogue, play one of those other classes that you keep saying always do the job better. If nobody plays a rogue, then you lose nothing from it being like it is.
If nobody plays a rogue, I loose out on playing a rogue as it should be instead of the sorry excuse it is.
Hopefully unchained will fix things.
Maybe they like turning invisible.
Anything capable of casting first level arcane spells does this better.
Maybe they like some rogue talents.
Archaeologist Bard, Negotiator Bard, Investigator, Slayer does this better.
Or maybe they just like doing an average of 52 damage whenever they charge by level 6,
Monk with pummeling style does this better.
while walking around in full plate with enough skills to satisfy anybody.
Ranger, Slayer, etc does this better.
I want to add soemthing because I see an oft repeated phrase and it bothers me.
"Paizo hates rogues"
This just kills me. Lets go back to the core rulebook and look at the core rogue, and compare it to the 3.5 rogue. They're almost identical. If anything, Paizo expanded on the available special abilities presented to the 3.5 rogue with talents.
I think the main thing is they just didn't buff it enough to compete with the various changes in the different incarnations of DnD (mostly talking about traps) and the buffs they gave to other classes. But I don't think this means they hate rogue. I think they just didn't give enough consideration.
Of course, it's easy to look now and see that but was harder when the CRB has just come out and there weren't other options.
Expect the 3.5 rogue uses grease scroll or wand with UMD and now sneak attacks every thing he sees (3.5 grease was rogue support as it denied dex).
The PF rogue can do that if he can somehow replicate this (PF greae only denies dex on enemies turn)You say what about undead? PF rogue can yes freely do so, but the 3rfd level 3.5 Rogue can do that as well if he gives up that class feature that gives +X to trap AC/saves (a good rogue would have disabled it anyway).
Seriously, let a 3.5 rogue use 3.5 rules vs a PF rogue using PF rules. The winner and still champion 3.5 rogue. Pus, 3.5 rogue can tumble through enemy squares with ease.
I dunno what the hell you guys are on about, rogues are great! They're fun to roleplay as a*&@#~#s thief and all arround sociopath! The rogue in my group has been doing quite a lot of damage, its not THAT hard to flank an enemy and get that sweet sweet sneak attack, especially if your team is smart about it and are willing to take a couples of AoO to get in a really good position for the rogue..! Plus, FUN. TO. PLAY. Sometimes you Dpr olympic / munchkins forget about the "fun" part of this game..
The problem with your argument is that it in no way makes the rogue class accountable for your RP skills. You can pick any other class in the game, play it like a rogue, and RP the same as if you were a rogue. You would just limit yourself in appearance by choosing "rogue" armor to look like a thief. I loved playing a rogue before, but now it is sadly pretty pointless.
"You're the rogue, do something!" And my response is always, "I can't get in there for sneak fast enough!" or "I can't go near it because it will wipe me in one hit!"
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously, let's not use the roleplay excuse for Rogues.
That's just ugly, and dismissive of the Rogue, and in the end, false.
One could roleplay the hell out of a Commoner.
Why do I need to keep reminding everyone that a class name does not define a PC's personality, or a player's ability to Roleplay?
It's like a banana sticker for self-righteous, holier-than-thou roleplayers, who feel the need to tell anyone playing with a strong build, they are doing "wrong".
If you are good at creating a great personality/backstory for a PC, and can roleplay the hell out of it, then you don't need a terrible class to prove it.
You can do it with any class, and not be terrible.
Not this question again. First of all it is not "hate". Nobody hates the rogue, monk, or fighter, and many people that complain want them to be better. There are probably 20 threads on the topic. If you do a search you will find the answers, and you will not do any less reading by starting your own thread on it.Actually, I hate the rogue. I think making a skill class makes the game less fun for everyone by forcing other classes to be unskilled. I think the rogue's 3.x trap handling niche encourages the inappropriate use of uninteresting traps to justify the existence of the niche. I think the connotations of the name rogue, particularly its use in D&D and other places as a euphemism for thief encourages antisocial play. I think the stealth skill, particular in combination with the lack of skills for other classes to protect the rogue niche, promotes 1 on 1 gaming while the rest of the table plays Angry Birds. The rogue introduced deliberate spotlight balancing, which I consider toxic and antithetical to a good shared gaming experience, but good for Roxio.
The rogue isn't like the monk or fighter. People are indifferent at worst to them because they don't make the game worse just by existing.
That is what I get for using an absolute.
I will amend my statement to "It is not hate for most of us."
Actually, I hate the rogue. I think making a skill class makes the game less fun for everyone by forcing other classes to be unskilled. I think the rogue's 3.x trap handling niche encourages the inappropriate use of uninteresting traps to justify the existence of the niche. I think the connotations of the name rogue, particularly its use in D&D and other places as a euphemism for thief encourages antisocial play. I think the stealth skill, particular in combination with the lack of skills for other classes to protect the rogue niche, promotes 1 on 1 gaming while the rest of the table plays Angry Birds. The rogue introduced deliberate spotlight balancing, which I consider toxic and antithetical to a good shared gaming experience, but good for Roxio.The rogue isn't like the monk or fighter. People are indifferent at worst to them because they don't make the game worse just by existing.
Antisocial means:
-contrary to the laws and customs of society; devoid of or antagonistic to sociable instincts or practices.-not sociable; not wanting the company of others.
I believe the rogue as a class is not antisocial but instead chaotic alignment is. Please understand critical words you tend to use periodically and how they affect others you may be describing. (These people are not your introverts, but rather your Jeffrey Dahmers and Charles Mansons of the world.
The rogue wasn't "put in" to pathfinder or dnd for any reason you have mentioned. It was a class made so that the Gary Gygax could further increase the suspense and wonder of the world he had created through the use of traps, locks, etc. The class was not made solely for this purpose, however, and was a support melee role in combat (because who wants to go around sneaking all the time just to find traps and not do any fighting?). Over the editions of DnD and changes to the game, like Pathfinder's game mechanics, as well as introduction of new classes and hybrid classes, the rogue has slipped between the cracks as new items, spells, and abilities of other classes have covered the bases that the rogue used to cover.
It's not that it's a bad class or a pointless one. It is a class that has become obsolete due to the fact the class has not gotten any role reconstruction while other classes have taken over different roles the rogue used to have a monopoly over. It's not the rogue's fault. He's always been there, quiet and in the corner, but now the rest of the party has taken notice to the silent creep skulking in the dark and is wondering if he'll ever rejoin the fun.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder rogue great NPC class, got mislabeled.
"Paizo hates rogues"
This just kills me. Lets go back to the core rulebook and look at the core rogue, and compare it to the 3.5 rogue. They're almost identical. If anything, Paizo expanded on the available special abilities presented to the 3.5 rogue with talents.
Looking at the core book...The bard is still better.
Can you point out one book after core where most rogue talents do not sucks? (AKA, the problem with rogues is not in core but with every book after it)
I didn't say the core bard wasn't better. I was just trying to say that people keep saying that Paizo hates rogues, and I simply don't think that's true.
I want to add soemthing because I see an oft repeated phrase and it bothers me.
"Paizo hates rogues"
This just kills me. Lets go back to the core rulebook and look at the core rogue, and compare it to the 3.5 rogue. They're almost identical. If anything, Paizo expanded on the available special abilities presented to the 3.5 rogue with talents.
I think the main thing is they just didn't buff it enough to compete with the various changes in the different incarnations of DnD (mostly talking about traps) and the buffs they gave to other classes. But I don't think this means they hate rogue. I think they just didn't give enough consideration.
Of course, it's easy to look now and see that but was harder when the CRB has just come out and there weren't other options.
Expect the 3.5 rogue uses grease scroll or wand with UMD and now sneak attacks every thing he sees (3.5 grease was rogue support as it denied dex).
The PF rogue can do that if he can somehow replicate this (PF greae only denies dex on enemies turn)You say what about undead? PF rogue can yes freely do so, but the 3rfd level 3.5 Rogue can do that as well if he gives up that class feature that gives +X to trap AC/saves (a good rogue would have disabled it anyway).
Seriously, let a 3.5 rogue use 3.5 rules vs a PF rogue using PF rules. The winner and still champion 3.5 rogue. Pus, 3.5 rogue can tumble through enemy squares with ease.
These aren't really slights against the rogue. Paizo updated spells to power them down and changed combat maneuver (and tumbles rule, I guess I don't remember anymore). The system changed, some loopholes that had been used got removed, but again, I don't think this was with malice that some many people seem convinced of.
I'm not say that the rogue is good. It's not.
I am however saying that Paizo doesn't hate rogues, but they haven't shown them much love or concern in their publications either. I think they are the neglected child. Not scorned, but forgotten.
Well Nicos, you're entitled to your opinion. I disagree and I don't like to assume malice on the part of the developers, but I guess that is your prerogative.
I was just trying to say that people keep saying that Paizo hates rogues, and I simply don't think that's true.
Maybe not hate but they don't seem very interested in making them better.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Agree. But giving rogue bad talents was probably the paizo's idea, not sure why, but it seems imposible to me that all this year all the books are filled with bad taletns by mistake.The biggest thing for me are rogue talents; quite a few of the rogue talents that are once per day are things other classes get unlimited times per day as a base part of their class.
.
.
.
Anyway, IMHO, rogues could be fixed through talent changes alone.
They pretty much left the rogue alone. However, they bumped practically everything else up a few notches. So they show their rogue hate not through active malice, but through neglect.
This will probably get one of the devs to come in and yell at me / delete this post, but it almost seems like, as much as they deny that they think there's a martial/caster divide, they often seem like they're trying to make it even worse. Some of the weakest classes get the the least out of their splats, whereas their strongest classes get all kinds of love to build them up even further.
I hate to say this, and I know that I'll get a LOT of hate from the PDF for it, but it may be that Paizo isn't all that great as rules designers. Let's face it, the majority of their success is the adventures, and the entire system is built on the skeleton of a system that they did NOT write. They made a few improvements, but they've also made some things worse, and I haven't seen much since the core rules to suggest that any brilliance in game design exists within Paizo.
|
I was just trying to say that people keep saying that Paizo hates rogues, and I simply don't think that's true.Maybe not hate but they don't seem very interested in making them better.
Pathfinder Unchained and its entire redesign of the Rogue Class would seem to argue against this point...
The real problem Rogues have is a lack of expendable resources.
In Pathfinder, many things can only be done X times per day, and this is considered a major balancing mechanic of being able to do really col stuff. Rogue has no inherent abilities in this category, which creates an illusion of effectiveness if you compare them to other classes when those classes aren't using such abilities...but that never happens, since when people run out of those, the party stops for the day.
It also really hamstrings Rogue Talents, since anything that would be too powerful if used every round must be given an arbitrary limitation (usually once a day...which makes most such talents not worth taking).
Add in caster/martial disparity and the lack of any inherent attack, AC, or Save boosters, and you've got a recipe for badness.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder Unchained and its entire redesign of the Rogue Class would seem to argue against this point.I was just trying to say that people keep saying that Paizo hates rogues, and I simply don't think that's true.Maybe not hate but they don't seem very interested in making them better.
I wouldn't make that claim until I've reviewed the final product.
Pathfinder Unchained and its entire redesign of the Rogue Class would seem to argue against this point...I was just trying to say that people keep saying that Paizo hates rogues, and I simply don't think that's true.Maybe not hate but they don't seem very interested in making them better.
I'd be happy to have that book prove me wrong.
What's this pathfinder unchained I keep hearing about?
All right. I see that I sparked off a thread debate here and I'm mostly sorry for starting that. The only part of me that isn't sorry is the part that likes asking questions directly. I do appreciate all the feedback and after filtering through them I can see that while it's not 'hate' in most cases it seems that they have been rather sub-par comparative to other classes that can do what you wanted a rogue for AND also have their own special flavor bag of chips too. :/
Paizo didn't touch the rogue class much (aside from adding/reorganizing talents), but the rogue got shafted heavily on the system level by a multitude of changes to skills and SA mechanics.off the top of my head: namely that skill synergies arent a thing anymore, several skills were consolidated (reducing the need to have lots of skill points to spread around), and acrobatics to tumble past an enemy to flank is now ludicrously difficult (was DC15?, now it's enemy CMD, which scales almost exponentially).
getting SA to constructs and undead was nice, but losing it in anything involving concealment REALLY hurt (making the old 'ring of blink/etc' tactic completely unusable and making rogues terrified of the dark).
i mean if you wanted a scary rogue back in 3.5, just wear a ring of (was it blink or displacement?), stack sneak attack + iaiutsu focus and a gnomish quickblade and then cackle maniacally while you throw bucketfuls of dice at the DM.
Cross-class skills no longer divide the ranks in half and once a class skill it is always a class skill. This means that you don't need to be taking another level in Rogue to continue progressing skills you picked up from rogue.
There no longer are exclusive skills. Use Magic Device used to be an exclusive skill for just Rogues and Bards.
Many other classes have various bonuses to their skills, such as Inquisitor and Intimidate. Really, there should at least be a rogue talent for some of that.
The rules for stealth don't work unless you have concealment. You can't walk up quietly behind someone and surprise them. Something that I've both done and had done to me.
Hit point inflation made the d6 damage of sneak attacks less deadly.
I'm sure there are other things I'm not thinking of at the moment.
Getting all simple weapons was a nice move, but it also saved a lot of space in the rules. Just in terms of word count it was probably worth it.
What's this pathfinder unchained I keep hearing about?
All right. I see that I sparked off a thread debate here and I'm mostly sorry for starting that. The only part of me that isn't sorry is the part that likes asking questions directly. I do appreciate all the feedback and after filtering through them I can see that while it's not 'hate' in most cases it seems that they have been rather sub-par comparative to other classes that can do what you wanted a rogue for AND also have their own special flavor bag of chips too. :/
right on the head with that one. well, your question answered, i shall take my leave.
best of luck to everyone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From Websters:
- A vagrant or a Tramp
- A dishonest or worthless person
- A mischievous person
- A horse inclined to shirk or misbehave
- an individual exhibiting a chance and usually inferior biological variation
From Dictionary.com:
- To cheat
- To uproot or destroy
- abnormal or savage disposition
- no longer obedient, belonging or accepted
Gee, I don't know, why would people hate someone that cheats, destroys, shirks, misbehaves, doesn't belong with inferior variations?
I would suggest the rogue is just staying meta-in-character. It's like method acting really.
There's a few things that nobody mentioned that I would like to chime in about.
Critical Hits - any class that doesn't use spellcasting as its main focus can get a lot out of critical hits - except rogues.
* Fighters' STR, weapon training, and feats like Weapon Specialization all multiply on a critical.
* Barbarians' STR, including bonus STR due to rage multiply on a critical
* Paladins' smite damage multiplies on a critical
* Rangers' favoured enemy multiplies on a critical
* Inquisitors' judgement bonus (when applied to damage) multiplies on a critical
* Bards' inspire courage multiplies on a critical
* Monks' improved unarmed damage multiplies on a critical
* Clerics' (and oracles') buffs from spells like divine favor multiply on a critical
* Magus' shocking grasp multiplies on a critical
The list goes on and on. But:
* Rogues' sneak attack damage does NOT multiply on a critical.
Not every melee/ranged combat character needs to be built as a crit fisher, but most classes can. Rogues are specifically a class where that strategy is a complete waste. Why bother giving rogues proficiency with a rapier when its only benefit over the shortsword is improved crit chance?
For God's sakes, if a Magus can crit for double damage off a shocking grasp, a rogue should crit double damage from a sneak attack.
I would at least say that each sneak attack die should grant a +1 damage on a crit (+2 for x3 weapons and +3 for x4 weapons). This is not a bad houserule. It doesn't "fix" the rogue but it's better than nothing.
For accuracy, another option would have been to have a limited full BAB, like the monk. Essentially a rogue would attack as if it had full BAB when making sneak attacks (just as the monk attacks as if it had full BAB when flurrying).
Finally, rogues need enhanced mobility. Sneak attack is only really good when you get multiple attacks, but most of the time you need to move to get a sneak attack, which means only a single attack. Using acrobatics to move through threatened spaces is penalized if you make a full move. A better ability to move is in line with the core concepts of the rogue but they don't seem to have any way to do it outside of magic. Some kind of pounce mechanic would have been fitting too, but I don't know how you can do it as a rogue.
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?
Because, those that obsess over damage insist they don't do enough damage (I've out-damaged everyone else in the party with a rogue, but I love them). Two-handed weapon rogues are a joy to play.
Because PF pushed ACs up like no tomorrow (compare ACs to 3.0 and 3.5), which means the 3/4 without self buffing and without magic can really struggle to hit if they are a touch unlucky. A fighter might hit on a d20 roll of 5, but rogues won't. This problem of hitting and getting stuck in generates a lot of hate, scorn and dismissal. Of course you can just go a dab of fighter, ranger or barb if ACs are a bit high, but then is that a cop out? In games without skyrocket ACs, or against average to low AC opponents (yes they still exist) rogues are good value. In beginner dm games where not everything is ultra-powered, the rogue won't seem so weak in combat and they have all of that out of combat versatility. So choose your games wisely rogue player.
I don't know if its rogue hate as much as "Sneak attack can be kinda cheese" but thats an issue that crosses decades. Then people see some of the ridonkulous examples of cheese that can be built and attribute that to the class.
Thing is, that can be applied to pretty much any class. Build them a certain way and tada cheesetastic. So its not a rogue-specific thing.
Slayer and Investigator(Sleuth Archetype) are the two biggest ones, imo.
The Slayer is about as good at skills, but is a much better fighter with sneak attack and everything to boot.
The Investigator is about as good at fighting, but is much better at skills.
This would change if you make Rogue talents good, but Slayers can take those, so it might just be a crapshoot now.
slayers are pretty limited on the rogue talents they can take and the number.
slayers can only get the talents listed, not free access to them all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everything that everyone complains about in references to rogues/fighters (and martials in general) is actually a result of the devs answer complaints about casters from earlier (pre 3.0 editions)
Casters used to have to plant their feet and take multiple actions (rounds) to get off a single cool spell.
Magic users were often reduced to throwing a dart for the first 3-4 levels of progression.
Rogues (thieves) used to have a faster experience/level progression than other (most classes)
the "complaints" of yesteryear resulted in the complaints of today.
Put casters back in 1e/2e shoes, bring the monsters back down to those levels and the Rogue would be OP…
It's all about power creep.
Rogue/fighter are just behind the power creep curve, ATM.
Ha ha, yeah you wanted to take a thief in D&D to AD&D. They were awesome and you would always be a higher level if you were worth your salt.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know if its rogue hate as much as "Sneak attack can be kinda cheese" but thats an issue that crosses decades. Then people see some of the ridonkulous examples of cheese that can be built and attribute that to the class.
Thing is, that can be applied to pretty much any class. Build them a certain way and tada cheesetastic. So its not a rogue-specific thing.
That is not the case at all. The rogue would actually do more consistent damage with bonuses to attack and damage similar to what other classes get than with sneak attack, which is far from cheese.