---A wizard is the guy who just heisted a secure vault and managed to pin it on someone else for the crime - and the patsy even remembers doing it and confessed!
---A wizard is the guy that knew how to get around the city to get the information you needed without leaving a trail -- or getting up from his comfy chair by the fire!
---A wizard is the guy who was not there for half the battle, but that's because he set up some elaborate environmental trap on half the enemies and took them down without lifting a finger or ever exposing himself to danger.
---A wizard is that McGuyver kind of guy, his mastery over mundane tools and magical tools (as he can casually max out UMD and doesn't need to roll for most toys) gives him an edge in almost any situation as long as they are creative enough...assuming his spellbook doesn't have THAT covered for much, much less gold.
---A wizard is the guy who disguised himself as the guards by actually becoming one of them via magic, and infiltrated to assassinate the guy that intended to make the PCs lives hell by using all the military and political power he had so he died at one of the hands of his own underlings.
---A wizard is the guy that had the right sort of contacts to pretty much get whatever it is you needed. You know, like entities on other planes and stuff, sages, academia, and all those underworld figures who want him to find out stuff for them, or make toys for them.
---A wizard is the guy that rose through the ranks of an organization for the sole purpose of spying and betraying them. Has the magic to ward his thoughts and conceal his alignment, divert suspicion and learn things without having to actually be there, too.
---A wizard is the guy that was off rescuing victims, mentally mapping passageways, sabotaging ambushes and traps, misleading and misdirection enemies into danger, and basically speeding up your dungeon bashing game so that a quest that would have taken a month to finish, he just helped you do it in a week. Mostly by just using Summoned creatures.
---A wizard would have stolen enough money to hire, bribe, or blackmail others into doing the dirty work for them. Or, you know, just charmed or dominated them for more reliable and quick service.FTFY.
==Aelryinth
I see what you did there...
then you sir need better traps:)
How do you afford better traps? Non-class ability traps cost money, meaning your rogue is poorer than everyone else.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Explain if you don't mind.Slayer begs for a way to be truly meaningful outside combat.Slayer begs to disagree with you.Sacred Geometry was a single Feat. The rules for, and oversight over, class design are a whole lot different.From what I can tell, the rules for class design basically say "If it ain't a spellcaster, F~!@ IT!"He's referring to lack of narrative power, as Kirth puts it.
==Aelryinth
<whisper> I want to see him say it. It is more fun this way. </whisper>
I completely agree that anything a rogue can do well, someone else can do better, but I ask this: is there a class that can do EVERYTHING a rogue can do well and better...at all levels?
I mean, vivisectionists match them in sheer sneak attack damage, bards arguably have more skill points due to versatile performance (though, considering the VP doesn't kick in all at once, they have fewer skills at level 1, equal at level 2, and it starts to get better from there), and a lot of rogue tricks are outclassed by other features in other classes, and trapfinding is spread among a few archetypes (and a trait, but it's campaign specific, so that's not always allowable, especially in other APs)...
...but what about the package, as a whole? I mean, a wizard can outcast a magus, and a fighter can out fight a magus, but a magus can fight and cast, and it's his ability to do both that kind of gives him his niche.
Aside from ninja, I can't think of another class that has 8+Int effective skill points per level, full odd-level sneak attack, and trapfinding. And, IIRC, ninjas don't have trapfinding.
|
I completely agree that anything a rogue can do well, someone else can do better, but I ask this: is there a class that can do EVERYTHING a rogue can do well and better...at all levels?
...
Aside from ninja, I can't think of another class that has 8+Int effective skill points per level, full odd-level sneak attack, and trapfinding. And, IIRC, ninjas don't have trapfinding.
Investigator. 6 skills per level on an Int based class is more than 8 per level on a class that has no need for INT.
Studied Combat/Studied Strike is more than a match for sneak attack, Investigators get better talents, and one top of that, they get 6th level casting.
I completely agree that anything a rogue can do well, someone else can do better, but I ask this: is there a class that can do EVERYTHING a rogue can do well and better...at all levels?
...
Aside from ninja, I can't think of another class that has 8+Int effective skill points per level, full odd-level sneak attack, and trapfinding. And, IIRC, ninjas don't have trapfinding.
Investigator. 6 skills per level on an Int based class is more than 8 per level on a class that has no need for INT.
Studied Combat/Studied Strike is more than a match for sneak attack, Investigators get better talents, and one top of that, they get 6th level casting.
I have to disagree about adding the modifier. That's like saying wizards DON'T get crap skills/level because their intelligence is a factor. It isn't. I mean, yeah, it's there, but it is not part of what makes a class good. The fact that the two have synergy is nice, but 6+Int is not 8+int, even if in the end most characters will have more int in that class...two of the same attributes are such that investigators have less. That being said...inspiration does kinda make them equal, IMO.
Studied Combat requires a move-action, which means you can't move in and hit with it right away. Plus it doesn't kick in until 4th level, and is 2d6 behind the average rogue of the same level.
Finally, and most importantly to me, "Investigator" is the least threatening adventurer title ever. "Ted the Investigator" is nowhere near as cool sounding as "Steve the Rogue" or "Mike the Barbarian" even "Bob the Bard" sounds more imposing. Investigator sounds like a guy who wears Mr. Rogers style sweaters and sips lukewarm chamomile while reading back issues of Reader's Digest.
EDIT - I just want to add I still think rogues overall are the worst class...I just was trying to point out that while others can beat them at anything they do, I wonder about beating them at EVERYTHING they do.
I completely agree that anything a rogue can do well, someone else can do better, but I ask this: is there a class that can do EVERYTHING a rogue can do well and better...at all levels?
I mean, vivisectionists match them in sheer sneak attack damage, bards arguably have more skill points due to versatile performance (though, considering the VP doesn't kick in all at once, they have fewer skills at level 1, equal at level 2, and it starts to get better from there), and a lot of rogue tricks are outclassed by other features in other classes, and trapfinding is spread among a few archetypes (and a trait, but it's campaign specific, so that's not always allowable, especially in other APs)...
...but what about the package, as a whole? I mean, a wizard can outcast a magus, and a fighter can out fight a magus, but a magus can fight and cast, and it's his ability to do both that kind of gives him his niche.
Aside from ninja, I can't think of another class that has 8+Int effective skill points per level, full odd-level sneak attack, and trapfinding. And, IIRC, ninjas don't have trapfinding.
Bard and Investigator.
Well... I suppose Rogues can Coup de Grace better than Bards...
But, really... Most Rogue-replacement classes can do, what... 90% of what the Rogue can do, but better. Does that 10% really mean anything? Especially considering those classes have a whole bunch of options that Rogues are simply incapable of using (at least not without spending a whole lot of gold).
Basically... if Rogues can do A B, C, D and E... The "replacement" classes can do A, B, C and D just as well or better, and be almost as good at E. And on top of that, they are also capable of doing W, X, Y an Z.
One way or the other, Rogues suck by comparison.
There's a point (probably around 6+ Int skills with 14 Int, Human, and FCB into skills) where having more skill points just leaves you dropping points in things at random. I'm usually fine at getting 6 skills per level if I'm not picking up every Knowledge.
And if you are minmaxing a party and decide to bring a Rogue for knowledge skills + other skills... I might cry.
I completely agree that anything a rogue can do well, someone else can do better, but I ask this: is there a class that can do EVERYTHING a rogue can do well and better...at all levels?
I mean, vivisectionists match them in sheer sneak attack damage, bards arguably have more skill points due to versatile performance (though, considering the VP doesn't kick in all at once, they have fewer skills at level 1, equal at level 2, and it starts to get better from there), and a lot of rogue tricks are outclassed by other features in other classes, and trapfinding is spread among a few archetypes (and a trait, but it's campaign specific, so that's not always allowable, especially in other APs)...
...but what about the package, as a whole? I mean, a wizard can outcast a magus, and a fighter can out fight a magus, but a magus can fight and cast, and it's his ability to do both that kind of gives him his niche.
Aside from ninja, I can't think of another class that has 8+Int effective skill points per level, full odd-level sneak attack, and trapfinding. And, IIRC, ninjas don't have trapfinding.
The problem with this is that all of the rogue's "strengths", large amount of skills, damage via SA, and trap-finding are in fact very weak.
Skills are only important as long as no-one else has them or if they are a personal need skill such as Perception, Stealth, and Fly. It can be argued that Ride, Climb and Swim might also be important but these are much more niche.
Even in situations where these skills might be useful usually the "Rogue Replacement" classes have access to what I like to call Skills+ also known as spells or extracts.
On SA as damage well the fact is that with the rogues AC, Saves, and HP he makes a poor frontliner generally and all SA does is bring him from Commoner to "sometimes depending on build acceptable" level. Basically SA is not that great.
For trapfinding, well honestly its vestigial. If absolutely needed there are other ways to do it, Wand of mount, bag of flour, etc...
In short I would argue that a core bard is better than a rogue in pretty much all ways and we do not even need to bring in the investigator or the slayer.
I do not say all of this because I hate the rogue, I say it because I would love for the class to get the overhaul it deserves and hopefully it will not be held back by "tradition" or "compatibility".
|
|
I have to disagree about adding the modifier. That's like saying wizards DON'T get crap skills/level because their intelligence is a factor. It isn't. I mean, yeah, it's there, but it is not part of what makes a class good. The fact that the two have synergy is nice, but 6+Int is not 8+int, even if in the end most characters will have more int in that class...two of the same attributes are such that investigators have less. That being said...inspiration does kinda make them equal, IMO.
While 6+Int is not as good as 8+Int, unless you are rolling or have an insane point buy, an Investigator is going to have equal skills per level to a rogue in practice.
Studied Combat requires a move-action, which means you can't move in and hit with it right away. Plus it doesn't kick in until 4th level, and is 2d6 behind the average rogue of the same level.
YOu have a point here, but Studied Combat has a massive accuracy boost, which is better than the larger sneak attack pool. Plus they have extracts from level one which are worth more than the the entire sneak attack pool on it's own.
Finally, and most importantly to me, "Investigator" is the least threatening adventurer title ever. "Ted the Investigator" is nowhere near as cool sounding as "Steve the Rogue" or "Mike the Barbarian" even "Bob the Bard" sounds more imposing. Investigator sounds like a guy who wears Mr. Rogers style sweaters and sips lukewarm chamomile while reading back issues of Reader's Digest.
This point is ludicrous. A class is not a title. You can be an investigator class and call yourself a rogue or assassin or a haberdasher. A class is mechanics not a role.
I have to disagree about adding the modifier. That's like saying wizards DON'T get crap skills/level because their intelligence is a factor. It isn't. I mean, yeah, it's there, but it is not part of what makes a class good. The fact that the two have synergy is nice, but 6+Int is not 8+int, even if in the end most characters will have more int in that class...two of the same attributes are such that investigators have less. That being said...inspiration does kinda make them equal, IMO.
Eh... Kinda...
While everyone can invest in the same attributes, some classes get better benefits for doing so.
e.g.1: Saying the Wizard has as many skill points as a Fighter or Cleric is misleading, since Wizards have a greater incentive to invest in Int and are better rewarded by doing so. No one would say Fighter have poor skill points it skills were based on Str or Con. Mu
e.g.2: A Paladin may not get any bonus to Diplomacy, but he has many more reasons to invest in Cha and are greatly rewarded for good Cha scores, while Clerics don't really get much out of it, so we can safely say that Paladins are better at Diplomacy, despite no difference in inherent bonuses.
And so on...
Oddly enough, Rogues aren't rewarded for good Int and Cha scores... In fact, an optimized Rogues will probably dump those attributes in favor of the more useful ones, possibly in an attempt to make up for the class' horrible defenses.
Finally, the difference between 6 and 8 skill points is pretty small. It's, in fact, smaller than the difference between 2 and 4 skill points, even if the numerical gap is the same. In the latter case, it's the difference of having ranks in your 3rd and 4th most important skills, in the former, it's just the difference of having ranks in your 7th and 8th most important skills.
This point is ludicrous. A class is not a title. You can be an investigator class and call yourself a rogue or assassin or a haberdasher. A class is mechanics not a role.
Finally, and most importantly to me, "Investigator" is the least threatening adventurer title ever. "Ted the Investigator" is nowhere near as cool sounding as "Steve the Rogue" or "Mike the Barbarian" even "Bob the Bard" sounds more imposing. Investigator sounds like a guy who wears Mr. Rogers style sweaters and sips lukewarm chamomile while reading back issues of Reader's Digest.
I know that, but a lot of players and GMs play like class is a transparent thing inherently related to who your character is, and frankly, in those instances, calling yourself an investigator does kind of make you seem about as threatening as a dandelion.
Plus, while apparently I was wrong due to the reaction, I thought I was being funny.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Plus, while apparently I was wrong due to the reaction, I thought I was being funny.
There are a lot of people who say things like that and mean it, so it's very difficult to tell who is joking.
There are a lot people who say things like that and mean it, so it's very difficult to tell who is joking.Plus, while apparently I was wrong due to the reaction, I thought I was being funny.
Yeah. Well class transparency is a difficult thing when so many of the class names are fluff only, like ranger, while others are actual titles, like cleric.
I completely agree that anything a rogue can do well, someone else can do better, but I ask this: is there a class that can do EVERYTHING a rogue can do well and better...at all levels?
I mean, vivisectionists match them in sheer sneak attack damage, bards arguably have more skill points due to versatile performance (though, considering the VP doesn't kick in all at once, they have fewer skills at level 1, equal at level 2, and it starts to get better from there), and a lot of rogue tricks are outclassed by other features in other classes, and trapfinding is spread among a few archetypes (and a trait, but it's campaign specific, so that's not always allowable, especially in other APs)...
...but what about the package, as a whole? I mean, a wizard can outcast a magus, and a fighter can out fight a magus, but a magus can fight and cast, and it's his ability to do both that kind of gives him his niche.
Aside from ninja, I can't think of another class that has 8+Int effective skill points per level, full odd-level sneak attack, and trapfinding. And, IIRC, ninjas don't have trapfinding.
I think it depends on how you look at character design, and also another class only has to cover your current concept better.
As an example rogues can be scouts, diplomats, they have decent knowledge skills, and so on. However they are not likely to do everything that the class can do decently well all in one build.
So you pick your focus, and your class, and after that is done that class is not likely to be a rogue unless your concept is a metagame one such as "1d6 sneak attack every other round" or "has 8+int" skill points.
When you compare a class you need to look beyond the game mechanics and look at what they accomplish. So instead of counting the number of dice a class has in sneak attack you need to be looking at what sneak attack is designed to do. Sneak attack is designed to allow a rogue to be able to get the jump on someone and either take them out of the combat, or at least significantly damage them. So if a class is able to do as much damage as a rogue with sneak attack using some other mechanic it should be counted as being equal to sneak attack for purpose of comparison. As long as it can accomplish everything that the first ability does it does not matter if you are rolling 3d6 or if you have a flat damage bonus.
Also the number of ranks in skill is also not as important. Many classes have bonus to skills that make them better at skill then rogues. Bards get a bonus of +1/2 level on all knowledge skills, this is the same as getting +5.5 skills per level. Inquisitors also get a lot of bonuses to skills, and can take improved monster lore for even more bonuses.
There is one archetype that will be able to do everything the rogue does better than the rogue. The Sanctified Slayer trades judgments for studied strike and sneak attack. He still keep bane and teamwork feats so can take precise strike to get an extra 1d6 sneak attack. Take an 8th level sanctified slayer as a comparison. This combination will give the Sanctified Slayer 5d6+2 of bane/sneak attack at +2 to hit. They can also pick slayer talents so can have trap finding. Take Heresy inquisition to use WIS for bluff and intimidate, and to get to roll twice for bluff, diplomacy, or stealth. They are already getting +4 to Intimidate, and sense motive, as well as a+4 bonus on tracking. Trap Finding gives them a +4 to find and disable traps and can deal with magical traps. They can use medium armor and a good number of martial ranged weapons, plus their deities favored weapon. Improved monster lore will give them a huge bonus on identifying monsters. The only thing he is lacking is uncanny dodge and evasion. On top of all this he still has spells and other inquisitor abilities.
The Rogue class only does one thing: for a small party, the rogue can be used to help cover all of the misc skills that might be required for the group to be successful. With 4 players or more, however, the rogue is not needed. The rogue can also be substituted for the bard or wizard in small parties without care. The rogue is dead.
8+Int does not make you better at skills than other classes, it simply makes you equally competent at more skills. Or rather, equally mediocre at more skills, since anyone can get max out skill ranks and get class-skills via traits.
A Slayer "only" has 6+Int skills, but gets a studied target +1 to +5 bonus to bluff, knowledge, perception, sense motive, survival, disguise, intimidate and stealth. Meanwhile the Rogue gets trapfin...oh wait so does the Slayer. If you want to look at from a certain angle, COMMONERS are just as good as skills as the rogue. The biggest boon for the Rogue is that he gets to take10 with UMD and pretend that he's a wizzard.
Ah good that someone mentioned this. I'll reiterate.
Skill Points do not inherently make one Good at Skills. Class features that boost said skills or allow said skill to do other things is what makes one Good at skills. A Rogue is simply average in many skills. It has very few good class features that boost said skills. Trapfinding is actually a wash since once you can hit a DC34 Perception and Disable Device, any more is negligible.
Why is a Bard good at skills? Because not only does he gets a solid 6+Int per level, he later gains additional skill points that are networked to his Charisma score despite whatever the skill was previously. Acrobatics set to Charisma? Pretty sweet! Furthermore, that's right there's more! Versatile Performance allows one to get twice the benefit from Skill Focus(Perform:Blank).
Rangers rock! People seem to forget that Animal Companions share your Favored Enemy and Terrain bonuses. Your Hawk thats really good at Perception is even better at it when spotting Orcs raiding a town a mile away.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The biggest boon for the Rogue is that he gets to take10 with UMD and pretend that he's a wizzard.
Not to derail the conversation too much, but this doesn't actually work.
The rogue talent Skill Mastery says:
The rogue becomes so confident in the use of certain skills that she can use them reliably even under adverse conditions. Upon gaining this ability, she selects a number of skills equal to 3 + her Intelligence modifier. When making a skill check with one of these skills, she may take 10 even if stress and distractions would normally prevent her from doing so.
So, the ability allows you to take 10 even when stress or distractions would prevent you from doing so.
But UMD isn't prevented from taking 10 due to stress or distractions. It's due to the inherent nature of UMD. So you can't still can't take 10.
Don't feel bad though, many people have this misunderstanding of the ability.
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to disagree about adding the modifier. That's like saying wizards DON'T get crap skills/level because their intelligence is a factor. It isn't. I mean, yeah, it's there, but it is not part of what makes a class good. The fact that the two have synergy is nice, but 6+Int is not 8+int, even if in the end most characters will have more int in that class...two of the same attributes are such that investigators have less. That being said...inspiration does kinda make them equal, IMO.
Inspiration pushes them over. At an level you'd care to name (well, starting at 3rd or so, anyway), you can make an Investigator with the same Int as a Rogue and still have a better bonus on every skill they possess due to the use of Inspiration to boost some skills with less ranks. And that's ignoring the Empiricist Archetype, which makes Perception, Sense Motive, and several other skills Int based.
Studied Combat requires a move-action, which means you can't move in and hit with it right away. Plus it doesn't kick in until 4th level, and is 2d6 behind the average rogue of the same level.
Uh...you're not looking at Talents, which include Quick Study, making Studied Combat a Swift action at 5th level, and also aren't looking at the actual bonus of Studied Combat...which is 1/2 level to hit and damage. At 10th, that's +5 to hit, +5 damage. To anyone you spend a Swift Action to effect. I'd take that over a highly conditional +17.5 damage bonus and no attack bonus any day of the week. And that's ignoring Studied Strike (which, in fairness, really isn't that good). Especially with 6-level buff-casting and mutagen...
Finally, and most importantly to me, "Investigator" is the least threatening adventurer title ever. "Ted the Investigator" is nowhere near as cool sounding as "Steve the Rogue" or "Mike the Barbarian" even "Bob the Bard" sounds more imposing. Investigator sounds like a guy who wears Mr. Rogers style sweaters and sips lukewarm chamomile while reading back issues of Reader's Digest.
Sounds like a personal problem. My visuals for "Investigator" include Sherlock Holmes, John Luther, Batman, and Garrett, PI. Just off the top of my head, mind you.
Rogue also has some cool thematics, don't get me wrong...but Investigator isn't hurting for thematically cool elements.
EDIT - I just want to add I still think rogues overall are the worst class...I just was trying to point out that while others can beat them at anything they do, I wonder about beating them at EVERYTHING they do.
Investigator really, really, does beat them at just about literally everything. It technically isn't better at Sneak Attack...but all Sneak Attack does is damage, and Investigators beat Rogues at damage hands down.
Ah good that someone mentioned this. I'll reiterate.
Skill Points do not inherently make one Good at Skills. Class features that boost said skills or allow said skill to do other things is what makes one Good at skills. A Rogue is simply average in many skills. It has very few good class features that boost said skills. Trapfinding is actually a wash since once you can hit a DC34 Perception and Disable Device, any more is negligible.
I, to, will reiterate this because it needs reiterating. Rogues aren't good at skills, they just have a bunch of them.
Inquisitors are good at skills (gaining bonuses on all Monster Knowledge checks plus Intimidate and Sense Motive), Slayers (as mentioned) are good at skills, gaining bonuses to many of them, Rangers are situationally good at skills (when Favored Enemy applies), Bards (also as mentioned) are good at skills (via Versatile Performance and Bardic Knowledge), and Investigators are very good at skills with a couple of talents invested (+4.5 on basically all the skills, all the time eventually).
Rogues get Trapfinding to make them good at skills. That's it, and it makes them good at a whole one skill. Yeesh. A few archetypes help this, but not remotely enough to be on par with the classes mentioned above. They do eventually get Skill Mastery...but that's a bit late, and not nearly as good at flat bonuses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm both sad and glad to see I was wrong.
I'm sad because, well, it's sad that there's a class overshadowed at literally everything it does by another class. That's not good design.
I'm pleased because it's just nice to see a well laid-out explanation with no insults on a message board that leads to a reasonable conclusion. Well done, folks.
(Incidentally, I was kind of on the "rogues are beaten at everything they do by someone else" train, but one of my players gave the "yes, but what about beating them at EVERYTHING they do as a complete package?" argument...I had not analyzed it fully, so I brought it up here. Thanks! Will relay the info.)
|
|
I'm both sad and glad to see I was wrong.
I'm sad because, well, it's sad that there's a class overshadowed at literally everything it does by another class. That's not good design.
It's good design when the utterly overshadowed class is objectively one of the worst in the game. Particularly when they're planning on revamping said overshadowed class extensively in the near future.
I'm pleased because it's just nice to see a well laid-out explanation with no insults on a message board that leads to a reasonable conclusion. Well done, folks.
Yay! We have succeeded! :)
(Incidentally, I was kind of on the "rogues are beaten at everything they do by someone else" train, but one of my players gave the "yes, but what about beating them at EVERYTHING they do as a complete package?" argument...I had not analyzed it fully, so I brought it up here. Thanks! Will relay the info.)
Please do. Unchained seems likely to change this particular disparity quite a bit in the near future, but talking corebook Rogue...
I really do have high hopes that Unchained will help the rogue considerably. I'm not sure what they will do to fix it, but I am waiting patiently to see.
I am however confused about why the barbarian is getting a revamp. The barbarian is probably the strongest class that doesn't get to cast spells. With Beast Totem and Come and Get Me rage powers he is a face wrecking force of doom. And with Spell Sunder he's great at removing magical problems.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd actually love to see a barbarian without Rage. Rage is the biggest legacy of the Barbarian class since Unearthed Arcana in 1st edition, but the iconic barbarians from fiction and myth such as Conan, Kull, and Enkidu don't really go into a Rage, and mythic characters that do rage such as Cu Chulainn, Hercules, and Sampson are not barbarians.
I am however confused about why the barbarian is getting a revamp. The barbarian is probably the strongest class that doesn't get to cast spells. With Beast Totem and Come and Get Me rage powers he is a face wrecking force of doom. And with Spell Sunder he's great at removing magical problems.Barbarian is one of hte classes with more restricted great options. You just named the "standard" rage power, outside them there is no much more. In the last couple of years, everytime I have seen a barbarian in PBP it have been a beast totem supertitious barbarian, and for a good reason.
Now, the solution to that are new rage power as good at those but that do not stack with them, no clue why are thy rewriting the class.
That's certainly true. There is essentially only one good barbarian build predicated upon taking beast totem, spell sunder, come and get me, and superstition. Taking anything else does make you substantially weaker. That is a fair assessment. There is only one way :(
However, you're also right that the class doesn't need a complete rewrite. Just more rage powers that are on the same level as those mentioned above.
I'd actually love to see a barbarian without Rage. Rage is the biggest legacy of the Barbarian class since Unearthed Arcana in 1st edition, but the iconic barbarians from fiction and myth such as Conan, Kull, and Enkidu don't really go into a Rage, and mythic characters that do rage such as Cu Chulainn, Hercules, and Sampson are not barbarians.
Eh. I think the problem is people read rage and thinking mouth frothing moron all of a sudden. If they simply renamed the class feature "battle trance" instead I don't think we would have this kind of stigma.
The barbarian outside of a few builds is not that great. Much like the rogue talents suck many rage powers suck also.
The barbarian outside of a few builds is not that great. Much like the rogue talents suck many rage powers suck also.There's at least 10 rage powers you can base builds around and not suck. Yeah, there are some really sucky ones, but it's basically the reverse of the rogue situation.
There might be 10 useful ones, but not 10 that you can actually build around.
Even the beast totem leading up to pounce is a chain of 3 powers and not one individual power.
inb4 Skill Monkey Barbarian
|
I have yet to see any Rogue build that is "broken" (well, at least "broken" in the sense of "too effective", I've seen plenty that are "broken" in the sense of "not functional"). Please, do post them. I'd love to be proven wrong on this matter.
Not trying to prove you wrong - I completely agree with you, just pointing out that I'm not great at building effective characters, but I'm certainly not bad at it.
I have a 9th level PFS halfling rogue with the Scout and Knife Master archetypes. Those are interesting, but I had to replace the most iconic rogue ability, trapfinding, and a pretty useful ability, uncanny dodge, to get them.
He's built with a special boon so he gets +2 to dex in addition to racial bonuses, so he started at a 22 dex. Along the way I've made sure to get him a ghost touch dagger allowing him to sneak attack everything but oozes, swarms, and elementals. I've also gotten him an agile dagger allowing him to deal more damage based on his dex. With various talents and feats I've given him Combat Reflexes, Dodge, Piranha Strike, Shadow Strike, Two-Weapon Fighting, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus (dagger), Offensive Defense, and Slow Reactions (and those last two can't be used together!). When he uses piranha strike and can sneak attack something he does pretty good damage, 1d3+14 + 5d8, getting on average about 38 damage per hit. That's not too bad, but a good barbarian build can easily out-do that.
He's also got a pretty good armor class, a 27 under "normal" conditions thanks to his high dex and Pathfinder having armor with no upper dex cap, but it cost him - he's spend a good bit on some protection items. While he's quite good at combat, he has a horribly low will save and can easily be taken out of a fight with something that targets will saves. Like I pointed out above, though, he's also lost his ability to find magical traps and has a pretty low perception to find mundane traps. Thanks to his extremely high dex, he can disable them pretty good if they're pointed out to him and non-magical.
TL:DR - It took an extra +2 to any stat and a careful selection of feats, talents, and items to make my rogue decent in combat (and I've seen plenty of other characters dramatically out-damage him.) To do this, he lacks in skills, can't find/disable magical traps, and no longer has uncanny dodge. He also has only a few "good" skills and is easily overshadowed by a bard or wizard for any skill not dex-based.
Some easy fixes to make to improve the rogue:
- give them, baseline, an ability not unlike the Arcane Trickster's impromptu sneak attack.
- Allow sneak attack buffs/debuffs to stack, based on class level (I.E. you can pick 2 if you're a 5th level rogue, 3 if you're 9th, etc).
- Dramatically improve rogue talents, including but not limited to dropping limits on most of the "once per day" stuff
- Make the Shadow Strike feat baseline around level 5
- Give some sort of mechanic for rogues to easily get dex to damage. Do it at a higher level or allow 1 point of dex damage per class level if you have to prevent other classes dipping, but they really need this.
Rogues can be useful... They are just not nearly as good as an equally optimized Alchemist/Bard/Inquisitor/Investigator/Ranger/Slayer/etc...
Sneak Attack itself is not a bad class feature. It's just not good enough to be the one and only offensive tool of a whole class. Specially one with medium BAB and no way of self-buffing.
It deals decent damage when it hits, but it's easily denied (except for the Scout archetype, but then, you're only attacking it once per round) and suffers with the class' lack of accuracy.
Honestly, the Scout archetype should be freely given to the class.... It really sucks to lose theme-fitting class features such as Uncanny Dodge just so their overly situational damage becomes less situational.
But IMO, what really kills the class are its poor defenses...
Rogues AC floats between low to mediocre... Except with Offensive Defense, which is admittedly, one of the few good Rogue Talents. Their CMD is pretty bad and their saves are pathetic. They are so bad, they make Swashbucklers look good.
Wait, when did Swashbucklers get added to the bonfire? I thought we were warm enough with rogues, fighters, and monks!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, when did Swashbucklers get added to the bonfire? I thought we were warm enough with rogues, fighters, and monks!
Swashbucklers aren't bad, but they do have two bad saves, and Daring Champion beat them up and took their class features in the same book they were released in.
Wait, when did Swashbucklers get added to the bonfire? I thought we were warm enough with rogues, fighters, and monks!
It's not that they are ineffective... My point was just that their saves are awful. "Charmed Life" isn't a great patch either, but at least it's something.... Rogues don't get even that.
My problem with Swashbucklers is that they fail at Swashbuckling. They simply can't live up to their class description. Instead, they ended up being yet another stationary BSF. They aren't considerably more agile than, say, a Ranger or Slayer with Weapon Finesse.
They are basically a dip class. Swashbuckler 1/Urban Barbarian X is a far better build, IMO.
Wait, when did Swashbucklers get added to the bonfire? I thought we were warm enough with rogues, fighters, and monks!It's not that they are ineffective... My point was just that their saves are awful. "Charmed Life" isn't a great patch either, but at least it's something.... Rogues don't get even that.
My problem with Swashbucklers is that they fail at Swashbuckling. They simply can't live up to their class description. Instead, they ended up being yet another stationary BSF. They aren't considerably more agile than, say, a Ranger or Slayer with Weapon Finesse.
They are basically a dip class. Swashbuckler 1/Urban Barbarian X is a far better build, IMO.
What if we took away precise strike with an archetype that granted Skirmish feature from 3.5 Scout?
See, now they are mobile encouraged warriors. Something like that?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tell me would the rogue suck if it had SUPERSTITIOUS TRICK, GREATER BEAST TRICK, and COME AND GET ME TRICK. If no then it's just the tricks sucking compared to rage powers.
Sadly they might not be so helpful and may actually hinder the rogue.
Pounce would be useful in the first round of combat so you could get your sneak-attack off as a full-attack, but a rogue's accuracy sucks and they have no meaningful methods of improving their to-hit like Barbarians do, so full-attacking doesn't do a lot for them in most cases.
Come and Get me would be suicidal for your normal rogue. They are fragile like glass and when you're not sneak-attacking strike with the raging force of a wet noodle. Meanwhile you're going to willingly give your foe a +4 to hit your already meh AC and another +4 to damage vs your meh HP, in exchange for hitting them for dinky damage? Never!
Superstition would be good for the rogue though in most cases. Rogue saves suck so this would be welcome.