Rogue, Worst Does Not Equal Bad


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 64 of 64 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Queen Moragan wrote:
Well then Rynjin, why don't you try to offer something that is actually constructive?

I have. None of it fits your criteria of "simple".

I fiddled with the idea of retooling Sneak Attack into an automatic critical hit against Flatfooted foes (with everything that implies) but it's really not enough to justify the class' existence.

Best fix really is to rip out the Rogue pages in the CRB and slap the Slayer in there.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

What I was attempting to do is define HOW to get the class fixed.

I don't believe that Paizo will rip out the rogue pages and replace them with something else, that sounds like something WoTC would have done.

I think Paizo would much prefer something that changes as little ink as possible, so anything complicated is labeled more rogue hate and auto-ignored.

But something simple might work, and get passed.

But now, it just another rogue hate thread unless someone actually tries to turn it around into a constructive simple rogue fix thread.

I'll leave you to it.:)


Anyone know why rogue love/hate threads pop up in abundance and go on-and-on-and-on-and-on?

Seems like something they'd try to lock down, all things considered. I mean, it's no less dividing and visceral than edition wars, on average.


Nohwear wrote:
I have been thinking. While the rogue may be the worst class, or at least that seems to be the complaint, that does not make it bad. The fact is, that it is impossible to perfectly balance all of the classes. Even if Paizo "fixes" the rogue there will always be a class on the bottom. Really, the question is if there is to much of a difference between the best and worst option? I am not honestly sure. I am not very good at judging that sort of thing except by experience. Any way, that you for putting up with my rant. Feel free to add your own thoughts on the matter.

No point in explaining the problem with this post if you wont be around to read it. If you come back, someone will explain it. You missed the point. It is not about "being the worst".


A point on the notion behind the original post:

While it's inherently true that being the worst at something does not also make it objectively bad, it is also inherently true that most often the thing that is worst is objectively bad.

For example, assuming 1= bad, 50 = average, and 100 = best:

95, 98, 99, 100 are all objectively good. Certainly among them, 95 is worst, and even the worst by the widest margin, but it's still good. In the ideal world, class balance would look something like that. Achieving 100% perfect balance is nigh-impossible, but getting close isn't, and if the spread is small enough there's no real problem.

But 25, 50, 90, 100 is a much larger gulf. People tend to believe (whether rightly or wrongly is a Rogue-suck argument that this thread already has enough of) that the Rogue is the 25 here. And, rightly or wrongly, the general wisdom is that the 50 is the Fighter, the 90 the Cleric, the 100 the Wizard, putting the Rogue far below what are, by the old school Fighter/Mage/Cleric/Thief paradigm, its equals. Thus, the worst and objectively bad.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rogues are perfect! They get intelligence to damage and AC and pretty much everything else, 7th level spell-like abilities, Empower/Quicken/Maximize SLA, every skill in the game as a class skill, and they can get extra standard actions by spending inspiration points and/or with the right feats!
Oh, wait, no, I'm thinking of the 3.5 rogue, after it was revised in Dungeonscape. Ironically, that was written by Jason Bulmahn. And its still on the market, no matter how frequently the forum cries 'dead system'.

But pathfinder rogues are pretty much perfect too. They get wisdom to initiative, and wisdom-based initiation ensures they will always have good will saves. They get maneuvers from Broken Blade, Solar Wind, Steel Serpent, Thrashing Dragon, and Veiled Moon. They can move without provoking AoOs with the right choice of arts, and get a huge range of critical-hit-improving abilities.
The only problem is they changed the name to 'stalker', which doesn't to all that much to dispel the stereotype about creepy gamers. So just keep calling it 'rogue':)


thegreenteagamer wrote:

Anyone know why rogue love/hate threads pop up in abundance and go on-and-on-and-on-and-on?

Seems like something they'd try to lock down, all things considered. I mean, it's no less dividing and visceral than edition wars, on average.

I really dont see why people even get upset. If the rogue works at his table he should not care that it does not do well at someone else's table. He can keep the rogue, and the other people can use other classes. Nobody is forcing him to play a slayer, investigator, and so on.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:
Anyone know why rogue love/hate threads pop up in abundance and go on-and-on-and-on-and-on?

Because there's a small core of people who are incapable of divorcing both their personal opinions ("I LOVE Rogues!") and things entirely unrelated to the class ("This one time my Rogue killed the BBEG through a clever plan that any other class could have performed because it's all based on creativity and not mechanics") from the undeniable fact that the Rogue is, at best, mechanically lackluster.

And poor schmucks like me try to get them to see that, and then people get really uppity and defensive about it, and arguments spiral out of control for thousands of posts.


I would say no to a "fix" that involves giving the Rogue an X/day pool of resources. The Rogue is supposed to be one of the classes that can keep doing what it does. A some of the worst Rogue Talents are the X/day (usually 1/day) Talents (other people on these boards and some guides have said this -- I didn't make this up).

Proposed Rogue fixes:

Any Rogue Talent that is X/day and is not obviously required to be a resource pool (such as Ki Pool or non Cantrip spellcasting) becomes either unlimited or X/combat (preferably the former); if this would make it brokenly powerful, redesign it to balance it.

Rogue Talents that modify Sneak Attack are currently not usable in combination with each other -- add an ability to the Rogue that starts in the lower-mid levels that allows the Rogue to start using more of these at a time.

Remove the Talents that are still bad and replace them with better ones (preferably having thematic but not necessarily mechanical relation to the ones that they replaced).

Add Rogue Talents that help with setting up Sneak Attacks.

Add Rogue Talents that let you do things with Skills that you would not normally be able to do, but that are still thematically related. In some cases this would replace an archetype. The Frightening ability of the Thug archetype would be an example of this. (In general, I am all for replacing archetypes with a-la-carte abilities whenever practical, and not just for the Rogue.)

Instead of the very coarse-grained division between Talents and Major Talents, have a more fine-grained ranking of Talents, like Revelations in Oracle Mysteries.


Well, I was a hanger-on a few rogue-hate threads ago, but I was convinced.

Doesn't really change anything, though. Is your life any better in any way knowing I likely won't play a rogue again?


You can PLAY Rogues all you want. It's people pretending they're mechanically able to perform better than other similar classes that make me a mite peeved.

Those people actively hold back the class being improved in any meaningful way.


The only people who you need to convince are the developers. The rest of the world can think otherwise, but if the guys who make the rules think the rogue is fine as-is, you're not getting any improvements.


thegreenteagamer wrote:

Well, I was a hanger-on a few rogue-hate threads ago, but I was convinced.

Doesn't really change anything, though. Is your life any better in any way knowing I likely won't play a rogue again?

Yes! :P

Actually, in seriousness? Look at what tends to start the Rogue threads. It typically comes in one of three forms:

1. "What's wrong with the Rogue?" Well, those who feel the Rogue is sub-par do as the OP asks and explain what's wrong with the Rogue.

2. "There's nothing wrong with the Rogue, because X." Well, typically X is just... not mechanically valid, so people comment to correct a statement that is typically wrong. In doing so, there is a need to explain what the mechanical issues with the Rogue are.

3. "Would Y fix the Rogue?" Well, those who feel the Rogue is a sub-par class do as the OP asks and try to evaluate whether or not Y would fix the Rogue. In doing so, there is a need to highlight current problems with the Rogue.

What I haven't seen is "These are reasons why you should never play a Rogue" as an opening post. Because frankly that's not what the threads are typically about. Sure, those reasons come up-- but typically it's to deal with a discussion grown out of the above rather than somebody actively working to stop people from playing Rogues.

Paizo Glitterati Robot

Locking. We really don't need another rogue thread. If you have suggestions or ideas for a given class, these should go into the Suggestions/Home Brew forum.

51 to 64 of 64 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Rogue, Worst Does Not Equal Bad All Messageboards
Recent threads in General Discussion